D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

Printable View

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

05-09-2009, 01:15 AM
Dark Muse

While one cannot really make a case for Alfred being impotent since there is evidence to prove otherwise I do agree with Virgil that the peacock is a strong symbol for the male.

The image of Joey in the snow might resemble the image of a fallen soldier, but peacocks are far more representative of maleness then they are of war. Particularly the specific attention which is drawn to the crew of the bird, as it is pointed out more than once within this scene.

Quote:

He looked so pathetic, rowing and struggling in the snow, too spent to rise, his blue neck stretching out and lying sometimes on the snow, his eye closing and opening quickly, his crest all battered.

Quote:

Still he held his poor, crested head away from me, and seemed sometimes to droop, to wilt, as if he might suddenly die.

Quote:

Sometimes he stirred, but mostly he huddled still, leaning his queer crested head on one side.

While war tends to often linger in the background of Lawrence's stories, I would argue that they are not the main point of his stories. I believe that this story does have a focus on gender roles and Lawrence's ideas about men and women, and the relationships between men and women, and men and men.
05-09-2009, 01:24 AM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Even though this may be true of Lawrence, it just doesn't fit in this story. To try to apply it forces it and makes it unrealistic. I won't say that you're wrong. I can see the symbolism in the wording, but it does not fit with the story overall. What men are mentioned in the story: the narrator, Alfred, and Alfred's father. Help me to see it by answering these questions:

How does the impotence theme fit as being applied to the narrator?
How does the impotence theme fit as being applied to Alfred?
How does the impotence theme fit as being applied to Alfred's father?
What other men might I have missed that this could apply to?

On the other hand, we could very well apply this to OTHER aspects of Alfred's manhood. I don't see Alfred as being one to be able to manage the family farm. Not only is he lame, but he doesn't show the attributes of responsibility. But if we are talking about Alfred's deficiency in these areas, then it would not really be accurate describing this as a phallic symbol...(or anti-phallic as it may be).

I'm not sure I ever said anything about impotence. Did I? It's not so much that any male is impotent, it's that society has lost potency.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

While one cannot really make a case for Alfred being impotent since there is evidence to prove otherwise I do agree with Virgil that the peacock is a strong symbol for the male.

The image of Joey in the snow might resemble the image of a fallen soldier, but peacocks are far more representative of maleness then they are of war. Particularly the specific attention which is drawn to the crew of the bird, as it is pointed out more than once within this scene.

While war tends to often linger in the background of Lawrence's stories, I would argue that they are not the main point of his stories. I believe that this story does have a focus on gender roles and Lawrence's ideas about men and women, and the relationships between men and women, and men and men.

I would agree with just about everything you say here. I do think that the war is very prominant in this story. While there is no war going on, its impact is felt in every event: the estrangement between husband and wife, the pregnancy, the wounded leg.
05-09-2009, 01:26 AM
BienvenuJDC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

While war tends to often linger in the background of Lawrence's stories, I would argue that they are not the main point of his stories. I believe that this story does have a focus on gender roles and Lawrence's ideas about men and women, and the relationships between men and women, and men and men.

I can definitely agree that there are very strong elements of gender roles. However, sex is a very small part of gender roles. To force the sexual overtones, is like the Freudian applications of sex to every aspect of life. In my opinion, Freud was perverted, and we should be careful not to follow his pattern too far.
05-09-2009, 01:29 AM
BienvenuJDC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

Notice the description of the bird:

"snow-wet," "spent," "too spent to rise," "his eye closing and opening," "crested head," "droop," "wilt," "as if he might suddenly die." :lol:

Here is where Lawrence really makes the association of the bird with a phallus. I know, Janine, I always have this on my mind. But Lawrence is always talking about this. The phallus was the central connection to blood consciousness.

I may have misunderstood these points mentioned to be phallus symbols of impotence.
05-09-2009, 01:33 AM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I can definitely agree that there are very strong elements of gender roles. However, sex is a very small part of gender roles. To force the sexual overtones, is like the Freudian applications of sex to every aspect of life. In my opinion, Freud was perverted, and we should be careful not to follow his pattern too far.

Bien I agree with you that Freud is a crock. However, while Lawrence wasn't necessarily a Freudian he does essentially buy into the subconscious-dominates-a-person stuff. It was the ideas of his times.
05-09-2009, 03:21 AM
Dark Muse

Quote:

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I can definitely agree that there are very strong elements of gender roles. However, sex is a very small part of gender roles. To force the sexual overtones, is like the Freudian applications of sex to every aspect of life. In my opinion, Freud was perverted, and we should be careful not to follow his pattern too far.

While I am no fan of Frued, D.H. Lawrence can be seen as being somewhat preverse himself at times. Many of his stories do very strongly deal with sex and sexulaity and so it is valid to consider the question of sex. A lot of his prose does often tend to have very strong errotic connotations.
05-09-2009, 08:53 AM
BienvenuJDC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

While I am no fan of Freud, D.H. Lawrence can be seen as being somewhat perverse himself at times. Many of his stories do very strongly deal with sex and sexuality and so it is valid to consider the question of sex. A lot of his prose does often tend to have very strong erotic connotations.

I do respect all of you who have read many DHL works. To know the author as well as you all do helps to understand certain aspects of the style in which the story was written. But may I suggest that the perspective from which I myself am reading may give a purer outlook. I have never read any of DHL's works. Maybe those of you who have read and are familiar with his works are trying to force his typical style into this work. Maybe you are right...too!

But from my perspective, it doesn't seem to fit, and it seems very unnaturally forced. It doesn't add anything conducive for me to interpret the work.

If you can understand this example: I can get to New Jersey by way of New York from Pennsylvania, but it is unnecessary.
05-09-2009, 02:54 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I do respect all of you who have read many DHL works. To know the author as well as you all do helps to understand certain aspects of the style in which the story was written. But may I suggest that the perspective from which I myself am reading may give a purer outlook. I have never read any of DHL's works. Maybe those of you who have read and are familiar with his works are trying to force his typical style into this work. Maybe you are right...too!

But from my perspective, it doesn't seem to fit, and it seems very unnaturally forced. It doesn't add anything conducive for me to interpret the work.

If you can understand this example: I can get to New Jersey by way of New York from Pennsylvania, but it is unnecessary.

I think that, whether Lawrence intended these sexual overtones or undertones, is something very subjective and individual; I feel in this story, the sexual aspects truly are not the main focus. I still hold true that the war and the fall of man/society is prominent here. I think that, Lawrence sees the corrupt aspect of one society occupying the land of another society, thus the aspect of the child being born out of wedlock, the father abandoning that child, the wife at home being hurt (wounded) by this fact....all these aspects of the story do come about by sexual indecrecion, but the bigger picture is the war, which has brought about this situation. It becomes very clear to me in that first paragraph, describing the snowstorm, that this is the theme that Lawrence is conveying. Also, as Virgil points out, there are basic aspects throughout this story that are prominent and common in wartime - "the estrangement between husband and wife, the pregnancy, the wounded leg". Since this story is included in a collection, compiled by Lawrence himself, "England My England", in which every story in this collection does have a war theme within the subtext, I think that says something about the basic theme put forth by this story. I probably am the one who mentioned 'impotence', but I do feel this story says something about that on a grander scale than just sexual; it was Virgil's pointing out the specific words about the struggling peacock, that lead to to make the statement; but that same description could be that of a wounded soldier; maybe even Alfred himself - who knows what wounds he sustained on his leg, how long he went through recovery, how bad off he might have been? It could also be that in loosing a limb or wounding a leg, a man would then feel an inflated masculinity and no longer feel a man/male. I wasn't necessarily pointing to he male equipment. If you think about it, Alfred was wounded; I had the impression he was nursed back to health by this foreign woman, but I could be wrong about that fact. Perhaps since we see his wife as critical of him and suspicious, we can imagine, he sought solace elsewhere with a woman who did not see his wounds as inflating his masculinity. In this respect the war having caused his wound may have then made him more vulnerable, and open to the affair he had in Belgium. It is, as Virgil, pointed out "that society has lost potency." Yes, and one might add 'decency' and 'morality' to that, in the case of Alfred getting the young woman pregnant; and even if she pursued him, the irresponsibility of this action during this unnatural time of war would be themetic. As jinjang pointed out earlier, this is common to many countries and is still going on today, which is quite sad. This is, therefore, a universal theme/story, which is now timeless. I don't think Lawrence is blaming anyone here, but rather looking beyond that to the horrible aspect of war - quite unnatural - which spawns incidents such as this; causing further corrosion to society and it's moral fiber.

Dark Muse, I don't think this is a negation.

Quote:

The image of Joey in the snow might resemble the image of a fallen soldier, but peacocks are far more representative of maleness then they are of war. Particularly the specific attention which is drawn to the crew of the bird, as it is pointed out more than once within this scene.

I see, in this time period and way of thinking, that the male/man is the one to go off to war; therefore, the peacock would naturally represent the male in all his glory; perhaps even reminescent of men bedecked with glorious uniforms going off to war. But I think the bird respresents more than a sexual/phallic image. I do see that Maggie is very much rooted to the earth and the beings on earth - birds, cows, the farm in general; in this way, the peacock does represent Lawrence's idea of 'blood consciousness', as Virgil pointed out earlier. Now in reverse, Alfred has been free to leave the farm and do as he pleases in wartime. I think this 'marital separation' is one aspect of the war causing demise to society and the strength of families and marriages.

