Printable View
Virgil, I agree with all three points you have brought out. Interesting how L writes that the officer pinned down his thumb with a pencil. Almost like the pencil were a sword. Definitely a weapon of restraint to the officer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I will try to post more of the story tomorrow. J
Hmmm. I hadn't thought of that, that the officer uses an instrument to control the orderly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I don't remember any homosexual tension in St Mawr. The thing is that with all the letters and stories and poems that Lawrence wrote, you would think there would be a clear reference to homosexuality if he were. Certainly he tells everything of his personal life in his letters. He wouold not have kept it hush.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Virgil, this sort of reminds me of Lawrence's experiences being a teacher. He rather railed against using a stick on the young men to keep them in order, but I believe he was forced to by his superiors, and gave into it. It seems these stick beatings were accepted practice in England at the time, so in a way he was forced to use brutality to some extend. Hard to think of L this way in his early days, but it was well documented and he even wrote a poem about the boys and keeping them disciplined, indicating this sort of thing. I will look it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
In answer to your next post - I did not mean homosexual behavior in St. Mawr. No - that story would just indicate brutal sexual aggression and behavior. It had nothing to do with homosexual behavior.
Well, I will have to further investigate the letters and let you know what I think of any indiction of that type activity or inclination. In some of the books certain scenes indicate closeness with a males, even depicted nude in close proximity with another male. Therefore avid imaginations of biographers had a field day with these scenes. But true the letters would be the most revealing of all. I love reading the letters, but now with so many other distractions I have not read many so far. I will get back to it soon.
I was send a note about some books and stories being added to the L section, and you requested this. Thanks! My question would be - do you know if WIL is in that section. Seems some people on the voting thread are concerned they can't get the book. I wrote something in there today to one person - see my post if you can.
Yes: http://www.online-literature.com/dh_...women_in_love/Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
By the way Janine, Happy Mothers Day. :)
Thanks Virgil, someone remembered; just don't start calling me 'mom'. Still very thoughful of you. I laughed :lol: when I saw the pink pyschodelic type :lol: Actually my son and his wife will be over at 8. Too many people out today to go out to eat; actually they did that earlier with other inlaws - think the inlaws invited them.
Right after I wrote that I was in the book of month thread and saw that WIL was posted on this site; so I looked and sure enough, there it was. This is great, if it gets picked, so that we can easily quote parts of the text. If S&L is picked, that is on here, too. I found my thick compiled book of several of the novels of Lawrence - namely S&L, The Fox, Love Among the Haystacks, Arron's Rod, WIL. My one question would be about this WIL edition. This particular book of mine was printed in 1979 and I saw ones on Amazon - the Penquin Classics Cambridge Edition - that boast of having the entire text, including 2 previously elimated chapters. It is confusing to know if I have the full edition or would it be worth my while to buy this updated one? It also includes good annotations which would be beneficial for the discussion. What do you think?
I probably won't be posting anymore of this story tonight. I will do it tomorrow. Today I am off because it is Mother's Day - right - I just cooked all of us dinner....ha. A woman's work is never done! ;)
Here, shall can go on with the following passages:
These paragraphs clearly show the progression of the animosity that is daily growing even stronger in the officer towards the youth. After the pencil incident he is constantly harrassing the orderly or questioning him in aggressive and a mean/rough sort of way. In return this just makes the orderly even more stubbornly inward and secretive about his feelings. He is not responsive to the officer. I think the officer it more irritated, actually infuriated, because of this total lack of response in the youth. It is as though the officer almost wants the youth to rail up against him, or lash out or show any bit of anger, but he remains inwardly keeping this his confusion and anger to himself. He is biding his time until he is done with his duty in the service. The last paragraph and sentence finally reveals in words an indication of the state of the officer's mind and his desent into a kind of irritable insanity. Interesting to call it that. This statement seems to be taken from the viewpoint of the orderly.Quote:
The officer waited for further explanation. None came. The orderly went about his duties. The elder man was sullenly angry. His servant avoided him. And the next day he had to use all his will-power to avoid seeing the scarred thumb. He wanted to get hold of it and—A hot flame ran in his blood.
He knew his servant would soon be free, and would be glad. As yet, the soldier had held himself off from the elder man. The Captain grew madly irritable. He could not rest when the soldier was away, and when he was present, he glared at him with tormented eyes. He hated those fine, black brows over the unmeaning, dark eyes, he was infuriated by the free movement of the handsome limbs, which no military discipline could make stiff. And he became harsh and cruelly bullying, using contempt and satire. The young soldier only grew more mute and expressionless.
“What cattle were you bred by, that you can’t keep straight eyes? Look me in the eyes when I speak to you.”
And the soldier turned his dark eyes to the other’s face, but there was no sight in them: he stared with the slightest possible cast, holding back his sight, perceiving the blue of his master’s eyes, but receiving no look from them. And the elder man went pale, and his reddish eyebrows twitched. He gave his order, barrenly.
Once he flung a heavy military glove into the young soldier’s face. Then he had the satisfaction of seeing the black eyes flare up into his own, like a blaze when straw is thrown on a fire. And he had laughed with a little tremor and a sneer.
But there were only two months more. The youth instinctively tried to keep himself intact: he tried to serve the officer as if the latter were an abstract authority and not a man. All his instinct was to avoid personal contact, even definite hate. But in spite of himself the hate grew, responsive to the officer’s passion. However, he put it in the background. When he had left the Army he could dare acknowledge it. By nature he was active, and had many friends. He thought what amazing good fellows they were. But, without knowing it, he was alone. Now this solitariness was intensified. It would carry him through his term. But the officer seemed to be going irritably insane, and the youth was deeply frightened.
It is interesting how one perceives who is thinking which lines at times or who's viewpoint is being stated. There is always this shift back and forth between the two characters. Then at other times it seems the perception is coming from a 3rd party or the narrator of the story. Interesting, also, that the last two short stories we read basically dealt with only two characters in depth. In the case or HDD - Mabel and Fergussen; in the first story - the married couple; in PO - the officer and the orderly.
Yes, the Officer is losing control more and more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Lawrence is great at that. I've never seen a writer who in the same paragraph can shift points of view like Lawrence. A writer is not supposed to do that. But Lawrence freely breaks those rules and it seems natural.Quote:
It is interesting how one perceives who is thinking which lines at times or who's viewpoint is being stated. There is always this shift back and forth between the two characters. Then at other times it seems the perception is coming from a 3rd party or the narrator of the story. Interesting, also, that the last two short stories we read basically dealt with only two characters in depth. In the case or HDD - Mabel and Fergussen; in the first story - the married couple; in PO - the officer and the orderly
I've got one more point to make on part 1, but I'm rather tired tis evening. Tomorrow if that's ok with you, J.
