Oh I will. It was a lot to go through. I'm getting tired. I'll do it tomorrow, I promise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Printable View
Oh I will. It was a lot to go through. I'm getting tired. I'll do it tomorrow, I promise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
:rolleyes: Oh.. ok, then.....I guess I am tired too and maybe was getting a little b****y! ;) :lol: we better get some rest. I think I will quit computing now and maybe finish my Lawrence book - only a few chapters more. I've been so tired all day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I don't know. She knows she loves the old lover and not the current husband. Do you think she cares about the husband? Or the marriage? She changes at the end because she sees the impossibility of going to the old lover.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
There are certainly similarities with Joyce's "The Dead." I'm still not sure why she wants to confess her past. I still think there is an element of trying to destroying him with the information.Quote:
I think at this point she wants to reveal all to him. She wants to spill out all the things that have made up this yoke around her neck and clear the air. It is as though one brick came tumbling down from her past and now all the wall must come down as well. She willingly wants to confess her past to him. This part very much reminds me of the Joyce short story "The Dead" in that the woman confesses her past lover to her husband and in doing so he comes to the realisation that she never loved him as passionately as she had loved her, now estranged and deceased, lover.
Hmm. There's that too. But I tend to rest on the "hostility" word Lawrence uses.Quote:
I felt it was to be honest. But I don't think she did so consciously. I think it just comes spilling out at this point as I described above. I do not believe she is willfully wanting to wound him but this may be the result, however the more important aspect seems to be the coming clean with her story and clearing the air between the husband and wife for good.
Quote:
People do fight this way. They don't fight logically at times. Sometimes things are just blurted out and used as weapons, mental, emotional ammunition.
I think we can agree on those points.Quote:
Yes, it is a pretty funny phrase, isn't it? I guess old-fashioned. I do think it means that and so he is being really blunt with her in an earthy way - referring to hog. I still get a little ruffled at his manor of asking. It is like a very good trigger word to set her off again or to wound her. You are right, however, that no matter how 'brutal' the words are they do act as the catalyst to bring out this 'raw reality' and the truth into their consciousness. I agree this defining moment is definitely the climax to the story. There is a definite shift right after this confrontation.
Yes I agree, there is no transfiguration. I too loved that sentenece, "At last he had learned the width of the breech between them". It's almost like a thesis sentence that explains the story.Quote:
I really particularly like the phrase "At last he had learned the width of the breech between them". To me it is better to know of the truth than to sense something is there and one can't get through to what it is that is keeping them appart. As it also states "and no longer hated each other". I think that phrase is key. Exactly - the have passed through a catharitic experience - you have the right words for what happened. I did not know how to word that and did not feel it was transfiguration at this point. Do you agree?
Great. I still think we should take a break and perhpas by mid to end of March we can do another story. I'm tied up with other reading. What do people think?Quote:
Maybe so, but this is an early work. I do think this story is a fine one and better than we first thought it be - the more we discussed, the more complex the story revealed itself to be to us. That is marvelous! The conclusion is brilliant; yes. I loved the story, but then I love them all. :thumbs_up :)
Well, now there is 'the question' - of whether she does truly still love the old lover. You see, in my opinion, she loved the idea of him and the memory, but not truly the man. She seemed to show no true sorrow towards him, when she found him as he was. Yes, she certainly did feel shock, but she might also have felt shock in finding him with his mind in-tack. I don't think she ever intended on meeting up with him. He was suppose to be dead! I think when he appears, it is like seeing a ghost and truly more poignant is, that actually, he is a ghost or a shadow, of the man she once knew. I have thought on this whole idea so often. What if I meet up with an exlover - would I feel the same way - and usually I come up with this thought that, realistically speaking, I doubt very much I would feel any real love for that person anymore. Only living back in the memory of the good times, do I perceive love with him and not projected into the now or the future. Do you see what I am trying to say? For instance, if Lawrence later meet up with his first love, Jessie, and she had been persumed dead, would he have left his wife to go to her? If it did not work out the first time, then what makes you think they could just pick up from where they were now? No, I feel the old lover, for this woman, is totally rooted in the past and can't pass over into the now. That doorway into the courtyard is very significant. I see this shadow of the past, this man - the lover - who is also a shadow, of what he had been and what had been between them - not being able, in anyway, to pass into her outside world. The garden embodies her past and his and now she must leave that superficial garden of 'dream and memory' to enter back, and live daily in her new found world with the husband. Probably from the beginning of their marriage, she has been chained to this past and it, being a deep dark secret (as in a shadow herself), which has kept her from truly loving her husband. If the shadow now is torn from her perhaps they can now view each other realistically and actually see themselves as the are now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Just like Gabriel and his wife, he questioned her until she caved in and told him the story. When she came home she did not just blurt it out to her husband and try to destroy him with the information. I don't agree with you here at all. Neither mate is trying to destroy the other. They are simply having a marital fight and it gets nasty and yet when it gets to a certain point there is where hope begins. The marriage perhaps must burn down to embers (like the Phoenix bird) and then new life can spring from it.Quote:
There are certainly similarities with Joyce's "The Dead." I'm still not sure why she wants to confess her past. I still think there is an element of trying to destroying him with the information.