And Bien, I totally understand you and agree on many points. Some of us do have prior knowledge into certain aspects of Lawrence's thinking and writing and the background influences as well. However, fresh perspectives are a great advantage as well. Therefore, I don't see this as a draw-back on your part. I like to hear you take on the story from that new perspective. Same would apply to jinjang who is new or any other new posters in this thread. I agree with you, that they sexual elements might be there but I believe they are secondary to the main theme as I expressed above.
05-09-2009, 03:13 PM
BienvenuJDC

Great points!
Expounding on the idea of blame. There has been much discussion about blame, but I think that we dwell too much on blame. My wife and I have struggled with this (in little things). It doesn't matter WHOSE fault it is, but WHAT is the best course of action for us all in order to make the best of our lives.

You also bring up a good point about the Belgium girl nursing Alfred back to health. Alfred may not be as NO GOOD as he seems. Maybe he got caught up in am emotional affair, receiving affections and attention that he'd not received before. This by NO MEANS is excuse for what he did, that was WRONG. But what would others have done in his situation. He is now without the complete use of one leg. One question that I have: Can Alfred make something GOOD of himself if given the chance? Yes, he can. Just as well as anyone else. Jean Valjean made mistakes...and Jean Valjean changed. Why? Because of a man that the people labeled as Bienvenu.

Remember this, my friends: there are no such things as bad plants or bad men. There are only bad cultivators.
05-09-2009, 09:02 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

I think that, whether Lawrence intended these sexual overtones or undertones, is something very subjective and individual; I feel in this story, the sexual aspects truly are not the main focus. I still hold true that the war and the fall of man/society is prominent here. I think that, Lawrence sees the corrupt aspect of one society occupying the land of another society, thus the aspect of the child being born out of wedlock, the father abandoning that child, the wife at home being hurt (wounded) by this fact....all these aspects of the story do come about by sexual indecrecion, but the bigger picture is the war, which has brought about this situation. It becomes very clear to me in that first paragraph, describing the snowstorm, that this is the theme that Lawrence is conveying. Also, as Virgil points out, there are basic aspects throughout this story that are prominent and common in wartime - "the estrangement between husband and wife, the pregnancy, the wounded leg". Since this story is included in a collection, compiled by Lawrence himself, "England My England", in which every story in this collection does have a war theme within the subtext, I think that says something about the basic theme put forth by this story. I probably am the one who mentioned 'impotence', but I do feel this story says something about that on a grander scale than just sexual; it was Virgil's pointing out the specific words about the struggling peacock, that lead to to make the statement; but that same description could be that of a wounded soldier; maybe even Alfred himself - who knows what wounds he sustained on his leg, how long he went through recovery, how bad off he might have been? It could also be that in loosing a limb or wounding a leg, a man would then feel an inflated masculinity and no longer feel a man/male. I wasn't necessarily pointing to he male equipment. If you think about it, Alfred was wounded; I had the impression he was nursed back to health by this foreign woman, but I could be wrong about that fact. Perhaps since we see his wife as critical of him and suspicious, we can imagine, he sought solace elsewhere with a woman who did not see his wounds as inflating his masculinity. In this respect the war having caused his wound may have then made him more vulnerable, and open to the affair he had in Belgium. It is, as Virgil, pointed out "that society has lost potency." Yes, and one might add 'decency' and 'morality' to that, in the case of Alfred getting the young woman pregnant; and even if she pursued him, the irresponsibility of this action during this unnatural time of war would be themetic. As jinjang pointed out earlier, this is common to many countries and is still going on today, which is quite sad. This is, therefore, a universal theme/story, which is now timeless. I don't think Lawrence is blaming anyone here, but rather looking beyond that to the horrible aspect of war - quite unnatural - which spawns incidents such as this; causing further corrosion to society and it's moral fiber.

That is extremely well said Janine. :thumbs_up Perhaps I need to clarify the sexual connotations in the story. I don't mean to say that the characters are not capable of having or performing sex. I mean that the war has perverted the gender roles of the characters and that to Lawrence leads to a perversion of the normative structure of society. For Lawrence, Alfred is not acting as a proper male (and possibly even the narrator, though that may be less clear) and Maggie is not acting as the proper female.
05-09-2009, 09:05 PM
BienvenuJDC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

That is extremely well said Janine. :thumbs_up Perhaps I need to clarify the sexual connotations in the story. I don't mean to say that the characters are not capable of having or performing sex. I mean that the war has perverted the gender roles of the characters and that to Lawrence leads to a perversion of the normative structure of society. For Lawrence, Alfred is not acting as a proper male (and possibly even the narrator, though that may be less clear) and Maggie is not acting as the proper female.

GREAT!
Didn't WWII also change the gender roles in America?
05-09-2009, 09:08 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

GREAT!
Didn't WWII also change the gender roles in America?

Bien, you are confusing the real world with Lawrence's short story. I am explaining what Lawrence means by his short story, not whether I support it or whether it reflects reality. This is Lawrence's vision and ideas. Not mine or anyone else's.
05-09-2009, 09:31 PM
BienvenuJDC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

Bien, you are confusing the real world with Lawrence's short story. I am explaining what Lawrence means by his short story, not whether I support it or whether it reflects reality. This is Lawrence's vision and ideas. Not mine or anyone else's.

okay...............
...But didn't WWII change gender roles? Rosie? Women in the work force? Would you admit that men going off to war often put women into the roles that the men had to leave behind? Therefore...wouldn't DHL have been justified in his thoughts about disrupted gender roles due to war?
05-09-2009, 09:33 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

Bien, you are confusing the real world with Lawrence's short story. I am explaining what Lawrence means by his short story, not whether I support it or whether it reflects reality. This is Lawrence's vision and ideas. Not mine or anyone else's.

Gee wiz, Virgil, coming down a little hard on poor Bienvenu aren't you? (maybe you should keep you signature Byron quote:lol:). I didn't see where he was confusing real life with this story. I think he was just making a random statement that WWII, also caused further gender role changes. When Lawrence wrote 'Wintry Peacock' this earlier time-span, it was a time that was very significant for woman's rights - woman getting the vote, woman pushing ahead for equal right in many aspects of employment, woman authors voicing their opinions, etc. By WWII, women had the vote and they even took part in the war effort directly.

Virgil, thanks for your compliments on my post. That really meant a lot to me. Somedays, for some odd reason one can think more clearly than other days - must be from playing Shared and 3 person Haiku;)...sharpens the brain. Today I felt I had clearer insight into the whole issue you broached. Your and Bien's former posts lead to mine; they both made me think this out, looking at the bigger picture of the story.
05-09-2009, 10:23 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Gee wiz, Virgil, coming down a little hard on poor Bienvenu aren't you? (maybe you should keep you signature Byron quote:lol:). I didn't see where he was confusing real life with this story. I think he was just making a random statement that WWII, also caused further gender role changes. When Lawrence wrote 'Wintry Peacock' this earlier time-span, it was a time that was very significant for woman's rights - woman getting the vote, woman pushing ahead for equal right in many aspects of employment, woman authors voicing their opinions, etc. By WWII, women had the vote and they even took part in the war effort directly.

Was I? I didn't mean to be.

Quote:

Virgil, thanks for your compliments on my post. That really meant a lot to me. Somedays, for some odd reason one can think more clearly than other days - must be from playing Shared and 3 person Haiku;)...sharpens the brain. Today I felt I had clearer insight into the whole issue you broached. Your and Bien's former posts lead to mine; they both made me think this out, looking at the bigger picture of the story.

This is a fine story Janine, with incredible subtlety.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

okay...............
...But didn't WWII change gender roles? Rosie? Women in the work force? Would you admit that men going off to war often put women into the roles that the men had to leave behind? Therefore...wouldn't DHL have been justified in his thoughts about disrupted gender roles due to war?

Yes, absolutely. I think the gender roles in England may have been drastically changed in WWI, and in the US in WWII. And yes lawrence blamed the war for a lot of society's problems. Actually it was reciprical. He saw the modern industrial world as leading to the war (that's not in this story) and then the war having a terrible effect on society as well.

I apologize Bien if I came across as harsh. I didn't mean to be harsh. I thought your last few posts were straying from the story. But as I look back it was more my impression than so.
05-09-2009, 10:32 PM
BienvenuJDC

That's alright...I often see things from a very wide perspective...I see things from the space shuttle and people may not see where I'm getting things. It's funny that DHL never addressed the space program here. You'd think that he would have mentioned something that huge...
05-09-2009, 10:36 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

Was I? I didn't mean to be.

:lol: yes, you can be a real meanie sometimes, but we'll forgive you.

Quote:

This is a fine story Janine, with incredible subtlety.

I thought so the first time I read it; but, actually on repeat readings, I find it much deeper than I first thought. I thought it would be a good easy one to discuss - well how wrong I was on that prediction. It is turning out to be a very fascinating story, with much deeper/darker connotations, and I like that.

Quote:

Yes, absolutely. I think the gender roles in England may have been drastically changed in WWI, and in the US in WWII. And yes lawrence blamed the war for a lot of society's problems. Actually it was reciprical. He saw the modern industrial world as leading to the war (that's not in this story) and then the war having a terrible effect on society as well.

I apologize Bien if I came across as harsh. I didn't mean to be harsh. I thought your last few posts were straying from the story. But as I look back it was more my impression than so.

These last two are to Bien, I know; but Virgil, my good friend, I am very proud of you at this moment for appologising to Bien for misinterpreting his post. That is very fair.

Now you can remove the B,M,D from your signature! :lol:
05-09-2009, 10:39 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

That's alright...I often see things from a very wide perspective...I see things from the space shuttle and people may not see where I'm getting things. It's funny that DHL never addressed the space program here. You'd think that he would have mentioned something that huge...

Bien, in 1919? Was there even a space program at the time? :alien:
05-09-2009, 10:46 PM
BienvenuJDC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Bien, in 1919? Was there even a space program at the time? :alien:

Well...not that the governmental officials let on...but the documents in Roswell were doctored to read the 1950s...the first space program was lead by Captain Verne according to his memoirs in 1865. But it was kept a secret until the 1950s, when there was a governmental cover-up in Roswell. Few people actually know this because officials spread misinformation by feeding rednecks with false reports.
05-09-2009, 10:54 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Well...not that the governmental officials let on...but the documents in Roswell were doctored to read the 1950s...the first space program was lead by Captain Verne according to his memoirs in 1865. But it was kept a secret until the 1950s, when there was a governmental cover-up in Roswell. Few people actually know this because officials spread misinformation by feeding rednecks with false reports.

:rolleyes:...did you read this in a Michael Crichton novel - maybe Airspace? Isn't Roswell where they claim they found cattle slaughter by aliens? Of course, this is all bordering on the political, so we better not further explore this in this thread, or they will be giving us a warning. I think Lawrence would have this knowledge in 1919, although he liked stargazing emensely and mentions the heavens and stars often in his work; they are very significant to his philosophy, so maybe he knew something we didn't know...:alien:
05-09-2009, 11:00 PM
BienvenuJDC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

:rolleyes:...did you read this in a Michael Crichton novel - maybe Airspace? Isn't Roswell where they claim they found cattle slaughter by aliens? Of course, this is all bordering on the political, so we better not further explore this in this thread, or they will be giving us a warning. I think Lawrence would have this knowledge in 1919, although he liked stargazing emensely and mentions the heavens and stars often in his work; they are very significant to his philosophy, so maybe he knew something we didn't know...:alien:

No...this just came off the top of my head. Captain Verne...Jules Verne From the earth to the Moon written in 1865. And the politics in this context would not be current politics as is mention in the rules...:)...and the reports in Roswell...as I said... was a cover-up. So..IF...DHL did read the works of Jules Verne, then that was his own loss...;)
05-09-2009, 11:06 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

No...this just came off the top of my head. Captain Verne...Jules Verne From the earth to the Moon written in 1865. And the politics in this context would not be current politics as is mention in the rules...:)...and the reports in Roswell...as I said... was a cover-up. So..IF...DHL did read the works of Jules Verne, then that was his own loss...;)

Ok, got your drift now. I can't imagine, that Lawrence would read Jules Verne, but one never knows.
05-11-2009, 05:08 AM
Sapphire

Hi all :D

I am reading this discussion with great interest. I hope you guys do not mind that I keep silent most of the time - I just had a hard time getting my mind around it all and have an actual opinion on this story (I still do not really see the point of the story). Your talking definitely helps me - I would have never, ever thought all this behind it :eek2:

I do have one question about the part that is being discussed now:
Why on earth is the narrator suddenly talking about "WE" when he talks about rescuing the bird?
Who is the "we"? Is it his sister? His wife? His mother? Who is he living with in that house? And how long has he lived there? If he lives in the English country side, and is so familiar with the ground that he can find his way over rocks in heavy snow - why does he not know his neighbours? He only mentions talking to her once ("in summer"), not even indicating that he knows her name. Do people not talk in that part of the country? Is rumour not part of country life? Maybe it is because she lives not really next to him? But definitely on walking distance...
I realize I am asking questions that can only be answered by imagination :brickwall, not by reading the story more carefully. I guess I should stick with
Why does Lawrence switch to "we" in this part of the story, never to return to it again?
Maybe he wants to imply that the narrator is no bachelor but knows married life?

Another thing which is nagging me since I read this story but does not really relate to it is this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by fourth alinea

But her gloomy black eyes softened caressively to me for a moment, with that momentary humility which makes a man lord of the earth.

I am sure I read that line before, or something in that sense. I am not sure it was one of Mr. Lawrence books I read it in though... Actually, I think it was a Thomas Hardy book... I tried to find it again but I did not succeed.
Not important, but it is nagging me. Like a song you have in your head but do not know the title or singer to.

As for where the sympathy of the writer is - I think he likes the person of Albert's father best. He describes him quite nicely, though I do not understand half of what he is saying. And maybe it is not the writer who is sympathetic with him, but rather Maggie. Ow well, we will get to that part later.
He definitely does not care for Elize. She is coming over to England, but the narrator does not even tell Albert to let him make up his own mind about meeting her or not (he is really manipulating lives there)! None of the people in the story seem to care a bit for that girl. Except Maggie, or at least she utters some concern about Albert not telling her he is married...
05-11-2009, 03:51 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sapphire

Hi all :D

I am reading this discussion with great interest. I hope you guys do not mind that I keep silent most of the time - I just had a hard time getting my mind around it all and have an actual opinion on this story (I still do not really see the point of the story). Your talking definitely helps me - I would have never, ever thought all this behind it :eek2:

Saphire, I am happy to hear this; this makes the discussion more worthwhile. I am glad some things are being pointed out here that you would not have thought of. Lawrence was a fine short story writer and his work does make great use of repetition and of percieve it. After reading so many of Lawrence's stories and books, I can pretty much spot it; although some of the parts in this story I did not see right off, but only after several readings and closer consideration of the actual text. My research into where Lawrence and his wife Frieda were living at this time, greatly aided in this "war" theme intrepretation; also the time period and state of politics in England. Also, knowing this plays behind the scenes of the novel "Women in Love", made me realise this desolute winter scene was much more than an interesting landscape.

Quote:

I do have one question about the part that is being discussed now:
Why on earth is the narrator suddenly talking about "WE" when he talks about rescuing the bird?

"Maybe he wants to imply that the narrator is no bachelor but knows married life?"

Definitely, I believe you answered your own question here. Indeed, at the time Lawrence and his wife Frieda occuppied a small cottage in this remote area of England. They only were here a short time, and then traveled on to other countries and notably Australia; then later they were quite nomadic in their frequent changes of residence and locations, of which Lawrence wrote stories and books reflecting surroundings. I happen to have bought a book not long ago called "The Minoan Distance", which explores Lawrence's travels and their influences on his work.

Quote:

Who is the "we"? Is it his sister? His wife? His mother? Who is he living with in that house? And how long has he lived there? If he lives in the English country side, and is so familiar with the ground that he can find his way over rocks in heavy snow - why does he not know his neighbours? He only mentions talking to her once ("in summer"), not even indicating that he knows her name. Do people not talk in that part of the country? Is rumour not part of country life? Maybe it is because she lives not really next to him? But definitely on walking distance...

The "we" is definitely Lawrence and his wife, Frieda. As far as the Lawrence's being in contact with others in the area at this time, I can tell you they would have kept very much to themselves and also deliberately kept a low profile, while still residing in England. Lawrence, in this period of his life, was constantly being hounded by authorities; his work had caused quite a stir, even as it does in this thread;):lol: today. Also, he was scrutinized by the fact, that his wife was of pure German decent, and not only that, but had a famous brother know to many in WWI as the Red Baron. Add to that the fact that Frieda was aristocratic by birth and you have a tricky situation to find yourself in in conservative England during the war. Therefore, having any relative on the opposing side of the war, would have made anyone instantly suspicious to the authorities. Lawrence and Frieda were residing, prior to this area, in Cornwall in a small cottage by the sea; it was there they were visited suddenly at night and harrassed by police and accused of spying for the German side; they were suspected of sending out signals at night to the boats off the coast. Of course, this was totally false and completely ludicrious; however, as the saying goes 'one can't fight city hall', or the government. At that time, their harsh treatment (they were flatly told to leave the house and never return) had quite made Lawrence determined to flea from England and never return to his native country again. He planned on going to America, but postponed that trip, to first go to Australia. So, my point here is, the Lawrence's would not have mingled, nor gossiped, with the neighboring farm occupants; I am sure they would be afraid to. It is quite feasible that this woman, was someone the narrator (Lawrence) had met only once. They were not in this area very long. Their residence was a temporary one. If you know the history behind the author, it is not hard to imagine some of the things he is saying or implying here.

Quote:

I realize I am asking questions that can only be answered by imagination :brickwall, not by reading the story more carefully. I guess I should stick with
Why does Lawrence switch to "we" in this part of the story, never to return to it again?
Maybe he wants to imply that the narrator is no bachelor but knows married life?

I answered that above. Definitely, this does connect him more closely to the story of a husband and wife in turmoil. Within Lawrence's own marriage, there was often much turmoil, as well. If anything, this might be one of their more peaceful times, while living in this secluded part of the country.

Quote:

Another thing which is nagging me since I read this story but does not really relate to it is this:

I am sure I read that line before, or something in that sense. I am not sure it was one of Mr. Lawrence books I read it in though... Actually, I think it was a Thomas Hardy book... I tried to find it again but I did not succeed.
Not important, but it is nagging me. Like a song you have in your head but do not know the title or singer to.

Saphire, did you read Lawrence's "Sons and Lovers"? I think this line or a similar one may have been in this novel; if so, it would have concerned Miriam; who was fashioned after Lawrence's childhood woman friend and eventual lover, Jesse Chambers. This line reminds me of her eyes, because he spoke of her eyes as large brown brooding eyes, often downcast; in this case, he is saying "gloomy black eyes". He may have referred to Miriam's eyes in this way. He also referred to another character in his short story "Witch Ala Mode" similarly, based on his woman friend, Helen. I believe and their he sights the eyes as 'witchy' or 'witch-like'. This 'gloomy' or 'brooding' eye phrase is very common throughout may of Lawrence's stories. It could also, be found within a Hardy novel, since Lawrence was influenced by Hardy's work. I have read most of Hardy and most of Lawrence; therefore, I think it's an 'either-or' possibilty, but mostly I thought of his descriptions of Miriam right off when encountering that phrase and statement.

Quote:

As for where the sympathy of the writer is - I think he likes the person of Albert's father best. He describes him quite nicely, though I do not understand half of what he is saying. And maybe it is not the writer who is sympathetic with him, but rather Maggie. Ow well, we will get to that part later.

Could be and that might relate to the narrator's (be it Lawrence) own father, who was 'salt of the earth'. He would have spoken in the 'heart' speech, as Lawrence referred to it. If you read Lawrence's poem, "Violets", the local venacular is very hard to decern and understand, but several readings will reveal the meaning of the poem - think "the smell of flowers and the smell of death". This he would have referred to as heart language; whereas, his mother's speech would have been more proper (high)English, which he would have referred to as 'head' speech.

Interesting thought that the woman/wife - Maggie - would be the only one sympathetic to the other woman. I can see where that would be how Lawrence would present it and I think you might be correct. The women have a common bond and so do the men. This story is very much about the battle of the sexes I believe. Although, we never see the wife of the narrator, I would surmise, knowning something of his real wife that she also would sympathise with the women on this matter. Lawrence's wife was pretty independent, modern and fiesty.

Quote:

He definitely does not care for Elize. She is coming over to England, but the narrator does not even tell Albert to let him make up his own mind about meeting her or not (he is really manipulating lives there)! None of the people in the story seem to care a bit for that girl. Except Maggie, or at least she utters some concern about Albert not telling her he is married...

Do you think the woman will really come to England? This is something I greatly doubt. How in the world would she ever locate Alfred? Of course, she has his address; but still, it's a long shot she would make it to England with a child to seek him out. I think the narrator would be smart enough to realise this would end with that letter being destroyed. Even if the narrator had not read the letter, most likely the wife (Maggie) would not have delivered it to her husband. Even if he had know of the possibilty, I doubt he would have done anything different. He'd have his mother, father, and his wife to contend with.
05-11-2009, 04:22 PM
jinjang

While I could not stay here long over the weekend, you all moved ahead a great deal. Let me slowly catch up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

(S)he does not at any rate appear to be a weak woman, she does come off as rather forward and strong-willed.

Emmy Castrol mentioned how she was reluctant to think Maggie as a charming person. Strong-willed women are not charming, some men say. No matter how we women view her, we could consider the possibility that Maggie is unattractive to men, to the narrator and even to her husband. If she has some qualities that dispel men, your point on the two men’s silent plotting against Maggie or women in general comes off strongly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

My point was…how the crest directly indicates "maleness" and the "male pride" and this Joey in this scene reflects ideas of maleness

I concurred that "Wintry Peacock" is still then manhood with its proud ego.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

Here is where Lawrence really makes the association of the bird with a phallus. I know, Janine, I always have this on my mind. But Lawrence is always talking about this. The phallus was the central connection to blood consciousness.

Since male ego seems tied strongly to the functioning phallus, as Virgil said, it could mean Maggie upends Alfred in their fight as long as she has a solid proof to blame him with and as long as Alfred does not know she does not have the solid proof any more. Maggie did not tell Alfred what the narrator read in the letter. I am considering she was clever and manipulative in her silence over the letter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

If you read my former posts, I thought that whole winter scene very reminescent of the war and even the landscape of the war, such as the trenches and the barbed wire, etc; also the fallen soldier which I felt was the image of the bird struggling in the snow; it's also a analogy of survival of the fittest. The black and white references are significant in that they show the contrast between survival and death.

I think Virgil and Janine are saying the same thing in very different approaches. The war is between men and women and, at the moment, the men is defeated without weapons to fight back.

Thank you, Virgil, for the reference to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/dhlawren.htm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I don't see Alfred as being one to be able to manage the family farm. Not only is he lame, but he doesn't show the attributes of responsibility. But if we are talking about Alfred's deficiency in these areas, then it would not really be accurate describing this as a phallic symbol...(or anti-phallic as it may be).

I agree with you on “Alfred’s deficiency.” If a man or woman can not settle on one thing and keeps moving from one to another, it is a sure sign of a loser in his or her life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

While war tends to often linger in the background of Lawrence's stories, I would argue that they are not the main point of his stories. I believe that this story does have a focus on gender roles and Lawrence's ideas about men and women, and the relationships between men and women, and men and men.

Along with the war on the background, your point certainly seems applicable to this story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I do respect all of you who have read many DHL works. To know the author as well as you all do helps to understand certain aspects of the style in which the story was written. But may I suggest that the perspective from which I myself am reading may give a purer outlook. I have never read any of DHL's works. Maybe those of you who have read and are familiar with his works are trying to force his typical style into this work. Maybe you are right...too!

Yes… we all in this discussion may disagree without being wrong. I think Lawrence mapped the story with ambiguity rooted in. I think Janine agrees with me with her statement: “I think that, whether Lawrence intended these sexual overtones or undertones, is something very subjective and individual.”
05-11-2009, 08:07 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sapphire

Why does Lawrence switch to "we" in this part of the story, never to return to it again?

That is strange. I take it the narrator doesn't live alone and he is referring to whomever lives with him. I had not really noticed that. Thanks Saphire. I don't know if it has any significance but it certainly is odd.

Quote:

As for where the sympathy of the writer is - I think he likes the person of Albert's father best. He describes him quite nicely, though I do not understand half of what he is saying. And maybe it is not the writer who is sympathetic with him, but rather Maggie. Ow well, we will get to that part later.
He definitely does not care for Elize. She is coming over to England, but the narrator does not even tell Albert to let him make up his own mind about meeting her or not (he is really manipulating lives there)! None of the people in the story seem to care a bit for that girl. Except Maggie, or at least she utters some concern about Albert not telling her he is married... [/color]

Completely agree. The only person who has Lawrence's sympathy is the father, the person from the previous generation. Lawrence always loves those old world types. Notice the father speaks with that thick peasant accent. Lawrence is definitely anti-modern.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinjang

I concurred that "Wintry Peacock" is still then manhood with its proud ego.

Lawrence loves that theme. Let me also say that Janine just gets a kick out of me bringing up phalluses. It's not like I got penises on my mind. :lol: It can't be helped in a Lawrence work. The penis for Lawrence is the source of religious contact with the divine. Hope that doesn't shock people, but that's Lawrence. If you get a chance, read Lady Chatterly's Lover and see the significance of penises. ;)

Quote:

Since male ego seems tied strongly to the functioning phallus, as Virgil said, it could mean Maggie upends Alfred in their fight as long as she has a solid proof to blame him with and as long as Alfred does not know she does not have the solid proof any more. Maggie did not tell Alfred what the narrator read in the letter. I am considering she was clever and manipulative in her silence over the letter.

Everyone is manipulative in this story. Actually the way I would phrase it is that everyone participates in some form of dishonest communication in the story, everyone, that is, but the father.

Quote:

I think Virgil and Janine are saying the same thing in very different approaches. The war is between men and women and, at the moment, the men is defeated without weapons to fight back.

;) Yes.

Quote:

Thank you, Virgil, for the reference to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/dhlawren.htm.

You're welcome.
05-11-2009, 08:19 PM
Dark Muse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sapphire

[color="blue"]He definitely does not care for Elize. She is coming over to England, but the narrator does not even tell Albert to let him make up his own mind about meeting her or not (he is really manipulating lives there)!

Toward the end the Narrator does ask Alfred if he has any intent to see the girl again and his response was

Quote:

"Not me," he said. "Back your life it's a plant."

So Alfred clearly did make up his own mind about his thoughts on seeing the other girl and he even expressed doubts as to whather or not he truly was the father of the baby.