Virgil, Definitely, a spiraling downward for the officer and his unstable state of mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Yes, I have noticed this so many times, especially in this story. Lawrence broke a lot of literary rules, I believe. He got away with it all so graciously and easily, I think because his writing flows so naturally. It was a natural outpouring of his mind and soul, and 'blood'. I love that about L. He could care less about what an author was 'suppose to do'. He made up his own set of rules. One thing that makes his writing so distingishable and unique.Quote:
Lawrence is great at that. I've never seen a writer who in the same paragraph can shift points of view like Lawrence. A writer is not supposed to do that. But Lawrence freely breaks those rules and it seems natural.
Absolutely; wait til tomorrow or whenever. I am moving slowly along myself. Are you back from your trip yet? Take your time with further comments.Quote:
I've got one more point to make on part 1, but I'm rather tired tis evening. Tomorrow if that's ok with you, J.
So now that we have seen the sexual undertones of the officer and orderly relationship, identified the unconscious frustrations and their slowly rising into conscious, sublimated acts, and now that we seen the officer's increasingly loss of control, we can discuss the central event of part 1, an event that really is the culmination of the relationship and the event from which the rest of the story hinges. I'm referring to the kicking scene.
In some respects, this is actually a rape scene. It's a sublimated rape. Especially these lines:Quote:
"Why have you a piece of pencil in your ear?" he [the Office] asked.
The orderly took his hands full of dishes. His master was standing near the great green stove, a little smile on his face, his chin thrust forward. When the young soldier saw him his heart suddenly ran hot. He felt blind. Instead of answering, he turned dazedly to the door. As he was crouching to set down the dishes, he was pitched forward by a kick from behind. The pots went in a stream down the stairs, he clung to the pillar of the banisters. And as he was rising he was kicked heavily again, and again, so that he clung sickly to the post for some moments. His master had gone swiftly into the room and closed the door. The maid-servant downstairs looked up the staircase and made a mocking face at the crockery disaster.
The officer's heart was plunging. He poured himself a glass of wine, part of which he spilled on the floor, and gulped the remainder, leaning against the cool, green stove. He heard his man collecting the dishes from the stairs. Pale, as if intoxicated, he waited. The servant entered again. The Captain's heart gave a pang, as of pleasure, seeing the young fellow bewildered and uncertain on his feet, with pain.
"Schöner!" he said.
The soldier was a little slower in coming to attention.
"Yes, sir!"
The youth stood before him, with pathetic young moustache, and fine eyebrows very distinct on his forehead of dark marble.
"I asked you a question."
"Yes, sir."
The officer's tone bit like acid.
"Why had you a pencil in your ear?"
Again the servant's heart ran hot, and he could not breathe. With dark, strained eyes, he looked at the officer, as if fascinated. And he stood there sturdily planted, unconscious. The withering smile came into the Captain's eyes, and he lifted his foot.
"I--I forgot it--sir," panted the soldier, his dark eyes fixed on the other man's dancing blue ones.
"What was it doing there?"
He saw the young man's breast heaving as he made an effort for words.
"I had been writing."
"Writing what?"
Again the soldier looked up and down. The officer could hear him panting. The smile came into the blue eyes. The soldier worked his dry throat, but could not speak. Suddenly the smile lit like a flame on the officer's face, and a kick came heavily against the orderly's thigh. The youth moved a pace sideways. His face went dead, with two black, staring eyes.
The kicking is another subconscious frustration coming up to consciousness in an sublimated, uncontrollable act. The whole thing is sadistic. The officer gets a sick pleasure from it. Notice too the sexual allusions:Quote:
As he was crouching to set down the dishes, he was pitched forward by a kick from behind. The pots went in a stream down the stairs, he clung to the pillar of the banisters. And as he was rising he was kicked heavily again, and again, so that he clung sickly to the post for some moments.
It breaks the orderly. He completely copitulates and in many respects acts like a rape victum:Quote:
The officer, left alone, held himself rigid, to prevent himself from thinking. His instinct warned him that he must not think. Deep inside him was the intense gratification of his passion, still working powerfully. Then there was a counter-action, a horrible breaking down of something inside him, a whole agony of reaction. He stood there for an hour motionless, a chaos of sensations, but rigid with a will to keep blank his consciousness, to prevent his mind grasping. And he held himself so until the worst of the stress had passed, when he began to drink, drank himself to an intoxication, till he slept obliterated.
And so this brings the story back to present time, the march and manuevers, completing the exposition.Quote:
The orderly had gone about in a stupor all the evening. He drank some beer because he was parched, but not much, the alcohol made his feeling come back, and he could not bear it. He was dulled, as if nine-tenths of the ordinary man in him were inert. He crawled about disfigured. Still, when he thought of the kicks, he went sick, and when he thought of the threat of more kicking, in the room afterwards, his heart went hot and faint, and he panted, remembering the one that had come. He had been forced to say, "For my girl." He was much too done even to want to cry. His mouth hung slightly open, like an idiot's. He felt vacant, and wasted. So, he wandered at his work, painfully, and very slowly and clumsily, fumbling blindly with the brushes, and finding it difficult, when he sat down, to summon the energy to move again. His limbs, his jaw, were slack and nerveless. But he was very tired. He got to bed at last, and slept inert, relaxed, in a sleep that was rather stupor than slumber, a dead night of stupefaction shot through with gleams of anguish.
Good scene to go to. I agree that it is the culmination of the relationship; it is now the event that advances the story. Up until now there really has not been any real plot. Now something significant happens and this quickly advances the story and a plot develops from this point on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Yes, absolutely I agree with this thought. They say that rape is not a sexual crime at all, it has nothing to do with desire, rather it has to do with domination and violence towards the rape victim. In this sense for certain the officer wants total domination of his orderly and now his victim.Quote:
In some respects, this is actually a rape scene. It's a sublimated rape.
Most definitely sadistic. So is rape. His kicking has it's own connotations, from the back when the orderly least expected such an act of violence against him. He is totally defenseless, as a rape victim would be. Yes, the officer, at first, seems to derive a 'sick pleasure' from it, but then he is exhausted like his experience was sexual and intensely cruel and he needs to block it out.Quote:
The kicking is another subconscious frustration coming up to consciousness in an sublimated, uncontrollable act. The whole thing is sadistic. The officer gets a sick pleasure from it. Notice too the sexual allusions:
At first he has "intense gratification of his passion", but....
"Then there was a counter-action, a horrible breaking down of something inside him, a whole agony of reaction. He stood there for an hour motionless, a chaos of sensations, but rigid with a will to keep blank his consciousness, to prevent his mind grasping. And he held himself so until the worst of the stress had passed, when he began to drink, drank himself to an intoxication, till he slept obliterated."
The passage you quoted does do so. I fully agree with you on this. Good observations and insight.Quote:
It breaks the orderly. He completely copitulates and in many respects acts like a rape victum:
Yes, we can go on from here to the advance of the plot.Quote:
And so this brings the story back to present time, the march and manuevers, completing the exposition.
One last thought on this scene Janine. I have to say that this is as violent a scene in all of Lawrence's works. There is really very little violence in most of Lawrence (The Plumed Serpent is probably the only exception that I can think of). The kicking is incredibly shocking to me. I really wasn't prepared for it. If the Officer had shot him, I think that would have been less startling. But the kicking seems so much more sadistic and cruel. It really is a rape.
Yes, Virgil, I quite agree about this being the most violent scene I know of in L's work. I too was a bit shocked on first reading it. I am wondering if it would turn people off to Lawrence, had they not know much of his other work. Odd because this was written quite early in his career, right? In "The White Peacock" there was some shocking scenes, too concerning mostly cruelity and saddistic behavior towards animals, but there were hints of blatant cruelity toward people especially women. I was shocked reading that book at times. Lawrence started it when he was only 21.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Yes, I think the act of the kicking was so brutal and it was more shocking then just shooting him; definitely a metaphor for rape. He wants to break the soldier physically and emotionally or even his spirit, even thought the young soldier has a quiet inner spirit which he keeps to himself...this is the main cataylist for the officer's behavior. He wants to break it, or break through the youth's protective fascade. As with a rape victim he does this very thing indeed. The youth will never be the same after this horrifying and humiliating experience. Later in the following text it says:
"He was so young, and had known so little trouble, that he was bewildered." Then a bit later it says "He was too stunned to understand it." So to the youth, this is an emormous shock. He is marching/doing things now in a state of shock and non-reality.
What we might want to think about too is the reaction the officer has within himself about his own actions. As I had already quoted, the following passage is curious to me. The officer is not the winner in this attach either. His actions have had "a counter-action" and he has experienced "a horrible breaking down of something inside" - within himself.....interesting.
The perpetrator is in a state of "chaos" so that he has not derived any satisfaction from his actions. He need to get intoxicated to get any sleep. Obviously he is himself stunned by his actions. I am not sure if rapists feel this way. What do you think?Quote:
At first he has "intense gratification of his passion", but....
"Then there was a counter-action, a horrible breaking down of something inside him, a whole agony of reaction. He stood there for an hour motionless, a chaos of sensations, but rigid with a will to keep blank his consciousness, to prevent his mind grasping. And he held himself so until the worst of the stress had passed, when he began to drink, drank himself to an intoxication, till he slept obliterated."
Virgil, can you proceed with the story? You do a good job of it.
You know I don't know exactly what to make of that. I purposely left it off my quote because i couldn't explain it. Here's a key sentence:Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
That word "obliterated" is a word that comes up often in Lawrence. He tends to mean that the character has released himself from the grip of his ego, his consciousness. I believe L uses the word even when it is not a perverse sex, but a wholesome sex. But those are just words on my part; I can't claim to quite understand it. Here's the rest of that paragraph.Quote:
And he held himself so until the worst of the stress had passed, when he began to drink, drank himself to an intoxication, till he slept obliterated.
As to your question, I have no idea what rapists feel, but I imagine it's in the realm of poassibility.Quote:
When he woke in the morning he was shaken to the base of his nature. But he had fought off the realization of what he had done. He had prevented his mind from taking it in, had suppressed it along with his instincts, and the conscious man had nothing to do with it. He felt only as after a bout of intoxication, weak, but the affair itself all dim and not to be recovered. Of the drunkenness of his passion he successfully refused remembrance. And when his orderly appeared with coffee, the officer assumed the same self he had had the morning before. He refused the event of the past night--denied it had ever been--and was successful in his denial. He had not done any such thing--not he himself. Whatever there might be lay at the door of a stupid, insubordinate servant.
Thank you my dear. How about we push to part 2? I think we have tackled the difficult section and the rest is fairly straight forward. I think we can finish the rest more rapidly.Quote:
Virgil, can you proceed with the story? You do a good job of it.
Interesting that you left that out but I thought you did have it in the quote but left it out when you commented. Here it what I just took from your quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
"He stood there for an hour motionless, a chaos of sensations, but rigid with a will to keep blank his consciousness, to prevent his mind grasping." Yes, I am glad you could not explain it either, since I found it quite confusing and osbcure in meaning, yet somehow I think it very significant to the story and the character studies. Both men are sick inside after the incident. Although the officer had the upper hand, now in the aftermath, he is in chaos and a broken man, as well as the orderly.
That is interesting to me to know about the word "obliterated". It now takes on much more meaning, deeper meaning. Many aspects of Lawrence "I can't claim to quite understand" either. Although I, too, don't completely understand it, or what Lawrence intended, I get a sense of the word and his meaning.Quote:
That word "obliterated" is a word that comes up often in Lawrence. He tends to mean that the character has released himself from the grip of his ego, his consciousness. I believe L uses the word even when it is not a perverse sex, but a wholesome sex. But those are just words on my part; I can't claim to quite understand it. Here's the rest of that paragraph.
Do you mean what I wrote or how Lawrence wrote it? Some rapists don't feel anything like Lawrence's description of how the officer is affected, or so I think. I think some just go and do it again without much regard for human life or feelings. Somehow this officer is feeling very sickened by his own actions at this point right after the attack.Quote:
As to your question, I have no idea what rapists feel, but I imagine it's in the realm of poassibility.
Yes, we should push onward. Your welcome, Virgil, I said that, since you seem to know where to take this discussion; I was feeling a little vague right now as to how to proceed. This study is becoming epic :lol: and I thought we could wrap it up by the end of the month; then --- onward to a new story!Quote:
Thank you my dear. How about we push to part 2? I think we have tackled the difficult section and the rest is fairly straight forward. I think we can finish the rest more rapidly.
I meant what Lawrence wrote, but it could be either. I don't think the officer has any regard for the orderly's feelings either. He's sickened I think not because of guilt for hurting the orderly but for what the perverse action did to his soul.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
OK, I'll post something on part 2 tomorrow.Quote:
Yes, we should push onward. Your welcome, Virgil, I said that, since you seem to know where to take this discussion; I was feeling a little vague right now as to how to proceed. This study is becoming epic :lol: and I thought we could wrap it up by the end of the month; then --- onward to a new story!
I did not mean that the officer had any regard for the victim in this case. I don't even think you could call his feeling 'guilt'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I think maybe he was sickened at the fact that he was capable of such a sudden and violent act. At this point he could not stand the consciousness that he was like this.
That would be great. Thanks, Virgil:)Quote:
OK, I'll post something on part 2 tomorrow.
A couiple of points about Part 2. I'll make the first one now and the other later.
Notice these lines:
andQuote:
The orderly must move under the presence of the figure of the horseman. It was not that he was afraid, or cowed. It was as if he was disembowelled, made empty, like an empty shell. He felt himself as nothing, a shadow creeping under the sunshine. And, thirsty as he was, he could scarcely drink, feeling the Captain near him. He would not take off his helmet to wipe his wet hair. He wanted to stay in shadow, not to be forced into consciousness. Starting, he saw the light heel of the officer prick the belly of the horse; the Captain cantered away, and he himself could relapse into vacancy.
Here is the sense of emptyness again, but this time it's in the orderly. That last sentence is particularly interesting. He felt that "he himself was only a consciousness." He can think and perceive but not have body or form. When you look back to the first paragraph I just quoted, it seems that the orderly and the officer have become just ideas, archetypes, living archetypes, a horseman and a foot soldier, an aristocrat and an underling. Again this sort of thing recurs in Lawrence's work, so this is not me just putting this together. It's part of Lawrence's philosophic belief, that the physical world is actually an illusion and that the core of our being is actually spiritual. This core of the person is in his sub-consciousness, and it is only through the will of the person that consciousness occurs, and therefore the person takes flesh. This is rather complicated and I'm not sure I've gotten it straight myself here. I understood it at one time, but I may have lost it over time. So anyone who is going to use that better check it.Quote:
He [the orderly] saw the labourers, mowing barefoot at the thick grass, leave off their work and go downhill, their scythes hanging over their shoulders, like long, bright claws curving down behind them. They seemed like dream-people, as if they had no relation to himself. He felt as in a blackish dream: as if all the other things were there and had form, but he himself was only a consciousness, a gap that could think and perceive.
What does it mean in this story? I think what Lawrence has done with these two characters is over the process of fifteen pages get to their inner core, and find that their inner core's are incompatible. It's more than that. I can't quite articulate it. Let's just say that with two couples, a man and a woman, when he gets to this point, their inner cores merge and fuse into a whole. We see it in The Rainbow and I think we see it in Women In Love. But here, perhaps because of the perverse aspect (or perhaps because of the homo erotic) of the officer and orderly's relationship, their inner beings are not compatible.
"He felt that he himself was only a consciousness." This is an interesting statement. Glad you pointed it out. I think it is cusious knowing of Lawrence's attitudes. I would think it would now be just the opposite, that the orderly was more unconscious and in his actions from the moment of violence on. But maybe the pain is making him more conscious and aware of himself. If you recall for quite sometime in the presense of the officer he has been calm on the surface and kept himself contained. Now everything has certainly changed and his bearing as well. Although he is stoic plodding on dealing step by step with his pain and shame and fear he is now in a hightened sense of his own soul so I can see the point you are getting across in this entire paragraph and analysis. Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
It is definitely a prominent point in "Women in Love", with Birkin and Ursula, but in contrast, not so with Gerald and Gudren. I agree with what you have said here concerning the two men. In one way though they are now compatible - both are suffering in their own way - no one is a winner in actuality. All is wreckage and damage from this point on. The officer crossed the line from bullying to action and that has upset all aspects of their relationship to each other. In some sense the officer has acted, as a terrorist, and now instilled in the youth the terror of his actions and his potential for violent behavior and domination, even threat to his life.Quote:
What does it mean in this story? I think what Lawrence has done with these two characters is over the process of fifteen pages get to their inner core, and find that their inner core's are incompatible. It's more than that. I can't quite articulate it. Let's just say that with two couples, a man and a woman, when he gets to this point, their inner cores merge and fuse into a whole. We see it in The Rainbow and I think we see it in Women In Love. But here, perhaps because of the perverse aspect (or perhaps because of the homo erotic) of the officer and orderly's relationship, their inner beings are not compatible.
That is a good point. If the Officer had not crossed the line, then they would have gone their separate ways once the orderly's duties were to expire. The Officer's actions have pushed the relationship to a different level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
The only part in the rules where posting links to other sites is not allowed is in regard to "spamming -- posting commercial messages, overtly promoting personal or commercial websites". There is nothing wrong with posting outside links, it's actually encouraged when say citing a quote, or, posting a link to this site somewhere else. Just thought I'd clear that up :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Also, I guess some of you have realised by now but Lawrence's The Prussian Officer and Other Stories is now officially on the site.
Hi Logos, thanks for clearing that up. I have been a little leary of posting links right in the thread. I know Virgil the same. It is easier for others to get to the links right from the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos
I noticed Prussian Officer and other additions to the L section; also you emailed me a notice; glad you posted this since others might not know it. So glad you added these new stories; we all appreciate it so much and it makes quoting so much easier, convenient. I like reading from the books, but when not available, this is great for others who can't find them to buy, who want to join in this discussion.
I think this thread is going well so far, what do you think? We could use some more participants though. Perhaps after reading a novel - Lawrence/June Book, some new people will join in here, too.
Virgil, Yes, this is what I thought - glad you agree. This was the turning point in the story. Actually, there would not have been much of a story had the officer contained himself and kept himself from acting in a violent manner. Now both men view each other with suspicion and dread, don't you think? Both are "on guard" so to speak, much more so than before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Good, now we can go on and hopefully wrap it up by end of the month. I am anxious to read another L story, how about you? Since we are reading the L novel for the June discussion, maybe we could pick a shorter story this next time. I will look into my books and review some stories or read a few new ones; see what is good.
The other point that I wish to make about part II is that the same sort of lack of control that affects the Officer in part I when he "rapes" the orderly affects the orderly in part II. Here's a key paragraph:
"Inside" his body he is losing control, so that the orderly's retaliation is also impulsive and uncontroled.Quote:
But it was only the outside of the orderly’s body that was obeying so humbly and mechanically. Inside had gradually accumulated a core into which all the energy of that young life was compact and concentrated. He executed his commission, and plodded quickly back uphill. There was a pain in his head, as he walked, that made him twist his features unknowingly. But hard there in the centre of his chest was himself, himself, firm, and not to be plucked to pieces.