I think with Joyce's story I don't see as much hope between husband and wife - the story ends on a sad note and doesn't give the reader true hope. The husband and wife do not argue and do not air out any differences. They stay contained and she falls off to sleep; he is unable to console her and sits at the window looking out and ruminating silently on his position in the marriage. I feel in Lawrence's story there is this tiny shred of hope for this couple that they might begin again and find happiness someday.
You don't think hostility can be blurted out unconsicously? I think couples arguing can become very hostile at times. I don't know how literal Lawrence meant the word to be. He certainly did not mean harm would be inflicted on either physically. The weapons here are definitely physcological and emotional weapons.Quote:
Hmm. There's that too. But I tend to rest on the "hostility" word Lawrence uses.
Yeah!!!;) cause I was getting a little b... ichy :lol: last night.Quote:
I think we can agree on those points.
Yes, that is good - a 'thesis' - good word!Quote:
Yes I agree, there is no transfiguration. I too loved that sentenece, "At last he had learned the width of the breech between them". It's almost like a thesis sentence that explains the story.
I am not sure of this idea. I am not so tied up as you. How many books are you discussing? I saw you again in Aeneid - is that still going on and "TNOTR" seems like an equally complicated read. I won't do next months monthly read; two novels this month is killing me. I want to do some other reading on my own, anyway. I only then have the Chekhov short story thread, so maybe a short short story again in here I could handle. We can talk further about this in a PM. I hate to postpone again, since we have people interested now. I will ask the others, too and if they all want a break we can take one month off and start up again in April. Hey, others - what do you think?Quote:
Great. I still think we should take a break and perhpas by mid to end of March we can do another story. I'm tied up with other reading. What do people think?
This may be a very forgiving reading of the wife's behavior at the end. For whatever reason, she's still concealing her true feelings. She admits to loving the madman in the garden, but not for clarity. Lawrence tells us that she is feeling, "destructive", and her statements seem designed to be the most wounding. She senses the husband trying to establish a connection with her and she says what is most "destructive" to him. I don't know if we can blame the wife for doing this, though. She really doesn't love the husband that's trying to force himself on her. After she's just experienced real happiness in the garden it would be hard to return to the husband and not feel some resentment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I like the comparison with "The Dead". I think it does fit.
Yeah, I don't think their fight is far-fetched in any way. Almost all heated arguments get nonsensical at some point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Painful realizations make up quite of few of these climaxes, don't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
This story seems so well contained that I really don't think about what's going to happen after. Maybe it's only because I'm not sure what I want to happen, or maybe it has to do with linear--all present tense--way of storytelling. Some stories do lend themselves to that kind of speculation. In "The Lady with the Dog" discussion many of our posts were focused on exactly that. It seemed like we had to define Gurov's past relationships, and decide whether he would be happy at the end in order. For some reason I don't really wonder about those things in this story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
[/QUOTE]
Lawrence's language at the end is weird and almost jarring. It could be a reflection of what's going on in the story, or it could be just poor writing. I'd have to go back and see if the story is written "ugily" all throughout or just at the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
Lawrence tells us flat out that she doesn't love the husband. If you do try to prove that she has affection for him, I think you have a tall mountain to climb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
So you think the woman is unsympathetic (I won't use the B-word ;) ) too. I don't know why Janine cuts her a break. It must be because she's associating something biographical with Lawrence and his wife in the story. But if you take the story in itself, without bringing in outside life or even connecting it to other works, one has to consider the woman as mean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
I think that sums it up. But I do think the story projects a better future.Quote:
Lawrence tells us flat out that she doesn't love the husband. If you do try to prove that she has affection for him, I think you have a tall mountain to climb.
I do have some sympathy for the wife. She's trapped with a husband she doesn't care for. I just think that at the end she doesn't handle it in the best way--nor does the husband, really. Ultimately, though, both characters are made to draw our sympathy. The relationship makes neither of them happy, and each has a real grievance with the other. Earlier, I was just pointing out that I thought Lawrence did a better job forming the wife's complaints than he did the husband's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Oh good, lets wrap up this one. I am sick of discussing it, aren't you? I think now we are beating the story to death. Gee and I thought this was one of his less complicated SHORT stories! Ha!....