Perhaps this is the reason the narrator did not tell Alfred about her comming, not becuase he was out to manipulate thier lives but perhaps for the same reason he lied to Maggie, maybe he just does not like to deal with direct confrintation and it is easier for him to aviod the mess of other peoples lives than give them news they don't want to hear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sapphire

[None of the people in the story seem to care a bit for that girl. Except Maggie, or at least she utters some concern about Albert not telling her he is married... [/color

It seems that for Alfred she was just some fling of his, and well the narrator does not have any particular reason to care for her since he has nothing to do with it.
05-11-2009, 08:24 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

Toward the end the Narrator does ask Alfred if he has any intent to see the girl again and his response was

So Alfred clearly did make up his own mind about his thoughts on seeing the other girl and he even expressed doubts as to whather or not he truly was the father of the baby.

Perhaps this is the reason the narrator did not tell Alfred about her comming, not becuase he was out to manipulate thier lives but perhaps for the same reason he lied to Maggie, maybe he just does not like to deal with direct confrintation and it is easier for him to aviod the mess of other peoples lives than give them news they don't want to hear.

It seems that for Alfred she was just some fling of his, and well the narrator does not have any particular reason to care for her since he has nothing to do with it.

Completely agree with your readings here Dark Muse. Alfred is not someone I respect in the least.
05-11-2009, 08:58 PM
BienvenuJDC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

Perhaps this is the reason the narrator did not tell Alfred about her coming, not because he was out to manipulate their lives but perhaps for the same reason he lied to Maggie, maybe he just does not like to deal with direct confrontation and it is easier for him to avoid the mess of other peoples lives than give them news they don't want to hear.

This seems very possible, Muse...not only possible, but plausible.

One other idea that occurred to me was that the narrator didn't take Eliza seriously. Therefore, he may thought it best just not to mention it.
05-11-2009, 09:59 PM
Janine

You are all a riot. I went away for a half a day and come back to all these posts; one in particular which caught my eye in which my name was included with a specific part of the male anatomy - gee, thanks, Virgil. It's a wonder that your post was not censored, since the four letter word meaning a male chicken is always censored; also, the word, which we tend to use in a crude manner, which is actually the technical name of a female dog. This censor program is very odd to me sometimes.:lol:

First off, V, I said basically, the same thing you are now saying that Dark Muse is now saying from the beginning of this discussion thread or so I thought I did. I just got the impression the narrator got dragged into this husband-wife conflict and he did not wish to be confrontational himself or truly involved. I definitely think he was avoiding direct confrontation or anything unpleasant to himself. I don't think he was conviving with anyone and like you said at the end, Alfred makes the statement, indicating he doesn't even believe the child to be his. It very well could have been a "plant". I think that is what the narrator is laughing at, as he runs down the hill towards home. To him, at this point, in his experience with the two people, the story has a twist of irony in this statement by Alfred.

Virgil, if you read my prior post and comments to Saphire's questions, I did stated my own thinking and reasons, that I thought the "we" was used in the part after the narrator found the bird and brought him back to be nursed. While in his own home, he used the word "we" and I think that felt intimate and I believe it to mean he and his mate, his wife. Read back to post #2904, to see my full take on this subject.

Quote:

That is strange. I take it the narrator doesn't live alone and he is referring to whomever lives with him. I had not really noticed that. Thanks Saphire. I don't know if it has any significance but it certainly is odd.

My former post gives a better explanation.

Quote:

Completely agree. The only person who has Lawrence's sympathy is the father, the person from the previous generation. Lawrence always loves those old world types. Notice the father speaks with that thick peasant accent. Lawrence is definitely anti-modern.

haha...I wrote about this in my post, also. Virgil, *grrr* do you ever read my posts?

Quote:

Everyone is manipulative in this story. Actually the way I would phrase it is that everyone participates in some form of dishonest communication in the story, everyone, that is, but the father.

I don't really totally agree with this part. I think it's more like Dark Muse stated in her last post. I was wondering if we could get on with the text. Everyone is jumping way ahead to the very ending and I still have text to post. I can post the next section tomorrow; I am a bit tired out now. I think we learned a lot from the previous section of text I posted, and I think that we all got a chance to address that particular part of the story and the elements of that section. I don't mean to disregard what you said jingjang when you made this statement "you all moved ahead a great deal"...we haven't moved ahead in the actual text at all and there are many things I think you will all notice when you take a closer look at it.

What do you think, Virgil, shall I go ahead and post the next part of the story?
05-11-2009, 10:16 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

You are all a riot. I went away for a half a day and come back to all these post; one in which my name was included with the particular mention of part of the male anatomy - gee, thanks, Virgil! It's a wonder that was not censored since the four letter word meaning a male bird is always censored; also the word which we use as a swear which is actually the technical name of a female dog. This censor program is very odd to me sometimes.:lol:

Any time dear. :D Actually this isn't the first story I've mentioned that word in respect to a Lawrence story. ;)

Quote:

First off, I said basically the same thing you are now saying, Dark Muse, from the beginning. I just got the impression the narrator got dragged into this husband and wife argument and he did not wish to be confrontational himself or involved. I definitely think he was avoiding direct confrontation or anything unpleasant to himself. I don't think he was conviving with anyone and like you said at the end, Alfred makes the statement indicating he doesn't even believe the child to be his. It very well could have been a "plant". I think that is what the narrator is laughing at as he goes home - to him, at this point in his experience with the two people, the story has a twist of irony in this statement by Alfred.

We will need to talk about that ending laugh. Why would the narrator laugh at the possibility of it being "a plant?" I guess we'll save this for the end.

Quote:

Virgil, if you read my prior post and comments to Saphire's questions I did say the reason I thought the "we" was used in after the narrator found the bird and brought him back to be nursed. While in his own home he used the word "we" and I think that felt intimate and believe it to mean his mate, his wife. Read back to post #2904, to see my full take on this subject.

Yes I saw you wrote something about the we being Lawrence and Frieda and the Red Baron. :lol: They aren't in the story.

Quote:

My post gives a take on this idea and why.

I don't see exactly what you said on "we." You went into his biography. I don't see what that had to do with the "we" in the story. Are you saying Lawrence slipped in his writing and let out some biographical bit that refers to his personal situation? It doesn't strike me that way. That seems like a conscious elocution and I just don't exactly know what to make with it.

Quote:

haha...I wrote about this in my post, also. Virgil, *grrr* do you ever read my posts?

Well, once you wrote about the red baron and one can't fight city hall, you lost me and my attention. You know I have ADD. :D

Quote:

I don't really totally agree with this part. I think it's more like Dark Muse stated in her last post.

You think the father is manipulative too? I'll have to go check. I don't quite remember that part well.

Quote:

I was wondering if we could get on with the text. Everyone is jumping way ahead to the very ending and I still have text to post. I can post the next section tomorrow; I am a bit tired out now. I think we learned a lot from the previous section of text I posted, and I think that we all got a chance to address that particular part of the story and the elements of that section. I don't mean to disregard what you said jingjang when you made this statement "you all moved ahead a great deal"...we haven't moved ahead in the actual text at all and there are many things I think you will all notice when you take a closer look at it.

What do you think, Virgil, shall I go ahead and post the next part of the story?

Whenever you're ready.
05-12-2009, 12:00 AM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

Any time dear. :D Actually this isn't the first story I've mentioned that word in respect to a Lawrence story. ;)

Are you trying to drag me under, get me into trouble, my dear friend, Virgil? I know you mentioned the word before; but WOW, the repetition in that paragraph was stark and then my name appeared in it, too; even more shocking! I still can't believe you get away with writing that word in a post. Not sure you would get away with the corresponding female part.

Quote:

We will need to talk about that ending laugh. Why would the narrator laugh at the possibility of it being "a plant?" I guess we'll save this for the end.

Good idea to wait.:idea: I think, personally, the laugh was a spontaneous one, and can't truly be explained logically, but we can discuss that when we get to it.

Quote:

Yes I saw you wrote something about the we being Lawrence and Frieda and the Red Baron. :lol: They aren't in the story.

NO, that is not what I was getting at. It was the whole idea of the war and how this story came about. You asked me to look up the background in that book and then you make me a laughing stock. I did my homework, did you do yours smarty pants? *grrrr*...I like that *smarty pants*, I think I will use that often in conjunction with your name.:lol:

Quote:

I don't see exactly what you said on "we." You went into his biography. I don't see what that had to do with the "we" in the story. Are you saying Lawrence slipped in his writing and let out some biographical bit that refers to his personal situation? It doesn't strike me that way. That seems like a conscious elocution and I just don't exactly know what to make with it.

No, I didn't say he 'slipped'; Lawrence doesn't just 'slip'; with all his revisioning, Lawrence means what he puts down in his short stories. He is pretty precise and says so in letters concerning them, etc. However, he did rely on his own experience and I think the "We" was used mostly in the home and this would be a good way to indicate that he was married as well. That's the impression I got.

Quote:

Well, once you wrote about the red baron and one can't fight city hall, you lost me and my attention. You know I have ADD. :D

You think the father is manipulative too? I'll have to go check. I don't quite remember that part well.

Whenever you're ready.

Those last three I can't answer - give me strength! Since, I don't get much of anything out of those, AND I do agree, you MUST have ADD, Virgil, :lol: I will definitely post the next part of the text; so we can proceed onward and hopefully upward. I will do so tomorrow, since it's nearing midnight and I am really tired.:yawnb:
05-12-2009, 04:26 AM
Sapphire

First of - thank you all for responding to my question regarding the "we"-part.

Janine, I had totally forgotten D.H. Lawrence had any relation to the Red Baron! :brickwall I really "like" the Red Baron as a historic figure, being quite interested in the development of plains and flying during WWI. And of course because of Snoopy :D. I do not think Frieda is really his sister though - all the accords I find (I have to say though, it's wiki and other internet pages I do not know the original sources of the information) only mention them as "distant relatives".
Fact stays, that Lawrence knew what it was like to live secluded from people or at least hold a low profile. We might recognize this in the narrator of the story. I do not know enough about D.H. Lawrence ( BTW, why not D.H.R. Lawrence? ) to say he sees himself as the I-person, but I see the parallels you draw and I think it is plausible. It might be a real-life story, but I do not find the town Tible on google maps, and I do not think it snowed very hard in the winter of 1918/1919. At least, not when I check it against the information of a weather station in Ferryhill, Durham - but that is over 250 miles from where Lawrence stayed that winter. And after all, the heavy snow could be added to make the story more "unnatural".
If it is a story that really happened to Lawrence or someone he knew, it would make sense that he fictionalized it though. I guess unless the writer himself ever told about this story really being true, we will never know.
I disagree when you say "They were not in this area very long". Or at least, I put questionmarks to it. If they were not there very long, how could the narrator have had time to know "the ground so well" as is written in the last part of the text you quoted?! Could he have learned that ground so well over the course of one Summer/Autumn/Winter. Maybe...

As for the "we" and the not returning of it: I think your argument for "While in his own home, he used the word "we" and I think that felt intimate and I believe it to mean he and his mate, his wife." is quite sound, even if it would not mean Lawrence himself.
Even if "we" meant him and a relative or servant (though I think it means he knows about married life) it makes a more homey atmosphere and empathizes the nursing part.

As for Eliza not coming to England - it never crossed my mind that she might not! I often take people on their word without thinking about it, and the fact that she wrote in her letter about having the money to be able to come made it even more plausible. I never thought twice about it - just took the letter for action and actually imagined the story to have her in it in the end, standing in the doorstep or such. I guess your argumentation about it being not a very sensible step for the girl to take is a good one, and especially the fact that she wrote that letter in French - if she does not know English it would be quite crazy to go to the UK without any idea whether Alfred would be there to take care of her (she asks him to come towards her, though she knows where he lives as she wrote that letter to an address). And in reading it again, I see she wrote "write and tell me" and that is a thing which will never happen - I did not register that part in my brain.
And it did not help that I totally did not understand what Alfred meant when he said "Back your life it's a plant." If we get there, I would like a little course in English to understand what he tries to say there for though I know the words I do not get the way they're put in the sentence :blush:

I guess I empathize a bit too much with the girl, having quite a few friends from Belgium :lol: I was quite annoyed when the narrator called her a "French girl" - Belgium is NOT France. I immediately had a vision of Poirot (Agatha Christie) in my mind. He would agree with me :p.
On the other hand, the letter was addressed from France, not Belgium :confused:

Dark Muse, thank you for your idea on why the narrator kept his mouth shut about the girl wanting to come to the UK. It suddenly made sense, even in my mind :). Though I still do not approve of him telling lies - but hey, that is just my opinion.

Virgil, it is interesting to learn that Lawrence is anti-modern. I guess life really was a downer to him... I am a bit surprised though; I mean, his ideas on marriage and relationships - don't they fit more into a modern society ? Maybe I look too far ahead though, in his time (his "modern" days) his ideas were not really accepted. The roaring twenties were coming though...

As the new text isn't posted yet, I take this opportunity to ask about two (edit: 3) things I do not find an answer to in the previous posts:
1
I do not see any of you going into the part where the narrator talks about the eyes of the baby.

Quote:

Originally Posted by page 186 in this thread for me, post #2789

'He has sweet smiling eyes, but not like your beautiful English eyes--'
She suddenly struck her hand on her skirt with a wild motion, and bent down, doubled with laughter. Then she rose and covered her face with her hand.
'I'm forced to laugh at the beautiful English eyes,' she said.
'Aren't his eyes beautiful?' I asked.
'Oh, yes--very! Go on!--Joey, dear, dee-urr, Joey!'--this to the peacock.

This part struck me, for several reasons:
- Talking about the eyes again. We have heard about Maggie's, now the eyes of Alfred are mentioned. Why is this important? (Maybe it is not?)
- The narrator is just guessing. Mind you, the letter says 'He has the smiling eyes and virile air of his English father' - so why on earth does he add 'but not like your beautiful English eyes'. If he tries not to give away Alfred as a father he is really doing a lousy job with that line. A woman calls her darling little brother's eyes not as beautiful as the eyes of a dear friend of the family?! If I was a suspicious wife that would be a dead ringer to me! And apart from that, the narrator does not know whether Alfred's eyes are beautiful or not. Quite a leap...
- Why does Maggie laugh at this? I know she's kind of nervous and anxious and does not really want to hear what is in the letter while she does want to know on other levels - but why does this part trigger her so? And is Joey just a distraction to her or is it relevant that she says her husband's eyes are very beautiful and then calls for her peacock?

2
I was struck by the same inconsistency as Dark Muse (post # 2793) - if Joey came with Maggie from her home 7 years ago, then why is she only married for 6 years? And why did she marry Alfred, he seems to be from a less wealthy family than her - was it because they fell head over heels?
I really wonder where Tible might be, as it is mentioned that her parents have a farm in Oxfordshire. If this is far away from Tible, it might be that Maggie came to the region of Tible 7 years ago and only then came to know Alfred - instead of moving there because of him. The question stays why she moved out 7 years ago though, as her parents do not strike as poor people who would lend their daughter out as a servant or such... It all stays a mystery, but why did Lawrence create this extra year?! Just to bother us with it? :p

3
Joey is not the only peacock, though he is the only one mentioned by Maggie to have come with her from her home. The others are "his descendants". Now as peacocks find a mate for life I wonder where this peahen is?! Did she die already? I found online that peacocks are likely to get about 12 years old (can be 20 though) so that is not really a help - no idea how long Maggie had Joey (and a peahen maybe) before she moved. The site does mention that peahens are to die first, but who says Joey and his mate where of the same age?
And isn't the story suggesting Joey loves Maggie (and she loves him)?! That at least implies that the peahen is dead, or Joey also has an unlucky marriage ;)
My mind goes wild here - what if Maggie and Alfred met one another on some sort of peacock trade? Alfred having a hen, Maggie a ****? By now, Alfred's bird died - another (very flawed) reason to not like Joey still being alive (jealousy).
I am not really sure whether peacocks are natural in the UK. Strange how this kind of information is nowhere to be found! I mean, it should be easy... I think they're not though, simply because I never see them "in the wild" and I do not think the wildlife in the UK is very different from the Netherlands?! Not sure about them being natural here either though... Any bird lovers who could give us a final answer to that?

Sorry for the long post :blush:

* I see we can not write peacock without the pea... :crash:
05-12-2009, 03:50 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sapphire

First of - thank you all for responding to my question regarding the "we"-part.

Wow, Saphire, you wrote up a storm; you are getting like me!;) This will be a challenge to answer but I will try my best.

Quote:

Janine, I had totally forgotten D.H. Lawrence had any relation to the Red Baron! :brickwall I really "like" the Red Baron as a historic figure, being quite interested in the development of plains and flying during WWI. And of course because of Snoopy :D.

I like the image, too, I will check out the Youtube link later on; thanks; I love Youtube! The connection caused Lawrence a lot of grief.

Quote:

I do not think Frieda is really his sister though - all the accords I find (I have to say though, it's wiki and other internet pages I do not know the original sources of the information) only mention them as "distant relatives".

I think you are correct on that. I don't know why I said that. I just looked it up and it was a distant cousin of hers - Manfred von Richthofen. An excellent book I read by Harry T. Moore "The Intelligent Heart" states him as such. The fact remains that his war heroism did play heavily in the Lawrence's life and the fact that Frieda von Richthofen came from aristocracy. Her father also had played a prominent role in past military excursions. His image is reflected in the short story 'The Prussian Officer', which we discussed a few years back in this thread.

Quote:

Fact stays, that Lawrence knew what it was like to live secluded from people or at least hold a low profile. We might recognize this in the narrator of the story. I do not know enough about D.H. Lawrence ( BTW, why not D.H.R. Lawrence? ) to say he sees himself as the I-person, but I see the parallels you draw and I think it is plausible. It might be a real-life story, but I do not find the town Tible on google maps, and I do not think it snowed very hard in the winter of 1918/1919. At least, not when I check it against the information of a weather station in Ferryhill, Durham - but that is over 250 miles from where Lawrence stayed that winter. And after all, the heavy snow could be added to make the story more "unnatural".

Well, many of Lawrence stories are based on some incident or some character he may have met or known. Usually, one can research that fact, and find out who the models for his characters were; this story, I could not really come up with anything solid to that idea, so I am merely surmising or thinking outloud. Good authors sift through and embellish, I am not sure if the snowstorm was exaggerated or truly they had this type storm back then; the idea is enough for me, as to it being 'unnatural' ;since that would fit the story and theme well. I would say have to say, that personally, the facts are irrelevant. I did read online and quoted that peacocks were from one origin - think it was India and they were introduced into other regions in the world. Most likely they were brought back during some of the travels or pursuits of the English in foreign lands. We have wild peacocks here in the US, I believe. I don't see why everyone thinks it so strange that there are peacocks in England at this time. Lawrence's first book was entitled "The White Peacock" as you know. Now I can't imagine a white peacock in England but then again, perhaps it was brought there and multiplied, being original to foreign lands. In TWP the bird is more symbolic than anything and sort of otherworldy, so who knows? 'Tible' could be fictional; or it could have been real, maps and town names change everyday in the entire world. I think it most likely it was fictional. This is an early story, and in TWP 'Nethermere' is a totally fictional place that Lawrence's imagination dreamed up. Only Lawrence can answer all these questions; we will have to summons his spirit.

Quote:

If it is a story that really happened to Lawrence or someone he knew, it would make sense that he fictionalized it though. I guess unless the writer himself ever told about this story really being true, we will never know.
I disagree when you say "They were not in this area very long". Or at least, I put questionmarks to it. If they were not there very long, how could the narrator have had time to know "the ground so well" as is written in the last part of the text you quoted?! Could he have learned that ground so well over the course of one Summer/Autumn/Winter. Maybe...

It was in the biography about this area where the Lawrence's occuppied a cottage for a short time, before leaving England altogether. I surmised it from that. It would not be unusual at all that Lawrence or the narrator would know the ground or terrain well, in only a short space of time. Lawrence was an avid hiker/walker; his curiosity lead him to all kinds of places and amazingly enough, he walked great distances, even having such a serious medical condition. At this juncture of his life he was still fairly young and in better shape than he would be later on with his bad lungs. I can well picture him quiely exploring the area on foot.

Quote:

As for the "we" and the not returning of it: I think your argument for "While in his own home, he used the word "we" and I think that felt intimate and I believe it to mean he and his mate, his wife." is quite sound, even if it would not mean Lawrence himself.
Even if "we" meant him and a relative or servant (though I think it means he knows about married life) it makes a more homey atmosphere and empathizes the nursing part.

Right, I noticed the "we" was pretty much, when he was at home nursing the bird. The mention of two nursing it and nurturing it back to health seemed to me more intimate and more loving. I got the impression the other half of the "we" was a woman, since woman are usually good at nuturing and nursing sick animals back to health. At one point later on, Lawrence, even admits he is a little afraid of Joey.

Quote:

As for Eliza not coming to England - it never crossed my mind that she might not! I often take people on their word without thinking about it, and the fact that she wrote in her letter about having the money to be able to come made it even more plausible. I never thought twice about it - just took the letter for action and actually imagined the story to have her in it in the end, standing in the doorstep or such. I guess your argumentation about it being not a very sensible step for the girl to take is a good one, and especially the fact that she wrote that letter in French - if she does not know English it would be quite crazy to go to the UK without any idea whether Alfred would be there to take care of her (she asks him to come towards her, though she knows where he lives as she wrote that letter to an address). And in reading it again, I see she wrote "write and tell me" and that is a thing which will never happen - I did not register that part in my brain.

Exactly, glad you can now view it that way. I think in this time period it is very unlikely she will venture to come to England with a small child. Also, so true, Alfred is not intending to write her obviously; the letter is gone now, right? He would not even have an address to write to and even if he did, I doubt he would bother. We can discuss that in more detail when we get to that part.

Quote:

And it did not help that I totally did not understand what Alfred meant when he said "Back your life it's a plant." If we get there, I would like a little course in English to understand what he tries to say there for though I know the words I do not get the way they're put in the sentence :blush:

He meant that it was 'a set up.' In other words, that the woman is claiming the child is his biologically, and really it probably is not; she may even not know who the child belongs to paternally. She may just be seeking an English husband, trapping a man into marriage. Don't be embarrassed that you did not understand. I did not get it at first either and then I realised what it meant.

Quote:

I guess I empathize a bit too much with the girl, having quite a few friends from Belgium :lol: I was quite annoyed when the narrator called her a "French girl" - Belgium is NOT France. I immediately had a vision of Poirot (Agatha Christie) in my mind. He would agree with me :p.
On the other hand, the letter was addressed from France, not Belgium :confused:

Maybe she was Belgium born and lived in France. I am not sure other than that idea. I will check the text again.

Quote:

Dark Muse, thank you for your idea on why the narrator kept his mouth shut about the girl wanting to come to the UK. It suddenly made sense, even in my mind :). Though I still do not approve of him telling lies - but hey, that is just my opinion.

Think I would agree on that, too.

Quote:

Virgil, it is interesting to learn that Lawrence is anti-modern. I guess life really was a downer to him... I am a bit surprised though; I mean, his ideas on marriage and relationships - don't they fit more into a modern society ? Maybe I look too far ahead though, in his time (his "modern" days) his ideas were not really accepted. The roaring twenties were coming though...

Here is where I do not agree with Virgil at all. One can't just spout out that he was anti-modern. Come on, Virgil. Lawrence is a lot more complex than that. In some way Lawrence was very modern in his thinking; in other ways traditional. I really think this is something needs extensive study and one can't make a general statement like this. I think in many ways, Lawrence was ahead of his time in his way of thinking.

Quote:

As the new text isn't posted yet, I take this opportunity to ask about two (edit: 3) things I do not find an answer to in the previous posts:
1

Ok, I will do my best but I am anxious to post more text.

Quote:

I do not see any of you going into the part where the narrator talks about the eyes of the baby. This part struck me, for several reasons:
- Talking about the eyes again. We have heard about Maggie's, now the eyes of Alfred are mentioned. Why is this important? (Maybe it is not?)
- The narrator is just guessing. Mind you, the letter says 'He has the smiling eyes and virile air of his English father' - so why on earth does he add 'but not like your beautiful English eyes'. If he tries not to give away Alfred as a father he is really doing a lousy job with that line. A woman calls her darling little brother's eyes not as beautiful as the eyes of a dear friend of the family?! If I was a suspicious wife that would be a dead ringer to me! And apart from that, the narrator does not know whether Alfred's eyes are beautiful or not. Quite a leap...- Why does Maggie laugh at this? I know she's kind of nervous and anxious and does not really want to hear what is in the letter while she does want to know on other levels - but why does this part trigger her so? And is Joey just a distraction to her or is it relevant that she says her husband's eyes are very beautiful and then calls for her peacock?

Interesting. I did not pick this up. I will have to read that part again.

Quote:

2
I was struck by the same inconsistency as Dark Muse (post # 2793) - if Joey came with Maggie from her home 7 years ago, then why is she only married for 6 years? And why did she marry Alfred, he seems to be from a less wealthy family than her - was it because they fell head over heels?
I really wonder where Tible might be, as it is mentioned that her parents have a farm in Oxfordshire. If this is far away from Tible, it might be that Maggie came to the region of Tible 7 years ago and only then came to know Alfred - instead of moving there because of him. The question stays why she moved out 7 years ago though, as her parents do not strike as poor people who would lend their daughter out as a servant or such... It all stays a mystery, but why did Lawrence create this extra year?! Just to bother us with it? :p

I don't think it unusual that she might have come to the area for some reason and then met Alfred or maybe she came to marry him but stayed with the family for a time to get better acquainted. In those days, cousins even married each other. I am not sure I know the true answer to this year discrepancy and not sure it's that vital to the meaning in the story. Where did you get the impression that her real family was more well off than Alfred's family is?

Quote:

3
Joey is not the only peacock, though he is the only one mentioned by Maggie to have come with her from her home. The others are "his descendants". Now as peacocks find a mate for life I wonder where this peahen is?! Did she die already? I found online that peacocks are likely to get about 12 years old (can be 20 though) so that is not really a help - no idea how long Maggie had Joey (and a peahen maybe) before she moved. The site does mention that peahens are to die first, but who says Joey and his mate where of the same age?
And isn't the story suggesting Joey loves Maggie (and she loves him)?! That at least implies that the peahen is dead, or Joey also has an unlucky marriage ;)

I don't have any sound idea on this question. I am not sure it is that important to the story and most of what you say is conjecture or making up a subplot. These are interesting thoughts and theories but not sure at all how the mating thing works with peacocks. :lol: I like your last theory - that Joey had an unlucky marriage! Good one....

Quote:

My mind goes wild here - what if Maggie and Alfred met one another on some sort of peacock trade? Alfred having a hen, Maggie a ****? By now, Alfred's bird died - another (very flawed) reason to not like Joey still being alive (jealousy).

:lol: A little too wild! Now who is being imaginative? Saphire, you should be a author.

Quote:

I am not really sure whether peacocks are natural in the UK. Strange how this kind of information is nowhere to be found! I mean, it should be easy... I think they're not though, simply because I never see them "in the wild" and I do not think the wildlife in the UK is very different from the Netherlands?! Not sure about them being natural here either though... Any bird lovers who could give us a final answer to that?