This "flame" is a recurring motif in the story to describe the inner uncontroled emotion. "Jerked free" can be a summary of everything that occurs in this story. Inner frustrations that are subconscious work their way to conscious expression.Quote:
The flame sprang out of the orderly’s heart, nearly suffocating him.
“Yes, sir,” he replied, between shut teeth.
And he heard the sound of the Captain’s drinking, and he clenched his fists, such a strong torment came into his wrists. Then came the faint clang of the closing pot-lid. He looked up. The Captain was watching him. He glanced swiftly away. Then he saw the officer stoop and take a piece of bread from the tree-base. Again the flash of flame went through the young soldier, seeing the stiff body stoop beneath him, and his hands jerked. He looked away. He could feel the officer was nervous. The bread fell as it was being broken. The officer ate the other piece. The two men stood tense and still, the master laboriously chewing his bread, the servant staring with averted face, his fist clenched.
Then the young soldier started. The officer had pressed open the lid of the mug again. The orderly watched the lid of the mug, and the white hand that clenched the handle, as if he were fascinated. It was raised. The youth followed it with his eyes. And then he saw the thin, strong throat of the elder man moving up and down as he drank, the strong jaw working. And the instinct which had been jerking at the young man’s wrists suddenly jerked free. He jumped, feeling as if it were rent in two by a strong flame.
Let me just reiterate my personal feelings on this. I don't believe in such psychoanalytic nonesense, but it was the going rage of the early twentieth century, and Lawrence develops his own theories of psychology which he excellently put to use in story telling. This makes for great psychological drama.
Virgil, I don't know about that 'lack of control' you speak of. He seems controlled on the outside in a mechanical way, and inside his being, the text describes "hard there in the centre of his chest was himself, himself, firm and not to be plucked to pieces." I don't see this indicating a lack of control. Can you explain what is leading you to conclude this? There is only one statement in this passage where I see any lack of control and the is "twist of his features unknowingly" caused by his pain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I somehow do not agree with this at all. As I said i don't see a lack of control on his part at this juncture of the story. Maybe later but not now, even that can be debated. Did he lose control when he attacked the officer - maybe he was in the greater control of himself and his desires to defend himself finally. It is true that he has no control over the officer at this point but as far as having any control over his own being I don't think he could progress in the march and in his daily activities if he had lost control at this point.Quote:
"Inside" his body he is losing control, so that the orderly's retaliation is also impulsive and uncontroled.
In this following passage you have quoted we are closer now to the confrontation and the actual violent killing act of the orderly. Now the flame could indicate the uncontolled emotion or the release of his emotions and the anger flaming up in his being, so that he acts with a vengence or actually a mere defense against all that has been done to him. If you think about it the orderly would most certainly be abused again by the officer so that to a great extent he is just protecting himself from futher harm, which could be called instinctive. I think his attacking the officer is acting in self defense. At that second he sees it that way. Perhaps too it is born of the anger he has so difficultly self possessed up until this breaking-point.Quote:
This "flame" is a recurring motif in the story to describe the inner uncontroled emotion. "Jerked free" can be a summary of everything that occurs in this story. Inner frustrations that are subconscious work their way to conscious expression.
Unlike you, who always use the word 'psychobabble':lol: , I do believe greatly in the 'subconscious' and it's effect unconsiously on situations and people. However, I do believe it has it's limits and I think Lawrence and Freud were way off sometimes. True that L develops his own theories of psychology, which would easily be disputed today. But L has a keen sense of the minds of others and sensitivity to the workings inside a person's whole being. Yes, it does make for a wonderful psychological drama, but all of his works do that, I believe. Wasn't the last story about the subconsious, also? That is what I like best about L's writting.Quote:
Let me just reiterate my personal feelings on this. I don't believe in such psychoanalytic nonesense, but it was the going rage of the early twentieth century, and Lawrence develops his own theories of psychology which he excellently put to use in story telling. This makes for great psychological drama.
Well, I went back and read it again, and i have to say I still think the orderly does what he does out of impulse that he doesn't control. First of all there is nothing given where the orderly contemplates his revenge or retaliation. You would expect a paragraph at least where he ruminates what he should do or how he will do it. But nothing, unless I keep missing it. Second, all of these passages to me suggest non-premeditated impulse:Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Quote:
The flame leapt into the young soldier's throat as he heard the command, and he rose blindly, stifled. He saluted, standing below the officer. He did not look up. But there was the flicker in the Captain's voice.
Quote:
But it was only the outside of the orderly's body that was obeying so humbly and mechanically. Inside had gradually accumulated a core into which all the energy of that young life was compact and concentrated. He executed his commission, and plodded quickly back uphill. There was a pain in his head, as he walked, that made him twist his features unknowingly. But hard there in the centre of his chest was himself, himself, firm, and not to be plucked to pieces.
Quote:
The flame sprang out of the orderly's heart, nearly suffocating him.
"Yes, sir," he replied, between shut teeth.
This is the most telling sentence: "the instinct which had been jerking at the young man's wrists suddenly jerked free." Instinct suddenly jerking free implies lack of control to me. Don't you think?Quote:
Then the young soldier started. The officer had pressed open the lid of the mug again. The orderly watched the lid of the mug, and the white hand that clenched the handle, as if he were fascinated. It was raised. The youth followed it with his eyes. And then he saw the thin, strong throat of the elder man moving up and down as he drank, the strong jaw working. And the instinct which had been jerking at the young man's wrists suddenly jerked free. He jumped, feeling as if it were rent in two by a strong flame.
:lol: Yes, it suggests the workings of a human mind. But that's because he's a great writer. But Homer having Athena whispering in Oddyseus's ear and guiding him seemed like reality for the ancient Greeks. It's what you're culturally attuned to. The sub-conscious is no different than a good angel or a bad angel whispering into your ear. Some religious people believed (and many still do) that good and bad angels guides people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Well, Virgil, welcome back! I was wondering where you ran off to. I have not seen you on "Owen Meany" either. I am still plodding along with that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Hmmmm...well :lol:,V, how did mythology and angels get into this about the discussion on the subconsious? I don't really, truly see the correlation. Who thinks consciously that voices are talking to them - either Greek Gods, God or angels, could be devils, too....or fairies, or knomes...?:lol: Closest I can come to rational thought that is irrational is schizaphrenics; these people claim to hear 'real' voices in their heads. To them it is not subconscious.
No, I don't agree at all with you. Subconscious is an entirely different thing. It is deep down, hidden and obviously not conconscious. I think Lawrence felt it intrinsicly. I don't think all of it was formulated from Freud's ideas. I think he knew it before Freud. Freud's theories just spurred him onward to delve further into his own concepts and shape his own theories.
Even though we don't agree on this point, and I am sure it will come up again if we read "Women in Love" and discuss it, for now we can go on with this story. What do you think?
I've been around. Sometimes it takes me a little time to respond. Actually you just reminded me of the Simon & Garfunkle song, Mrs Robinson. There is a line there that says: "Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?" And then later in the song, it says: What's that you say, Mrs. Robinson? / "Joltin' Joe has left and gone away". Joe DiMaggio was alive when the song came out, and he never understood what they were talking about. He is supposed to have said, "whadda you mean gone away. I'm still here." :lol: What do you mean where have i run off to? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Ah, but that's a biological thing. There is something wrong with the chemistry and neuron mechanics in the brain. A sub-conscious is not biological. You might as well believe in good and bad angels because it's the same thing, a metaphysical construct that doesn't exist.Quote:
Hmmmm...well :lol:,V, how did mythology and angels get into this about the discussion on the subconsious? I don't really, truly see the correlation. Who thinks consciously that voices are talking to them - either Greek Gods, God or angels, could be devils, too....or fairies, or knomes...?:lol: Closest I can come to rational thought that is irrational is schizaphrenics; these people claim to hear 'real' voices in their heads. To them it is not subconscious.
I agree he's different than Frued or Jung or a whole host of other early psychologists, and for someone like lawrence who had no medical training to come up with a competetive theory to those other psychologists shows you that there is nothing biological about this. It's mythology.Quote:
No, I don't agree at all with you. Subconscious is an entirely different thing. It is deep down, hidden and obviously not conconscious. I think Lawrence felt it intrinsicly. I don't think all of it was formulated from Freud's ideas. I think he knew it before Freud. Freud's theories just spurred him onward to delve further into his own concepts and shape his own theories.
Perhaps you missed my response above that last post where I replied to your comments. Can't wait for Women In Love either. I hope it wins.Quote:
Even though we don't agree on this point, and I am sure it will come up again if we read "Women in Love" and discuss it, for now we can go on with this story. What do you think?
Are y'all reading in a particular order or anything?? Is there a story that is coming up next for discussion??
(Thanks for helping me find my way here, janine!)
Hi Shannon, My pleasure to have directed you here. Glad you found the thread. I am always trying to recruit people for this discussion, my being a great L enthusiast. Lawrence's short stories are among some of the finest written in the English language. In the first post, Virgil writes a very informative introduction to Lawrence's short stories. I am quite pleased if you will be joining us. As you may have noticed, mostly the discussions have gotten down to Virgil and myself. We need more discussers!Quote:
Originally Posted by _Shannon_
Yes, we will be choosing another story real soon. I think we got distracted trying to finish up our May book of the month - "A Prayer for Owen Meany" - it was a long book. I should have posted something in here a few days ago, but then I got distracted and busy. I will post tonight. Then, hopefully, we can quickly get on with this story's ending and to the next.
Pretty much we have kept this thread rather unstructured. We did not have a set time to choose a new story. Hopefully by the weekend or start of next week we could choose a new one to read. The one we are on has been longer than most. I will let you know or do check in again. Please be patient...we will continue this thread; you will find it worthwhile - interesting and revealing of Lawrence.
If you have read "The Prussian Officer", please feel free to jump in at this point to discuss the remainder.
Virgil, I am still laughing about this analogy. It is a good one. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I went and read the Wikipedia biography about DiMaggio. You had me curious. Here is what one part said:
"A generation later, Simon and Garfunkel used him in that same vein in "Mrs. Robinson". The literal-minded DiMaggio was reportedly not fond of the lyric "Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?" as he was very much alive, and had not gone anywhere. However, he changed his mind when he gained a whole new generation of fans from that song. When he died the London Times observed in its obituary that the lines from "Mrs Robinson" were what DiMaggio would be most remembered for."
It is an interesting biography. It lists all the songs that immortalised his name and their were are quite a number, besides Mrs. Robinson. Also tells how he married Marilyn Monroe, they were divorced, and just before her death he wanted to remarry her. I did not realise all this.
Well, this is true but I was kind of kidding with you about it. I still disagree with you mostly about sub-consciousness and it being merely a 'metaphysical construct'. To be honest with you, I never heard this theory, so I will have to think about it. I think so much of Lawrence's work is based on subconsious ideas that it is like pulling the rug out from under me. I just don't know. You have me a bit confused at this point.Quote:
Ah, but that's a biological thing. There is something wrong with the chemistry and neuron mechanics in the brain. A sub-conscious is not biological. You might as well believe in good and bad angels because it's the same thing, a metaphysical construct that doesn't exist.
Well, truly I don't care if L had a degree in pychology or not. He was intuitive and perceptive and that is good enough for me. If he wanted to form his own theories on the mind that is acceptable within the confines of his art - his writing. I can accept it as being psychological to him. Pyschological is not a mythology to me. But if you want to believe it is that is fine too. Like some people believing in organised religions and others not.Quote:
I agree he's different than Frued or Jung or a whole host of other early psychologists, and for someone like lawrence who had no medical training to come up with a competetive theory to those other psychologists shows you that there is nothing biological about this. It's mythology.
I did go back and read that post. I will check now and if need be try and answer anything I missed.Quote:
Perhaps you missed my response above that last post where I replied to your comments. Can't wait for Women In Love either. I hope it wins.
I hope WIL wins too. The vote is getting precariously close.:( Do the polls close tomorrow or midnight tonight? J
Ok, this could be my wrap up of The Prussian Officer.
Part III we find the orderly trying to escape in the woods after killing the Officer, and suffering from heat stroke. I'm reminded of something inspirangel (what happened to inpirangel? Is she coming back?) said a number of pages back, and that is she felt this story was about self-preservation. The orderly is trying to preserve himself here and his killing of the officer could be seen as an act of self-preservation. There may be something to that. But the orderly doesn't preserve himself, he dies. And I can't help but feel that both the orderly and the officer need each other. I'm not sure I can prove it, but they do strike me as compliments of each other.
Another thing I wanted to point out is that as the orderly starts feeling the effects of the heat stroke his senses heighten. Check this out:
Notice how sounds and the sights become so sharp. This is something that Lawrence does on a number of occaisions when a character is dying or undergoing a mentally altering event.Quote:
When he opened his eyes again, he started, seeing something creeping swiftly up a tree-trunk. It was a little bird. And the bird was whistling overhead. Tap-tap-tap--it was the small, quick bird rapping the tree-trunk with its beak, as if its head were a little round hammer. He watched it curiously. It shifted sharply, in its creeping fashion. Then, like a mouse, it slid down the bare trunk. Its swift creeping sent a flash of revulsion through him. He raised his head. It felt a great weight. Then, the little bird ran out of the shadow across a still patch of sunshine, its little head bobbing swiftly, its white legs twinkling brightly for a moment. How neat it was in its build, so compact, with pieces of white on its wings. There were several of them. They were so pretty--but they crept like swift, erratic mice, running here and there among the beech-mast.
Another thing in this third part is the outstanding prose. This is among some of his best writing:
And this:Quote:
Struggling to his feet, he lurched away. He went on walking, walking, looking for something--for a drink. His brain felt hot and inflamed for want of water. He stumbled on. Then he did not know anything. He went unconscious as he walked. Yet he stumbled on, his mouth open.
When, to his dumb wonder, he opened his eyes on the world again, he no longer tried to remember what it was. There was thick, golden light behind golden-green glitterings, and tall, grey-purple shafts, and darknesses further off, surrounding him, growing deeper. He was conscious of a sense of arrival. He was amid the reality, on the real, dark bottom. But there was the thirst burning in his brain. He felt lighter, not so heavy. He supposed it was newness. The air was muttering with thunder. He thought he was walking wonderfully swiftly and was coming straight to relief--or was it to water?
Suddenly he stood still with fear. There was a tremendous flare of gold, immense--just a few dark trunks like bars between him and it. All the young level wheat was burnished gold glaring on its silky green. A woman, full-skirted, a black cloth on her head for head-dress, was passing like a block of shadow through the glistening, green corn, into the full glare. There was a farm, too, pale blue in shadow, and the timber black. And there was a church spire, nearly fused away in the gold. The woman moved on, away from him. He had no language with which to speak to her. She was the bright, solid unreality. She would make a noise of words that would confuse him, and her eyes would look at him without seeing him. She was crossing there to the other side. He stood against a tree.
And finally the two main characters lay together in Part IV in a mortuary as two sides of a coin:Quote:
During the night the lightning fluttered perpetually, making the whole sky white. He must have walked again. The world hung livid round him for moments, fields a level sheen of grey-green light, trees in dark bulk, and the range of clouds black across a white sky. Then the darkness fell like a shutter, and the night was whole. A faint flutter of a half-revealed world, that could not quite leap out of the darkness! Then there again stood a sweep of pallor for the land, dark shapes looming, a range of clouds hanging overhead. The world was a ghostly shadow, thrown for a moment upon the pure darkness, which returned ever whole and complete.
Quote:
The bodies of the two men lay together, side by side, in the mortuary, the one white and slender, but laid rigidly at rest, the other looking as if every moment it must rouse into life again, so young and unused, from a slumber.
Are you not confusing having a "conscience" from the "sub-conscious"? When a person has a 'conscience' it could be like a good angel whispering in his ear. If he is devoid of one, could be a devil spurring him on. As far as Lawence is concerned I am now in a state of confusion. Maybe I never delved this far below the surface of his writings or it just did not matter greatly to me either way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
If it is ok with you I would like to go on with the story and finish it up soon.
NOTE: sorry just posted this as you were posting above me. I will answer that one soon if my poor aching brain can hold out. I have been feeling overwhelmed lately. J
No I'm not talking about concience, but consciousness and sub-conscious. What I meant by the good/bad angel analogy was that the sub-conscious supposedly controls our actions (id, ego, superego) and that is what i'm saying is bunk. The id pushing us toward desires while the superego clamping down is comparable to a bad angel pushing us towards desires and good angels clamping down. It's all bunk. The sub-conscious is a myth. Sorry if I wasn't clearer. Anyway this is a Lawrence thread. I've stated my opinion; it's contrary to conventional thought. So be it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Virgil, well you are taking me back to my crazy college days talking about the id, ego and superego. I really never studied pshychologoy in college - just had an English professor who was totally unconventional and had us reading all those books that came out at the time - a lot of Herman Hesse books and "The Book of the Id" I recall. To be honest with you all that took place a lifetime ago for me. It has been eons since I even thought of these things. I thought at the time they were novel ideas but ofcourse as time went by we all got practical and thought differently. I really would have to go back and review all this stuff to fully understand. I have to be content just seeing the pshchological stuff in Lawrence's writing in his vane of thought and let it be at that. I hope this makes sense. It could be mostly 'bunk' but I try to see L's writing when he first was discovering these ideas and expounding on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Too tired now to write more. I will address your last post tomorrow. It is late now. I did read it though.
I said that before about preservation or I agreed - not sure now which one. At any rate, I think at the point that the orderly snapped - and we all have a breaking point - he was trying in an illogical way to survive. Sort of a survival of the fittest thing and acting more on instinct, not logic - animal instinct would fit right in with L's ideas. He did not contemplate the consequences of killing the officer; he simply reacted as an 'animal' trying to survive. He dies because there are consequences in doing this. He must now flee from the scene and the crime and the law. It is the old aggression and then the flee instinct that kicks in. It has another phrasing, but I can't think of it right now - too tired.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I did not bother to requote the book here so check back to see the quotes. I fully agree with what you said. This is interesting to me and I think Lawrence drew deeply from his own experience, coming precariously close to dying. They said, in several of my biographies, that he became more keenly in tune with things - nature, colors, etc; everything was heightened - his senses seemed heightened after his recovery from the pnemonia that nearly killed him. He felt he was a changed person, also. If you have ever experienced a long hospital stay or a long illness you would fully understand this. I had this experience myself after being very ill and nearly died. Afterwards, colors were sharper and more magnificent, than I had remembered them to be. I think this would account for this heightened sense of noticing the nature about him as the orderly experienced it as he lay dying. Also, they say, when person is close to death, they sometimes rally and become more intune just before they die. It may have been like this in Lawrence's mind and he conveyed it so beautifully in these passages.Quote:
Another thing I wanted to point out is that as the orderly starts feeling the effects of the heat stroke his senses heighten. Check this out:
Notice how sounds and the sights become so sharp. This is something that Lawrence does on a number of occaisions when a character is dying or undergoing a mentally altering event.