So do we have a vote for next month - skip the month or do another short one?
You know what is funny - we are divided on this thing about the woman and sympathy or hatred for her, but you would think it males against females - instead it is 'even Steven' - 2 against 2 and both sexes disagreeing. I think we would all disagree until doomsday! haha....guess we should just hang it up now and move onward....
One final note about what you said - I think that is because basically the story centers around the wife and is about her profound experience in the rose garden confronting her past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark
Whatever works best for everyone else can work for me, I am fine either waiting, or starting a new one up
Dark Muse, if I pick a story for next month, I promise I will try very hard to choose one with a very nice, congenial (not mean) woman character.;) :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
My vote probably would be to do a story, since I don't have too much going on next month. I may join in the book discussion, if "Dubliners" is chosen; but those are short stories also, so I could just jump in for the ones I truly liked, in the collection. How about you, DM, do you plan on joining in that discussion, also? I see you have been over in "TNOTR"...since I am only listening to the audiobooks, which at this point I am totally lost and confused about the plot, I might try to read the novel next month at my leisure.
Well right now I am reading A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, and well that is enough Joyce at one time for me. I looking forward to just getting that one over with so I can start something else.
Oh I think Dubliners will be chosen. OK, perhaps I'll try to squeeze in a Lawrence story. :)
Virgil, if we do a story and you can't fit it in this month, that is no big deal really. We will understand. You will be missed, but we will understand that you can take a break. Do so, whenever you need one. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
You read "Dubliners" before didn't you? I thought I would just discuss the stories, that interested me most from the collection, or just read the comments to learn more about those stories I might not have comprehended fully.
OK, but then I feel guilty about not having read one. I'd hate to miss out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Several of the stories I've read a few times. I think I've read them all at least once. I can't imagine doing the stories in the detail we do here. There are at least a dozen and we have the month. Here we do a story a month. It should be intersting, even though i voted for something else.Quote:
You read "Dubliners" before didn't you? I thought I would just discuss the stories, that interested me most from the collection, or just read the comments to learn more about those stories I might not have comprehended fully.
I knew you would say that. I would probably feel the same way. Maybe you could let me know the stories that you have read, ones that we have not as yet. I will PM you about them today. I had some ideas and I will pass them by you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Yes, really....I think if they do pick "Dubliners" (and it looks that way) they don't know what they are in for. Each story really needs about a month. Awhile back, everyone voted to do all the Oscar Wilde fairytales. Guess what happened? A few of us read them; I read about 5 online, which I don't relish doing. I know Pensive read some. So come time to talk about them - no one shows up, I checked on it for weeks and if they did show up, it must have been in the last days of the thread.Quote:
Several of the stories I've read a few times. I think I've read them all at least once. I can't imagine doing the stories in the detail we do here. There are at least a dozen and we have the month. Here we do a story a month. It should be intersting, even though i voted for something else.
Ok, now we are suppose to be discussing for this month "Tale of Two Cities" -it is already the 19th of the month and only two people are basically discussing the book - myself and manolia, occasionally Pensive has commented. It is going very, very slowly....but that is ok, as long as we keep discussing it even after the month is up. I can't really see how we can possibly discuss the whole book come March 1. I am beginning to wonder about these time limits to monthly books, but the one saving grace in this ATOTC thread, is that manolia says she will discuss the book with me privately/or in the thread, even when the month is up. She wrote me a sweet PM today to let me know she read my last two posts, and will answer them in a day or so. It is just that I am wondering where are the other people who voted on this book? So this is my pet-peeve. Actually, I think this book was designated as the 'Valentine's Day' read.
Ok, so with "Dubliners", in my opinion, the book needs a thread of it's own, like this thread. It needs for the entire book at least a year's attention for - one or two stories per month. Joyce, like Lawrence and Chehkov, is a very complex author. As with Chekhov and Lawrence, we have needed whole thread that is ongoing, without any limited time set. With Joyce's novel, I can't imagine what kind of structure the discussion will take on a book of short stories. Will they start with the first one and go from there? I need to post these question directly to the Dubliners thread when it is started in March, I suppose.
Well, I just had to speak my mind here and vent a little. I know I have done a lot of work preparing for the various discussions on some books, that have totally flopped in discussion lately. I was enthused about one recently and two people dominated the discussion with political opinions (no names mentioned). It got to be really annoying, so I admit, I finally just dropped out; and I know other people did the same. I kept wondering when they would actually discuss the book and the characters. By the time I was done wondering, the next month was upon us.
Virgil, maybe I am just being crabby!;) :lol: