D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

05-10-2008, 02:43 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

Backing up just a little, I definitely think the "spell" Winifred puts on Coutts is sexual, though she may not wish it to be since we learn a kiss is all she wants. I think Coutts know Winifred is not the kind to marry, something a part of him desires, but she does represent the wilder side of him, something another part of him does want to indulge in. However, I don't think the moment of seeing the train is the moment in which Coutts becomes bewitched by Winifred. I think it occurs much earlier, perhaps when he's mentally comparing her to the Venus statue, or when he allows himself to miss the tram with the German lady so he can walk with Winifred.

Everyone keeps saying that Winifred is not the type to marry. What makes her not the type to marry? Yes she's toying with Coutts in this episode, but is this a one time thing or a serial type of thing? For all we know she may be getting back at Coutts for something in their ealier relationship. What I'm trying to say is that I don't see anything in Wini that constitutes someone who goes around like this with many guys. We don't know of course, but Coutts doesn't indicate this about her character.
05-10-2008, 03:05 PM
Dark Muse

I think the fact that she has such an unfavorable view of marriage suggests she herself is not the type to marry. Personally I do not think that Winni is objecting to Coutts marrying Connie in specific, but to the idea of Coutts marrying at all.

When they are talking Coutts says to her "Whou should nevery marry anyone"

and she replies "And you must offer your head to harness and be bridled and driven?"

I do not thin Winni is in favor of the idea of marraige at all.
05-10-2008, 04:19 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I think the fact that she has such an unfavorable view of marriage suggests she herself is not the type to marry. Personally I do not think that Winni is objecting to Coutts marrying Connie in specific, but to the idea of Coutts marrying at all.

When they are talking Coutts says to her "Whou should nevery marry anyone"

and she replies "And you must offer your head to harness and be bridled and driven?"

I do not thin Winni is in favor of the idea of marraige at all.

Well, I am here now; but after I write this I have to go back and answer others of the posts. I seem to have caused a stir here and some opposition to thinks I said in my commentary on last part of text I posted. Good! Means you are all awake and noticed. I guess some opposition keeps you all interested.

Ok, Dark Muse, in answer to you answer to Virgil's post; I agree with V that we can't truly assume that Winifred is against marriage herself, and especially to Coutts. I think she would like to control him and be part of his life (maybe as Lawrence viewed his mother); now that might not equate to marriage, but she certainly would like something with him - an arrangement, I don't know...maybe it would be marriage she would eventually want or an engagement. I don't feel we have enough information to determine what Winifred truly wants. I think that Antiquarian put it well when she said 'neither of them knew what they wanted'. I agree with that idea. So how can we definitively say Winifred is against marriage? I think definitely she is against Coutts marrying with Connie. That I am sure of. I think that if Coutts were to marry Connie sure enough, it would be as she stated '"And you must offer your head to harness and be bridled and driven?" He admitted as much when he brought up the idea of a cross to be nailed to, this idea indicating his life and marriage to Connie.

I am going now to answer the other posts above.
05-10-2008, 04:41 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I cannot coment on everything right now, but there were a couple things I wanted to say for the time being.

Good, glad you saw the next part of the text I posted last night.

Quote:

When I read this, I interepted to mean, he did not really know what he wants. He cannot think of something to wish for, becasue he does not know, what it is that he should wish for, or that he wants in his life, but than he feels as if there should be something, that a person ought to have something they can wish for, so he just throws in the million dollars becasue he does not truly know what else he wants.

Yes, Dark Muse, I would agree with you on all of this. I think he truly did not know what he wanted. He is quite confused about what he wants long term in his life.

Quote:

I am not completely convinced that she truly loves him. I think that inspite the fact that it says it was a "gesture of love" the use of the word impuslive, could suggest it being more of an act of passion, or out of a physical attraction.

I don't know for sure; she might love him for what he was and apparently he is quite intelligent and a deep thinker, that is evident by the way the spar verbally with each other. I know the actual person, Helen, who this character was fashioned after may have felt some degree of love for Lawrence, who is the model for Coutts. I think that a lot of woman loved Lawrence, but that does not mean they thought him attainable. He just had a natural attractiveness for women and it was not such a physical thing as his whole personality, etc. It could be such in this instant that Helen does feel something deeper than just passion or sex attraction to Coutts. Afterall at the end she is the one to withdraw her affections first. If it was merely sexual attraction why would she care and why would she then stop when he wanted to make love to her. If she wanted nothing further than that then they would have proceeded and not let anything obtruct their in the path to passion. Something vital stopped them and it started with Winifred pulling away. I believe she did want Coutts but she did not just want his only his sexual being, he wanted way more than that.

Quote:

I think in a way that the discord is really all they have within thier relationship, and I think in part they really do not know what there is between them, and niether one can really answer the questions. As I belive it is primarialy a physical attraction between them, the tension and the firction they create with each other, is what helps egg them on. If they were to remove that, than I do not think there would really be anything left between them, becasue I think thier "love" lacks any real depth.

I don't think the 'discord' is all they had going for their relationship to each other. I don't think either of them would be that shallow. I don't see either as shallow people or angry mean people who just want to take and never give back; or even try and get even. I just think they both are in a state of individual 'discord', within themselves; not just in relation to each other. Both are restless and don't know how to proceed to any kind of real conclusion, so they merely play this game verbally with each other, egging each other on in a kind of dreamlike fantasy world of their own making. I think they enjoy this game more than anything - yes, as you said 'the tension and the friction' is evident and it drives them on to pursue each other. It is a contest of wills, in one way. Whether the love lacks depth is not so important to me, but I think if it was realised fully, eventually it would destroy itself entirely as a flame burns out...I think this, because they seem to ignite a fire beneath each other (call it passion) and then they like to play with the fire and they would eventually just be consumed by it. I think this has a lot to do with their individual 'wills'.
05-10-2008, 05:11 PM
Janine

Quote:

Yes, Quark likes girls. I was just trying to creep out Virgil.