Another thing in this third part is the outstanding prose. This is among some of his best writing:
And this:
This is a very fitting ending I think. One sort of feels emptied after the whole experience and the sense of futility in all of this violence and death is apparent when reading these closing lines. They are very poignant, don't you think?Quote:
And finally the two main characters lay together in Part IV in a mortuary as two sides of a coin:
Virgil, Before we wrap this up entirely, I wanted to look at the murder scene again, because I felt it was important and actually the climax of the story. I know this is backtracking a little, but I kept wondering if the orderly felt revulsion or guilt for his crime, his loss of control and his deadly actions. Here's the scene:
Up until here he is acting in a way that will relieve him of his tension and pain and his situation of abuse. He uses specific words and phrases to express this relief such as:Quote:
The spur of the officer caught in a tree-root, he went down backwards with a crash, the middle of his back thudding sickeningly against a sharp-edged tree-base, the pot flying away. And in a second the orderly, with serious, earnest young face, and underlip between his teeth, had got his knee in the officer’s chest and was pressing the chin backward over the farther edge of the tree-stump, pressing, with all his heart behind in a passion of relief, the tension of his wrists exquisite with relief. And with the base of his palms he shoved at the chin, with all his might. And it was pleasant, too, to have that chin, that hard jaw already slightly rough with beard, in his hands. He did not relax one hair’s breadth, but, all the force of all his blood exulting in his thrust, he shoved back the head of the other man, till there was a little “cluck” and a crunching sensation. Then he felt as if his head went to vapour. Heavy convulsions shook the body of the officer, frightening and horrifying the young soldier. Yet it pleased him, too, to repress them. It pleased him to keep his hands pressing back the chin, to feel the chest of the other man yield in expiration to the weight of his strong, young knees, to feel the hard twitchings of the prostrate body jerking his own whole frame, which was pressed down on it.
But it went still. He could look into the nostrils of the other man, the eyes he could scarcely see. How curiously the mouth was pushed out, exaggerating the full lips, and the moustache bristling up from them. Then, with a start, he noticed the nostrils gradually filled with blood. The red brimmed, hesitated, ran over, and went in a thin trickle down the face to the eyes.
"pressing, with all his heart behind in a passion of relief, the tension of his wrists exquisite with relief."
Twice he uses the work pleased in these passages in that same paragraph:
".....convulsions shook the body of the officer, frightening and horrifying the young soldier. Yet it pleased him, too, to repress them. It pleased him to keep his hands pressing back the chin....."
If you notice he has both frightening and horrifying feelings and yet he is pleased - a definite opposite or a repression of what he is really feeling or will feel when the act is over and the officer is dead.
This is a very curious line in the above paragraph when referring to the officers dead body:Quote:
It shocked and distressed him. Slowly, he got up. The body twitched and sprawled there, inert. He stood and looked at it in silence. It was a pity IT was broken. It represented more than the thing which had kicked and bullied him. He was afraid to look at the eyes. They were hideous now, only the whites showing, and the blood running to them. The face of the orderly was drawn with horror at the sight. Well, it was so. In his heart he was satisfied. He had hated the face of the Captain. It was extinguished now. There was a heavy relief in the orderly’s soul. That was as it should be. But he could not bear to see the long, military body lying broken over the tree-base, the fine fingers crisped. He wanted to hide it away.
"It was a pity IT was broken. It represented more than the thing which had kicked and bullied him."
This line is somehow prophetic of the closing last two lines of the story...interesting. Also curious referring now to the dead officer as "IT" and "the thing" - no longer seeing him as a person. Did he ever see him as a person, I wonder.
Here again is mentioned relief:
"There was a heavy relief in the orderly’s soul."
The last two sentences in this paragraph again refer to the fact the young soldier cannot bear to see the "body lying broken" of the officer; he wants now to hide it away, even from his own mind and consciousness forever. The word "broken" is used often and emphasised.
Now he hides the body, actually positions it as though it is still alive and sleeping. The curious thing is the next to the last line when he sat by it for a few minutes. The last line is the zinger and I think the climax - "Here his own life also ended". The way this line suddenly presents itself on the page is stark reality and so brilliant on Lawrence's part. The timing is perfect for this line. This line shows to me starkly that violence and actions like these that end in death/murder never have one victim, but claim two. Now the men are one in the crime, their fates sealed. Perhaps similiar to Tess' action in the Hardy novel when she kills Alec and knows from that moment on that her own life is doomed, that she will be hanged and die. In PO there is a oneness of death and quilt and violence, now that the young officer has crossed that moral line; the end also reflects and encompasses this oneness with the communing of the dead in the final scene. The 'two halves of the whole', perhaps? becoming one in death?Quote:
Quickly, busily, he gathered it up and pushed it under the felled tree-trunks, which rested their beautiful, smooth length either end on logs. The face was horrible with blood. He covered it with the helmet. Then he pushed the limbs straight and decent, and brushed the dead leaves off the fine cloth of the uniform. So, it lay quite still in the shadow under there. A little strip of sunshine ran along the breast, from a chink between the logs. The orderly sat by it for a few moments. Here his own life also ended.
Virgil, Please be sure and read my last post. I thought I brought up some good points and wanted to see what you thought. I just finished Chapter two of WIL and this passage really struck me as applying to the idea in this story - The PO:
Keep in mind that Birkin is a fill-in for Lawrence and his views. Interesting, isn't it? especially if you think of it in relations to The PO.Quote:
`No man,' said Birkin, `cuts another man's throat unless he wants to cut it, and unless the other man wants it cutting. This is a complete truth. It takes two people to make a murder: a murderer and a murderee. And a murderee is a man who is murderable. And a man who is murderable is a man who in a profound if hidden lust desires to be murdered.'
Yes, this naturalist reading is a legitamate reading, although I've always felt that Lawrence was more than a naturalist. He starts there and evolves to more than that. This is early Lawrence, so perhaps you're correct. But the orderly ultimately dies as a consequence of his action; so the survival instinct was wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Thanks for that biographical detail. I'm not surprised by it. There are places in L that certain characters sensing abilities are hyper active. I'm particularly recalling the woman in The Women Who Rode Away. We'll have to do that story some day, but it's a long and complicated one.Quote:
I did not bother to requote the book here so check back to see the quotes. I fully agree with what you said. This is interesting to me and I think Lawrence drew deeply from his own experience, coming precariously close to dying. They said, in several of my biographies, that he became more keenly in tune with things - nature, colors, etc; everything was heightened - his senses seemed heightened after his recovery from the pnemonia that nearly killed him. He felt he was a changed person, also. If you have ever experienced a long hospital stay or a long illness you would fully understand this. I had this experience myself after being very ill and nearly died. Afterwards, colors were sharper and more magnificent, than I had remembered them to be. I think this would account for this heightened sense of noticing the nature about him as the orderly experienced it as he lay dying. Also, they say, when person is close to death, they sometimes rally and become more intune just before they die. It may have been like this in Lawrence's mind and he conveyed it so beautifully in these passages.
Perfect touch. I'll get to your other post a bit later.Quote:
This is a very fitting ending I think. One sort of feels emptied after the whole experience and the sense of futility in all of this violence and death is apparent when reading these closing lines. They are very poignant, don't you think?