:lol: that you did!:lol: I hope you meet a nice one soon, Quark, so you don't have to go on creeping out V. :lol:

Quote:

Thanks for posting the next chunk of the story. I probably won't get a chance to post until tomorrow night, though. I'm leaving today, and I want to post on the Chekhov thread before I go.

Take your time; I posted in Chekhov today. The thread was fading away towards that dreaded second page.;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

Backing up just a little, I definitely think the "spell" Winifred puts on Coutts is sexual, though she may not wish it to be since we learn a kiss is all she wants. I think Coutts know Winifred is not the kind to marry, something a part of him desires, but she does represent the wilder side of him, something another part of him does want to indulge in.

Antiquarian, I do agree - the spell is one of a sexual passionate nature, however, as you said, she stops at a kiss. Why? If it truly is only sexual, why did she stop? I think she uses this power of the sexual spell to lore Coutts to her, but I do feel something deeper is happening within her and not just something little significance or merely sex. Like the moth that is attracted to the flame - mentioned several times throughout the story - Coutts acts as the moth and she the tempting flame. I am not entirely convinced that she does not seek for more; to the contrary, I think she would like a lot more with Coutts; this is why she does not give in to his advances. Had the lamp not spilled over and he left perhaps angrily, would this not mean he might again try to achieve the passion between them, say another time? I don't know. I think at the crucial point of the kiss being withdrawn, Winifred knows she is lording a sort of control over Coutts - the control of her 'charm', her 'spell', which makes her attractive to him. As he pulls away in anger, the lamp is kicked over, bringing all possibility of their getting together to an abrupt end. Perhaps if this had not happened, they might have argued again and confronted each other and then she might have given into his desires. Perhaps he would not have returned to marry Connie, at all. The point is and I am just entertaining the question - what exactly did Winifred want of Coutts? At one point in the story, it clearly states his thought that he would have liked to ask this question of her directly. I think that also, his unexpected appearance at Lauries that evening was as a signal to Winifred that he still held interest for her; I don't feel that she felt it was a totally sexual interest. I think if she had she would not have pursued him; what woman would want to be used like that. I honestly think she felt she could secure his affections and attentions by using her sexual power over him; using the charm of the flames of passion to draw him to her.

As I said below to Dark Muse, I don't think we can fully state in truth that Winifred would never desire to marry, ever. I do think she is a more passionate type woman than Connie probably is. I get that from the information we are given about Connie directly within the text. I think that Winifred has the capacity for passion (I also can site text to back that up) beyond what Connie would ever realise and I think that Coutts knows this. He is torn between the nice 'churchy' type woman and this more free spirited and modern thinking woman. I think one will find this theme runs through several of Lawrence's novels and stories, as well. It is born from the whole idea of the fact his parents were such opposites in their thinking and being. After you read "Sons and Lovers" you will get a better sense of this division and why Lawrence thinks in this way. That book acts as a very good foundation to explain this idea in Lawrence of constant exploration of the idea of 'duality'.

Quote:

However, I don't think the moment of seeing the train is the moment in which Coutts becomes bewitched by Winifred. I think it occurs much earlier, perhaps when he's mentally comparing her to the Venus statue, or when he allows himself to miss the tram with the German lady so he can walk with Winifred.

Yes, I too think it began much sooner than his seeing the train. I think I merely said or meant, that at that moment, it became clearer or more conscious to Coutts, when he noticed the intertwined 'black-and-gold' of the train in reference to the image of a snake.

I found the snake poem online last night. I will post it soon. It is quite interesting.

Quote by Virgil:

Quote:

Everyone keeps saying that Winifred is not the type to marry. What makes her not the type to marry? Yes she's toying with Coutts in this episode, but is this a one time thing or a serial type of thing? For all we know she may be getting back at Coutts for something in their ealier relationship. What I'm trying to say is that I don't see anything in Wini that constitutes someone who goes around like this with many guys. We don't know of course, but Coutts doesn't indicate this about her character.

Virgil, I agree completely. I don't see Winifred as a 'loose woman' or someone who constantly teases men. She is more modern thinking, than the finance, but that does not mean she would never be the marrying type - what exactly is the 'marrying type?' A lot of people say that about themselves, and eventually, meet the right partner and marry. I just feel that when they are making these statements - a sort of 'off-the-cuff' way of talking and a code of carefully crafted words, these words and phrases are not total reality or seriously honestly reflect, what they truly feel in their hearts. What doe they feel in their hearts? Do they even know? I think many things are said in this story, that are not honestly mean or are merely meant to get a reaction from each other. This would also, be my answer to your last post, Dark Muse.

I also want to add this to my thought 'a thin line between love and hate'. I felt this true from the text, I read directly from the story when it stated:

Quote:

Thus, after months of separation, they dovetailed into the same love and hate.

Both 'love' and 'hate' are strong emotions and I feel one can't hate a person, unless they truly did love them, at one point. Yes, this love is a destructive one, most likely. Both 'love' and 'hate' are emotions of passion, not of complacency. Many times throughout the text of this story the two words are used in the same statement, not just this one, I believe.
05-10-2008, 06:17 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

Janine, I think Winifred is all about control over men. To me, she wanted to be seen as a temptress, but she didn't want to fulfill the tempted. LOL I see her as one of those women who want to be very attractive to men, to be able to lure any man she wants to her, but then not give in. For Winifred, the thrill is in the hunt, not the capture. That's partly why I don't think she's the marrying type, Virgil. Once she catches a man, the thrill is gone for her and she has to move on to someone new.

I've seen actual women like this. They want the "thrill" of luring a man away from his wife or girlfriend, but when they do, they don't want the man. They discard him and move on to their next prey. Maybe Winifred didn't even want Coutts after she saw she could, indeed have him for the taking. He wisely doesn't stick around long enough to find out.

Antiquarian, I might assume this to be true and Winifred to be this type or woman, if they had not previously had a relationship together. I don't think either, Winifred or Coutts, know exactly why they parted to begin with, but it may have been because Winifred would not accept Coutts in a fully sexual way that he desired and a struggle ensued between them; this I would easily imagine to be the case. This does not mean she is not about controling him. But who is to say, what might have happened, if they had come together sexually, when they were together the first time? Yes, now I see that Winifred is luring him on and playing this game with Coutts, but did she always do this? Afterall, she now wants him back or thinks she does. She still does have feelings for him, I believe. I don't think Winifred can be 'type-cast' in the role you described above. She is not a shallow seeming woman - she plays beautifully and deeply feels a passion on her violin and she does have her good points. I think that, in this story, she is seen as the witch that Coutts is percieving her as, because she is charming him, loring him onward to his temptation of cheating on Connie. He wants to break with her at the end but does she truly wish it? I don't think that she does. Even though I feel she is leading him on, I do feel she has some lingering feelings for the man and is not just out to get him away from Connie or anyone for that matter. I honestly think she is picking up signals from Coutts all the time about how restless and unsure he is about his engagement. I think she sees this as an 'in' to lore him back to her. Remember that they were once a couple and most likely very close, just not sexually intimate apparently. Even Laura, in the beginning of the story when talking with Coutts, passes the remark that she does not understand the two of them, or why they parted ways.
05-10-2008, 06:29 PM
Dark Muse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

Janine, I think Winifred is all about control over men. To me, she wanted to be seen as a temptress, but she didn't want to fulfill the tempted. LOL I see her as one of those women who want to be very attractive to men, to be able to lure any man she wants to her, but then not give in. For Winifred, the thrill is in the hunt, not the capture. That's partly why I don't think she's the marrying type, Virgil. Once she catches a man, the thrill is gone for her and she has to move on to someone new.

I've seen actual women like this. They want the "thrill" of luring a man away from his wife or girlfriend, but when they do, they don't want the man. They discard him and move on to their next prey. Maybe Winifred didn't even want Coutts after she saw she could, indeed have him for the taking. He wisely doesn't stick around long enough to find out.

I would agree with this. Coutts does say to Winni:

Quote:

You know you only like a wild-goose chase

and Winnise says:

Quote:

I do

To me this suggests, somethign that is unattainable, and something that would be the oppoiste of something constant and steady like marriage. For once you are married it is no longer a goose chase

But we have the feeling from the wording in the begining of the story that Coutts and Winnie have not seen each other in a while, but it is suddnely when he is engaged she seems to take interest in him once more. Coutts is her wild-goose chase.

For as soon as she snares him, and she manages to wrap him around her finger, is when she than wants to draw back from him, and decide she really does not want to go any further with him.
05-10-2008, 07:46 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I would agree with this. Coutts does say to Winni:
"You know you only like a wild-goose chase"

and Winnise says: "I do"

Dark Muse, I knew you would promptly be back with your rebutal. Sometimes, I think we are waging a debate thread here. Anyway, it does keep things interesting. You are making me laugh though - who is Winnise? ;) :lol: I think that might be like Virgil's 'ooked', which I kidded him about unmercilessly. Now I am attacking you, but it is all 'just in fun', I hope you know that, DM.

Anyway, that is true. He says she only "likes a wild-goose chase" and that is Coutts perception but she does affirm it with her "I do". How sincere are they actually? I think both of them are hiding a lot beneath their exterior selves. I guess from prior readings of Lawrence work and thinking back to "Sons and Lovers" I feel one cannot fully know the complexity in the characters. This is one thing that always intrigues me about Lawrence. His characters are never black and white. Therefore, I admit I am affected by this fact, and prior knowledge, of how Lawrence treats relationships in his works; therefore it is hard for me to see it in a simplistic light. I can't just say that she is this or that type woman. I think she is complex, as complex as Coutts is and therefore she is difficult to explain away with a few phrases. I feel she is definitely a confused woman and he is a confused young man. I actually like the open-endedness of the the conclusion of the story because he keeps one wondering 'what if' or 'what will happen now'.

Quote:

To me this suggests, somethign that is unattainable, and something that would be the oppoiste of something constant and steady like marriage. For once you are married it is no longer a goose chase

This is true and often woman and men, I would imagine go for the object of their affections because they are safe being unattainable. It also seems to be a great aphrodisiac to drive people on in a passionate sense. The 'unattainable' is always a challenge. I don't know about the last line of yours. We read another short story, in which the woman did lead the man on a sort of 'goose-chase' and she was very much married to him "The White Stocking". I don't think that legally being married necessarily means one is totally secure either. The woman or the man in a marriage can still play these games of attraction/rejection with the married partner; they can still exert their wills over each other. Lawrence's own parents had a sort of test of wills all the time.

Quote:

But we have the feeling from the wording in the begining of the story that Coutts and Winnie have not seen each other in a while, but it is suddnely when he is engaged she seems to take interest in him once more. Coutts is her wild-goose chase.

True but do we know how long they were actually together as a couple? I don't know if it is 'suddenly' - he is the one who showed up at her door and piqued her interest again. Maybe his mere presense encouraged her to initiate this flirting game and the whole 'goose chase' begins all over again, between them. No doubt, they have played this game before, if he mentions this to her, the fact that she only "likes a wild-goose chase".

Quote:

For as soon as she snares him, and she manages to wrap him around her finger, is when she than wants to draw back from him, and decide she really does not want to go any further with him.

I know what you mean but I don't quite see it that way; I think she recoils for the same reason, she has in the past most likely. She simply gets to this point and cannot go further with him. Should she? It is true that this time she lead him on and she may have wanted to exert her own power over him at this point; he knows she has done as she did in the past, stop his advances any further towards intimacy. The way she was coming onto him, he probably thought 'this time may be different, she really desires me, she will give into me'. I think it is difficult to say just what went through Winifred's mind, as she recoiled from him. I think she wants more of him, than mere sex, even though she pulls away from his physical advances. Those might only lead to sex and to no more; so she removes herself from his advances. It might be different, if he said he really felt something for her, such as love, or was honest and said he doubted his engagement and truly wanted to be with Winifred. The outcome might lead them back to each other; but I would surmise that would be bad for both of them in the long-run. I don't think she would lose interest, but I think this test of wills would continue in a relationship and that would be the fatal factor. I still stand by the idea that neither woman is right for Coutts. They both would smother him in different ways.
05-10-2008, 08:10 PM
Dark Muse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Dark Muse, I knew you would promptly back with your rebutal. Sometimes I think we are waging a debate thread here. Anyway, it does keep things interesting. You are making me laugh though - who is Winnise? ;) :lol: I think that might be like Virgil's 'ooked' which I kidded him about unmercilessly. Now I am attacking you, but it is all 'just in fun', I hope you know that, DM

LOL I have that affect, anywhere I go turns into a debate, I know I am just so awfully disagreable :D

Hehe, I know, usually after I type my posts I copy them into an e-mail just to use the spell check there, than paste the corrected version back here, but somtimes I just get lazy

and I can be terribile at acutally proof-reading
05-10-2008, 09:38 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

LOL I have that affect, anywhere I go turns into a debate, I know I am just so awfully disagreable :D

;) I kind of though so; see I never took it personally anyway...just figured it was your norm....:lol:

Quote:

Hehe, I know, usually after I type my posts I copy them into an e-mail just to use the spell check there, than paste the corrected version back here, but somtimes I just get lazy

Doesn't your Microsoft Word program correct type for you? I just type and sometimes it even capitalized words - really freaky! If the word is spelled wrong or suspect, it gets a wiggly underlining, and then you can pull up a menu by placing the cursor over the line; then you see words they suggest. I can't spell well at all; I often look things up in a pocket dictionary, I have by the computer. I really want one of those spelling calculators, but then I decided I wanted a dictionary one instead, and they are more money, so I put off buying one. My pocket dictionary is so worn now the cover recently fell off and a few pages as well...it is a wreck from over-use. I hate looking up words but I do many times.

Quote:

and I can be terribile at acutally proof-reading

Yes, I guess you do fail to proof-read - you even spelled 'actually' wrong - it is backwards. You may be dyslexic; I think I am also, at times - may brain reverses things automatically - it is so weird when it does that. My son also has it, but he compensates now.
05-10-2008, 09:48 PM
Dark Muse

Yes I am a bit dyslexic also sometimes I think my brain thinks faster than my fingers.

my problem is, I usually just type my posts directly into here, I do not type them on word first and than copy and paste. So when I think of it, I will type my post in the forum and than before sending it, copy and past into my e-mail just to spell check, and than past the corrected version.
05-10-2008, 10:46 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

Yes I am a bit dyslexic also sometimes I think my brain thinks faster than my fingers.

Yes, I think I am a bit, also, and when I am really tired I get even worse. Oh, I do that sometimes, too - although I am not what you would call a fast typist.

Quote:

my problem is, I usually just type my posts directly into here, I do not type them on word first and than copy and paste. So when I think of it, I will type my post in the forum and than before sending it, copy and past into my e-mail just to spell check, and than past the corrected version.

Many of my posts I type directly in here, but I preview them first and proof-read them, also - we really need spell check; someone asked Logos about it not long ago. Was it in this thread or another? Anyway, I would think it harder to copy out into email, than into your offline Word program; first make a short cut to your desktop. You can minimize that, to the bottom of the screen and pull up the page at will and not shut this page down. Try it sometime and see if it is any easier or faster. I like the way it underlines the 'suspect' words and it does the capitalizing automatically. If you ever notice with my posts, I am always editing them; I am kind of a 'chronic editor', I guess.;) :lol:
05-10-2008, 10:50 PM
Dark Muse

Well if I place it in an e-mail I do not have to put it into Word, becasue my e-mail has is own autamatic spell check that works just like word, so I just paste the post in e-mail, and than from the email spell check it and post it in here. So I do not acutally send the e-mail I just post it in as if I were writing an e-mail.
05-11-2008, 12:28 AM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

Janine, I think Winifred is all about control over men. To me, she wanted to be seen as a temptress, but she didn't want to fulfill the tempted. LOL I see her as one of those women who want to be very attractive to men, to be able to lure any man she wants to her, but then not give in. For Winifred, the thrill is in the hunt, not the capture. That's partly why I don't think she's the marrying type, Virgil. Once she catches a man, the thrill is gone for her and she has to move on to someone new.

I've seen actual women like this. They want the "thrill" of luring a man away from his wife or girlfriend, but when they do, they don't want the man. They discard him and move on to their next prey. Maybe Winifred didn't even want Coutts after she saw she could, indeed have him for the taking. He wisely doesn't stick around long enough to find out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I would agree with this. Coutts does say to Winni:

and Winnise says:

To me this suggests, somethign that is unattainable, and something that would be the oppoiste of something constant and steady like marriage. For once you are married it is no longer a goose chase

But we have the feeling from the wording in the begining of the story that Coutts and Winnie have not seen each other in a while, but it is suddnely when he is engaged she seems to take interest in him once more. Coutts is her wild-goose chase.

For as soon as she snares him, and she manages to wrap him around her finger, is when she than wants to draw back from him, and decide she really does not want to go any further with him.

Perhaps you two are right. I did refer to Wini as Artemis, the goddess of hunt. She was a virginal goddess. She didn't lure men but men were lured to her. Perhaps this is what Lawrence meant by "a la mode." This is the woman of the new times, not the virginal Mary (Connie) but the virginal huntress (Wini). It's probably a good time to re-read the entire story through.
05-11-2008, 01:01 AM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

Perhaps you two are right. I did refer to Wini as Artemis, the goddess of hunt. She was a virginal goddess. She didn't lure men but men were lured to her. Perhaps this is what Lawrence meant by "a la mode." This is the woman of the new times, not the virginal Mary (Connie) but the virginal huntress (Wini). It's probably a good time to re-read the entire story through.

Read it through again? I read it now about 3 times. How did you get the goddess Artemis from the symbolism? Is Artemis the same as the god Diana? I know she was considered the goddess of the hunt. I have a bisque statue of her.

Hey, Virgil, how was the show at the Lincoln Center? It looked to be fabulous when I checked out the links you posted.

I am having trouble on this site again; my post are going through super-slowly. Anyone else with that complaint?
05-11-2008, 01:09 AM
Dark Muse

Yes Artemis is the same as Diana. She was also the twin of Apollo who was brought up at some point in this thread, so that is where the Artemis connection could come in. And though she was not a moon goddess persae, she was connected to the moon, and moon symbolism.
05-11-2008, 08:24 AM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Read it through again? I read it now about 3 times. How did you get the goddess Artemis from the symbolism? Is Artemis the same as the god Diana? I know she was considered the goddess of the hunt. I have a bisque statue of her.

Yes. Dark Muse answered it well above.

Quote:

Hey, Virgil, how was the show at the Lincoln Center? It looked to be fabulous when I checked out the links you posted.

It was good, though not overwelming. Whoever played Lancelot (Nathan Gunn) was excellent. Gabriel Byrne never sold me as King Arthur. He didn't have much of a singing voice. The rest were adequate.

Quote:

I am having trouble on this site again; my post are going through super-slowly. Anyone else with that complaint?

It's ok now in the morning. A little slow but not that slow.
05-11-2008, 11:55 AM
Dark Muse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

Now, of course, that could very well mean that it was the first kiss she had given in a genuine manner. But I don't think Winifred and Coutts were ever lovers. Another place says a kiss is all she ever wanted. And then there's the part about her only liking a wild goose chase. I still see her as a temptress, with no desire for a relationship or marriage.

Yes, personally I tend to agree with this.
05-11-2008, 12:50 PM
Janine

Quote:

The site is working very, very slowly for me.

I thought so; I have never seen it this slow; I was thinking it was my computer again because it was slow yesterday on Amazon as well, but not as badly as on here. Maybe systems are all jammed up this weekend.

Quote:

One of the reasons I think Winifred is just a temptress and that their previous relationship had not been sexual is this:

Then he drew her from the chair up to him. She came, arms always round his neck, till at last she lay along his breast as he stood, feet planted wide, clasping her tight, his mouth on her neck. She turned suddenly to meet his full, red mouth in a kiss. He felt his moustache prick back into his lips. It was the first kiss she had genuinely given.

Now, of course, that could very well mean that it was the first kiss she had given in a genuine manner. But I don't think Winifred and Coutts were ever lovers. Another place says a kiss is all she ever wanted. And then there's the part about her only liking a wild goose chase. I still see her as a temptress, with no desire for a relationship or marriage.

I agree with you on this point, Antiquarian. I recalled it saying that about the 'first genuine kiss'. I guess what is playing into this for me, is Lawrence's characters in other novels, such as "Sons and Lovers" and even "Women in Love' - especially WIL for some reason. Maybe, because I finished listening to the audiofile of that novel the other night and I could see how intricate the relationship was between two people, who also had a love/hate thing going on. They too, don't openingly confront each other, but tend to skirt around the issues, or talk in a sort of code, and there is a definite power-play between them.
Perhaps it is that Winifred will not allow herself to truly love, yet she does pull Coutts to her, and then at the vital moment, rejects him. For Coutts, this is a very frustrating game, especially when she plants that passionate and genuine kiss upon his mouth. This to me would indicate that prior in their relationship, he may have been the one always initiating the kissing and now she goes to him with that kiss. She gives a little of herself to him in the kiss, and he thinks it is a signal that she wants more. I think that underneath it all, Winifred likes power more than she does love. This is not to say she would not wish for love, but she cannot make the step into the realm of love; she cannot give up herself to a man, at least not to Coutts. If she could with Coutts, who is to say what might happen, but she probably would have to give up her 'will' entirely to him, the man. She is not willing to do this. Something within her will not alow it. She therefore, does tempt him up until that crucial moment of the kiss and then withdraws from him.
I don't think now, that they ever were sexual lovers (in the past); I can say that I know Lawrence was not big on mouth kissing, this might be due to his having TB; so easily he could have had sex with her without mouth kissing or her giving back to him totally; but in this case I now don't believe they were that intimate. In "Sons and Lovers" Jessie is the same; never truly giving back to Paul, and yet there is no doubt in my mind she loved him intensely. This is why I can't rule out the notion of love altogether with Winifred. I don't know what exactly is going on in her head or how she feels about Coutts. She may be covering up a lot with her language of symbols and her 'candles in the fog'. People do cover up their true feelings. She may have missed him terribly over the months of separation and she may have been torn appart about his proposal. She certainly tries for an instant to get him back with that genuine kiss at that key moment. She has been working hard, throughout the walk home, to lure him back to her. I think that although they were not sexual lovers, they were lovers of sorts. They probably felt passion in the past, but stopped at the moment it would go too far. I imagine that Winifred wants that feeling back badly. I don't know if that is just infatuation or love on her part. It is hard for me to fathom she did not love him in a certain way or certain degree. One could say all her nonscense and code language got in the way of true intimacy between them. As he said earlier, he preferred his 'candles blown out'. Apparently, Winifred has played these mind games with Coutts for a long time. She loves the 'drawing him near and pushing him away' game...she gives him just enough line to allow him to approach her again and again. This time the line is broken (the spell she casts) when the fire burns it completely out, breaking the spell she has so intricately woven about Coutts.

I will post more text tomorrow - taking off (my duties in this thread) today for Mother's Day! :lol:

Virgil, I read that about Gabriel Bryne on the site you provided; I read he could not sing and was not in time with the orchestra; I wouldn't have thought he would fit the role anyway. The role of Arthur apparently never did call for a great singer, but still he should have stayed in time with the music. I don't think he is used to singing in stage roles. That is ashame. I read that the actor playing Lancelot was amazing, his voice. He is an opera singer, I believe. Now the woman who played Guenevere did not look the part to me, but who knows. Sorry that it was not that spectacular. Oh well, it is a night out on the town, right? :D
05-11-2008, 07:12 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Virgil, I read that about Gabriel Bryne on the site you provided; I read he could not sing and was not in time with the orchestra; I wouldn't have thought he would fit the role anyway. The role of Arthur apparently never did call for a great singer, but still he should have stayed in time with the music. I don't think he is used to singing in stage roles. That is ashame. I read that the actor playing Lancelot was amazing, his voice. He is an opera singer, I believe. Now the woman who played Guenevere did not look the part to me, but who knows. Sorry that it was not that spectacular. Oh well, it is a night out on the town, right? :D

Yes, night on the town. ;) I always enjoy that. Got to eat at a Mexican restaurant, which for some reason we don't have on Staten Island. Had a big margarita. :D :D And then we stopped at this Barnes and Noble that is a block or so away from the Philharmonic. It's got four floors of books. Actually I stopped at the magazine section, something I hardly ever do, and they had a huge collection of literary magazines. I hadn't even heard of many of them. I didn't buy any but it was cool to go flip through them. At least I know where to go to explore magazines for literary submissions, if I ever get so bold.

As to the story, are we up to the section where they go inside Wini's apartment?
05-11-2008, 10:38 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

Yes, night on the town. ;) I always enjoy that. Got to eat at a Mexican restaurant, which for some reason we don't have on Staten Island. Had a big margarita. :D :D And then we stopped at this Barnes and Noble that is a block or so away from the Philharmonic. It's got four floors of books. Actually I stopped at the magazine section, something I hardly ever do, and they had a huge collection of literary magazines. I hadn't even heard of many of them. I didn't buy any but it was cool to go flip through them. At least I know where to go to explore magazines for literary submissions, if I ever get so bold.

As to the story, are we up to the section where they go inside Wini's apartment?

Soon we are getting to that part.....I think it is next; but I need tonight off now....it is getting late. I can try and post something tomorrow, but I am a nervous wreck...unsure what tomorrow will bring. The baby might be on the way on Tues or this week. I can explain later. Today was her due date, you know. I am doing laundry right now and tired out. I might be summoned to the hospital anytime this week; just talked to my son. Just warning you, if I should disappear and you wonder where I wandered off to. Find me at the hospital nursery:D

Virgil, they don't have Mexican food on Staten Island? get out?! That is odd. I am glad you enjoyed your big margarita, and Mexican foold....ummmm.
The B&N sounded like a 'book lover's dream'. What kind of magazines, and just why did you say you had to be 'bold' to check them out again? I am really suspicious of you now...;) :lol: Are you being truthful or talking in a fog of code? ;) :lol: hummm...you have me wondering now....literary magazines... indeed! :brow:
05-11-2008, 10:39 PM
Quark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

I still see her as a temptress, with no desire for a relationship or marriage.

I'll have to consider this question of her motives further. Doesn't L say something like the kiss was all she wanted. That does make her sound like a temptress, but I have a difficult time reconciling that with the portrait we get of her in other scenes. If she's merely interested in Coutts sexually for that night, why is she jealous of his relationship with Connie? Why is she so timid, too? I would think she would be unabased about this if she were a temptress.
05-11-2008, 10:41 PM
Dark Muse

I am not sure if I see her as truly being "jealous" in the normal sense. Really I think she is just messing with Coutts, becasue I do not think she beleives Coutts should marry period. Though also she does not really want Coutts to herself, at least not in the comitted relationship sense.
05-11-2008, 10:46 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Soon we are getting to that part.....I think it is next; but I need tonight off now....it is getting late. I can try and post something tomorrow, but I am a nervous wreck...unsure what tomorrow will bring. The baby might be on the way on Tues or this week. I can explain later. Today was her due date, you know. I am doing laundry right now and tired out. I might be summoned to the hospital anytime this week; just talked to my son. Just warning you, if I should disappear and you wonder where I wandered off to. Find me at the hospital nursery:D

Oh best of luck. I probably won't be on much this week. I have guests from out of town visiting at work and a major presentation to brief. I'll be missing much of this week I'm afraid.

Quote:

The B&N sounded like a 'book lover's dream'. What kind of magazines, and just why did you say you had to be 'bold' to check them out again? I am really suspicious of you now...;) :lol: Are you being truthful or talking in a fog of code? ;) :lol: hummm...you have me wondering now....literary magazines... indeed! :brow:

Janine you've got such a dirty mind. :lol: Perhaps I was ambiguous but I meant now I know what magazines exist to submit some of my writing to. Go back and read what I wrote. I did not mean anything along the lines you are implying. :lol:
05-11-2008, 10:51 PM
Quark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I am not sure if I see her as truly being "jealous" in the normal sense. Really I think she is just messing with Coutts, becasue I do not think she beleives Coutts should marry period. Though also she does not really want Coutts to herself, at least not in the comitted relationship sense.

Jealous is probably too strong of a word. I'm not sure what I mean. I don't know why I'm even arguing against her being a temptress since I was the first person to call her that. I think I'm just reacting to the idea that Winifred's and Coutts' relationship is purely sexual. There seems to be some attraction that isn't purely libinous. It says Coutts love and hates her. That half that is love I don't think is merely sexual.
05-11-2008, 11:11 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quark

Jealous is probably too strong of a word. I'm not sure what I mean. I don't know why I'm even arguing against her being a temptress since I was the first person to call her that. I think I'm just reacting to the idea that Winifred's and Coutts' relationship is purely sexual. There seems to be some attraction that isn't purely libinous. It says Coutts love and hates her. That half that is love I don't think is merely sexual.

Here is what I have been saying and questioning all along. No, Quark you are not using too strong a word in 'jealous' - I do think that Winifred is jealous of Connie. I don't see this as a purely sexual attraction on Winifred's part. It may be on Coutts but I doubt that as well. If you go back and read my prior posts you will get more insight into what I am saying. Dark Muse and I actually have been debating this part in quite a number of posts. I agree with you in that the text does clearly state that is was a love/hate relationship - go back and check that part of the text. I quoted it in my post, too. It said they feel back into the same old love and hate relationship - something like that. If it said love then there was not purely this sexual shallow thing between them. She may be toying with him but not in a shallow sense - she is really working hard to get him back. I see him falling under a certain spell but where do we see that she is a true temptress? Where did that word come from and who said it first? Oh, no I see you have owned up to it. I did not realise you said it first. Was it in the actual text or even implied? I don't see her that way entirely and if I can relate her to one that is where the analogy stops. She may be playing this game as a temptress would but in actuality I think that Winifred would like Coutts back, but on her terms and not his. His are the sexual terms; hers would be something more meaningful, even if not marriage, but at least a kind of commitment. I no way see Winifred as a loose woman or a promiscuous woman. She might be just as nice a girl as Connie but more progressive in here thinking.
05-11-2008, 11:54 PM
Dark Muse

LOL yes it is true, me and Janine, have been going back and forth upon the issue as I am inclined to belive thiat thier relationship is basically a shallow one, that is not really founded on anything "real" I agree with what Antiquaria says about Winni, mostly just wanting to control men, and Coutts in particular, I do not think they really love each other, and think theres is more of a sexual attraction. Though I do not think they have acutally been sexually intimate, I do think they are driven more by the physcial tension between them, than anything else. I do not think they really have any interest in being in a relatiosnhip with each other.
05-11-2008, 11:58 PM
Quark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

If you go back and read my prior posts you will get more insight into what I am saying. Dark Muse and I actually have been debating this part in quite a number of posts.

I've seen the back-and-forths between you two, but I was replying specifically to Antiquarian's post. I thought that was a good place to start since that's what set off the most recent debate between you and DM. Like I say, I have to look into this more; but, when I do, I will respond to all the views on this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

temptress? Where did that word come from and who said it first? Oh, no I see you have owned up to it. I did not realise you said it first. Was it in the actual text or even implied? I don't see her that way entirely and if I can relate her to one that is where the analogy stops.

Yes, it was me, but I forget what led me to call her that. I'll go back and look.
05-12-2008, 12:33 AM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quark

I've seen the back-and-forths between you two, but I was replying specifically to Antiquarian's post. I thought that was a good place to start since that's what set off the most recent debate between you and DM. Like I say, I have to look into this more; but, when I do, I will respond to all the views on this point.

Yes, this whole contraversy is giving me a headache by now. I don't even know how important it is to the story. I just know that Lawrence tried to 'make it' with several 'modern' thinking women who turned him down, so I am drawing from that knowledge. I don't think he and Winifred were totally shallow with each other. Afterall, he enjoyed her music and appreciated it. If you go back and look at the text that I posted (their walk across the country to her place) things may become clearer to you. I don't think any of the women that Lawrence knew were 'shallow type' women; so I can't imagine him writing about one here; again I am drawing on a huge resource of prior knowledge. I don't feel shallow people talk to each other in the manner that these two individuals are speaking. Of course, they are playing a verbal game but it is very much a game full of wit and intelligence. If it were purely 'sexual' this is not how they would be speaking to each other, even in the early 1900's. No, this is more of a power struggle game, not a purely a sexual game. If the conversation was all about sex and only sex I don't think Coutts would be interested, he is not that type of guy. He knew this girl well from another time; they had a relationship. How can things be totally sexual and shallow when you had a relationship at one time with that person?

Quote:

Yes, it was me, but I forget what led me to call her that. I'll go back and look.

See how rumors get started! :lol:

Anybody else having internet problems on here? I was attempting to post something - actually an edit in the Chekhov - and it refused to go through at all; other posting is soooo slow, I think I will fall asleep.:( :yawnb:
Besides that, I have to get offline now. We are having a kind of theatening windstorm and might have lightning as well. I better unplug, and soon...a power surge killed my connection once and now I unplug to be on the safe side.
05-12-2008, 12:37 AM
Dark Muse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Anybody else having internet problems on here? I was attempting to post something - actually an edit in the Chekhov - and it refused to go through at all; other posting is soooo slow, I think I will fall asleep.:( :yawnb: Besides that, I have to get offline now. We are having a kind of theatening windstorm and might have lightning as well. I better unplug, and soon...a power surge killed my connection once and now I unplug to be on the safe side.

When I was trying to view the latest post to the Chekhov thread, it would not go through, the screen just came up blank white
05-12-2008, 12:49 AM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

Oh best of luck. I probably won't be on much this week. I have guests from out of town visiting at work and a major presentation to brief. I'll be missing much of this week I'm afraid.

Oops sorry I missed you, Virgil, and went right to Quark, last poster. I missed Dark Muse, too...hi DM:wave: ....and yes, we are still in opposition - we might have a kind of love/hate relationship ourselves by now.:lol: :angel: and :argue:

Quote:

Janine you've got such a dirty mind. :lol: Perhaps I was ambiguous but I meant now I know what magazines exist to submit some of my writing to. Go back and read what I wrote. I did not mean anything along the lines you are implying. :lol:

Who me?... never! :lol: well read your post, it does read kind of funny; it was rather sketchy to the thought you would enter something into the magazine. I did not see that idea there at all. Ok, lets review your text and underline key words:

Quote:

Actually, I stopped at the magazine section, something I hardly ever do, and they had a huge collection of literary magazines. I hadn't even heard of many of them. I didn't buy any but it was cool to go flip through them. At least I know where to go to explore magazines for literary submissions, if I ever get so bold.

So here is how I read that -

"something I rarely do is go flip through magazines I never heard of; but, I did not buy any, (sounds kinda sneaky to me) even though they were cool to explore with their literary submissions; I may get bold someday!"

Well, I guess I didn't get the 'submissions' part down in my mind or what relationship that would have to you. I formed a totally different impression of what you wrote here.:lol: You are a riot, Virgil!
05-12-2008, 12:55 AM
Dark Muse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Oops sorry I missed you, Virgil, and went right to Quark, last poster. I missed Dark Muse, too...hi DM:wave: ....and yes, we are still in opposition - we might have a kind of love/hate relationship ourselves by now.:lol: :angel: and :argue:

LOL yes probably :D
05-12-2008, 01:00 AM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

When I was trying to view the latest post to the Chekhov thread, it would not go through, the screen just came up blank white

Quess what? I just checked and now it is working, but very slowly and my post edit did go through, even though I got that white page, too. Something odd has been going on in here lately.:alien: Are they upgrading their system? :crash:
05-12-2008, 07:03 AM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Oops sorry I missed you, Virgil, and went right to Quark, last poster. I missed Dark Muse, too...hi DM:wave: ....and yes, we are still in opposition - we might have a kind of love/hate relationship ourselves by now.:lol: :angel: and :argue:

Who me?... never! :lol: well read your post, it does read kind of funny; it was rather sketchy to the thought you would enter something into the magazine. I did not see that idea there at all. Ok, lets review your text and underline key words:

So here is how I read that -

"something I rarely do is go flip through magazines I never heard of; but, I did not buy any, (sounds kinda sneaky to me) even though they were cool to explore with their literary submissions; I may get bold someday!"

Well, I guess I didn't get the 'submissions' part down in my mind or what relationship that would have to you. I formed a totally different impression of what you wrote here.:lol: You are a riot, Virgil!

Well, what did you think I meant by submissions? I don't usually take nude photograghs of myself and submit them. :lol: :lol:
05-12-2008, 10:27 AM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

It wouldn't help if you did, Virgil, no matter how good you look. ;)

We've never had people submit nude photos with their stories and novels, but sometimes very good looking people will send in a photo of themselves. I think it's gotten them a few dates, but no acceptances of their material. LOL

Really? :lol: What i meant was that I think Janine thought I was flipping through the x-rated magazines. At least that's what i thought she meant.
05-12-2008, 02:32 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

LOL I didn't think Janine meant that, but we'll see when she logs on. :) I'm wrong as often as I'm right. Maybe more so. LOL

:lol: :lol: I think I will keep you all guessing just what I was thinking....;) :lol::D :lol:

Hi Everyone, glad to see this site is working faster today. I did find out what is wrong with my own computer. I upgraded to Explorer 7 and it is terrible and there is a site online where people are voicing opinions on the subject and how this new upgrade has messed up their computers. So I have to download Explorer 6 and get rid of 7, as soon as I am able. I hope I don't mess it up.

Anyway, I wanted to say I can't post anything new on the story tonight. It will have to wait until tomorrow, unless I can get to it later tonight after I watch a movie. Sorry for the delay. I am getting like Quark....hahaha...just kidding Q!
05-13-2008, 04:16 PM
Quark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Anyway, I wanted to say I can't post anything new on the story tonight. It will have to wait until tomorrow, unless I can get to it later tonight after I watch a movie. Sorry for the delay. I am getting like Quark....hahaha...just kidding Q!

Oh, very funny Janine. Your jab isn't going to make me post any faster, though, seeing as how you're the one holding me back from finishing my point about Winifred's motives. We haven't gotten to the passage I need yet, so I'm waiting on you this time.
05-13-2008, 04:45 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quark

Oh, very funny Janine. Your jab isn't going to make me post any faster, though, seeing as how you're the one holding me back from finishing my point about Winifred's motives. We haven't gotten to the passage I need yet, so I'm waiting on you this time.

I know that...anyway, I said I was just kidding with you; don't take me seriously. Yes, we are nearly up to the house scene, so I will probably be able to post that tonight.

Quark, So the question that you need answered, is in the next part of the story...ah ha... I will get to that soon, promise.....well, unless I am flying off to the hospital, unexpectedly tonight; but I doubt it. Tomorrow seems to be the day for baby's arrival, so I want to post this part, so you all can argue or agree about various points. Knock yourself out!

Most likely I will be back later tonight.
05-13-2008, 09:24 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antiquarian

And you might have been. You've not denied it. ;) :lol:

:blush: No, no. really, it was literary magazines. I swear. :)

Quote:

I hope Wednesday goes well, Janine. Let me know when you can. I've got my fingers crossed.

I had thought it might happen today. I guess not. I'm keeping my fingers crossed too. I can't wait for the news. :)
05-13-2008, 10:22 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

:blush: No, no. really, it was literary magazines. I swear. :)

Literary in what sense?

Quote:

I had thought it might happen today. I guess not. I'm keeping my fingers crossed too. I can't wait for the news. :)

Virgil, you may be right!
Well, guess what, everyone? The baby may be born today; she is in labor now; my son just called. They went to the hospital at 6:30. He will call back in a short while, to let us know more; she was calling for him. My mother got the call and she relayed the message to me...he always calls grandma first.
I know I am off-topic here, but I had to let you all know...you can imagine how excited I am right now! I may be taking a trip to the hospital tonight in a few hours. Well, I am a nite owl, so that would be fine with me. Say a prayer all goes fine and is over soon. I can't wait to hold my grandbaby in my arms. Say a prayer for them both.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page