It is strange how one can't find a solid straight answer on the peacock quesiton in relation to England. I did find some research that I posted awhile back. I still hold to the idea that the peacock was not native to the land but imported from foreign regions where it is native.

Quote:

Sorry for the long post :blush:

No problem. I am a long poster, also.:D

Quote:

* I see we can not write peacock without the pea... :crash:

I know, isn't that funny? If you name the female dog same thing happens. One is the usually the rooster and the other a harmless pup. Makes me laugh.:lol:
05-12-2009, 10:47 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Are you trying to drag me under, get me into trouble, my dear friend, Virgil? I know you mentioned the word before; but WOW, the repetition in that paragraph was stark and then my name appeared in it, too; even more shocking! I still can't believe you get away with writing that word in a post. Not sure you would get away with the corresponding female part.

What did I say that was profane. I used words that are quite acceptable. At least I think so.

Quote:

NO, that is not what I was getting at. It was the whole idea of the war and how this story came about. You asked me to look up the background in that book and then you make me a laughing stock. I did my homework, did you do yours smarty pants? *grrrr*...I like that *smarty pants*, I think I will use that often in conjunction with your name.:lol:

But you were discussing the use of "we" in the story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sapphire

Fact stays, that Lawrence knew what it was like to live secluded from people or at least hold a low profile. We might recognize this in the narrator of the story.

That he did.

Quote:

I do not know enough about D.H. Lawrence ( BTW, why not D.H.R. Lawrence? ) to say he sees himself as the I-person, but I see the parallels you draw and I think it is plausible.

I'm not sure I think the narrator is really a stand in for Lawrence.

Quote:

As for the "we" and the not returning of it: I think your argument for "While in his own home, he used the word "we" and I think that felt intimate and I believe it to mean he and his mate, his wife." is quite sound, even if it would not mean Lawrence himself.
Even if "we" meant him and a relative or servant (though I think it means he knows about married life) it makes a more homey atmosphere and empathizes the nursing part.

How old do people think the narrator is? It doesn't say anywhere, but for some reason I got the impression he was relatively young, younger than Alfred. But that's just an impression. I don't think it says anything in the story.

Quote:

I guess I empathize a bit too much with the girl, having quite a few friends from Belgium :lol: I was quite annoyed when the narrator called her a "French girl" - Belgium is NOT France. I immediately had a vision of Poirot (Agatha Christie) in my mind. He would agree with me :p.
On the other hand, the letter was addressed from France, not Belgium :confused:

:lol: Yes, I kind of empathize with the girl too. She's not exactly innocent, but she's in a difficult situation and Alfred appears to have abandoned her.

Quote:

Dark Muse, thank you for your idea on why the narrator kept his mouth shut about the girl wanting to come to the UK. It suddenly made sense, even in my mind :). Though I still do not approve of him telling lies - but hey, that is just my opinion.

Lies run through all the communication in the story.

Quote:

Virgil, it is interesting to learn that Lawrence is anti-modern. I guess life really was a downer to him... I am a bit surprised though; I mean, his ideas on marriage and relationships - don't they fit more into a modern society ? Maybe I look too far ahead though, in his time (his "modern" days) his ideas were not really accepted. The roaring twenties were coming though...

Hehe, Lawrence parodied the roaring twenties types in Women In Love. No, it's not suprising at all that Lawrence's ideas on marriage and relationships don't coincide with modern relationships. His views can be seen as in the Romantic tradition, where there is a spirituality in the natural and that social conventions (such as marriage) are the antogonism to that spirituality. If you want a quick way to understand Lawrence, think of him as a primitive. The primitive is in touch with that natural spirituality but has no social convention.

Quote:

- Why does Maggie laugh at this? I know she's kind of nervous and anxious and does not really want to hear what is in the letter while she does want to know on other levels - but why does this part trigger her so?

That is a great question and something that struck me too. I don't have an answer for it yet, but it certainly is extremely important to the story. Read the last sentence of the story, the narrator's spontaneous and strange laugh that echoes Maggie's laugh earlier in the story. Obviously there is some significance to the laughing.

Quote:

3
Joey is not the only peacock, though he is the only one mentioned by Maggie to have come with her from her home. The others are "his descendants". Now as peacocks find a mate for life I wonder where this peahen is?! Did she die already? I found online that peacocks are likely to get about 12 years old (can be 20 though) so that is not really a help - no idea how long Maggie had Joey (and a peahen maybe) before she moved. The site does mention that peahens are to die first, but who says Joey and his mate where of the same age?
And isn't the story suggesting Joey loves Maggie (and she loves him)?! That at least implies that the peahen is dead, or Joey also has an unlucky marriage ;)

Fabulous find Sapphire!!! That is quite true. I had not thought of that. I did notice that Joey has decendents and that parallels the father who also has decendents, and so links the father and the peacock.

Quote:

My mind goes wild here - what if Maggie and Alfred met one another on some sort of peacock trade? Alfred having a hen, Maggie a ****? By now, Alfred's bird died - another (very flawed) reason to not like Joey still being alive (jealousy).

I think that kind of complexity is there in the story. Your mind is not going wild. This is a tremendously well crafted work.

Quote:

I am not really sure whether peacocks are natural in the UK. Strange how this kind of information is nowhere to be found! I mean, it should be easy... I think they're not though, simply because I never see them "in the wild" and I do not think the wildlife in the UK is very different from the Netherlands?! Not sure about them being natural here either though... Any bird lovers who could give us a final answer to that?

I think we mentioned that they weren't natural.

Quote:

Sorry for the long post :blush:

* I see we can not write peacock without the pea... :crash:

:lol: And Janine thinks I talk dirty. ;)
05-12-2009, 11:16 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

What did I say that was profane. I used words that are quite acceptable. At least I think so.

You know what I am referring to. I suppose you are going to say anatomical is just fine. You still crack me up!

Quote:

But you were discussing the use of "we" in the story.

What? This does not register. We did have a lengthy discussion about the "we".

Quote:

That he did.

He certainly did. Well, at least we agree on something here.

Quote:

I'm not sure I think the narrator is really a stand in for Lawrence.

He appeared to me in the form of a ghost last night and told me himself - believe it - whispered to me "I am the narrator!" :lol: You know me, I think all the first person narrations are Lawrence. But truly, the reason I think it, just because of what I read and posted on the background of the story. Shall I post that again for you, Mr. ADD?

Quote:

How old do people think the narrator is? It doesn't say anywhere, but for some reason I got the impression he was relatively young, younger than Alfred. But that's just an impression. I don't think it says anything in the story.

Younger than you!:lol:

Quote:

:lol: Yes, I kind of empathize with the girl too. She's not exactly innocent, but she's in a difficult situation and Alfred appears to have abandoned her.

I do, but just maybe she is lying, too. It could be someone else's kid. Obviously, Alfred is going to abandon her for good; we wouldn't have a story without that factor. Maybe she send this letter out to several eligible males.

Quote:

Lies run through all the communication in the story.

Or lost in translation...just kidding...lies yes, whether blantant or little white lies....still deceit, cover-up.

Quote:

Hehe, Lawrence parodied the roaring twenties types in Women In Love. No, it's not suprising at all that Lawrence's ideas on marriage and relationships don't coincide with modern relationships. His views can be seen as in the Romantic tradition, where there is a spirituality in the natural and that social conventions (such as marriage) are the antogonism to that spirituality. If you want a quick way to understand Lawrence, think of him as a primitive. The primitive is in touch with that natural spirituality but has no social convention.

I still think that it's a philosphical and complicated thing to aspect of Lawrence to define absolutely. Some might say the idea of the 'primative instincts' is actually a progression in modern thinking, not a regression. That's a whole new debate. Lawrence was no way conventional in the usual sense of the word.

Quote:

That is a great question and something that struck me too. I don't have an answer for it yet, but it certainly is extremely important to the story. Read the last sentence of the story, the narrator's spontaneous and strange laugh that echoes Maggie's laugh earlier in the story. Obviously there is some significance to the laughing.

You know what else echoes in the story? It came to me today. The fact, that Joey is aligned with Alfred, in that they both would have been rescued from death; then they would both have been nursed back to health by a human being who was compassionate.

Quote:

Fabulous find Sapphire!!! That is quite true. I had not thought of that. I did notice that Joey has decendents and that parallels the father who also has decendents, and so links the father and the peacock.

Peacock's all have either accendents or decendents.

Quote:

I think that kind of complexity is there in the story. Your mind is not going wild. This is a tremendously well crafted work.

Aha, you now admit this story is well crafted. I think it's very well thought out and very well written.

I think we mentioned that they weren't natural. Imported from India.

Quote:

:lol: And Janine thinks I talk dirty. ;)

Very much so, in the mind! But totally harmless, I believe. A wolf on the outside, a puppy inside.:lol:

Hey, Virgil, did you notice you caught blue type from Saphire? Hope that's not like swine flu!

I am determined to post the next part of the text now...next post......get ready, here is comes.....
05-12-2009, 11:27 PM
Janine

Next Section of the Text

Quote:

The next day was clear, and the snow had frozen, so I decided to carry him back to Tible. He consented, after various flappings, to sit in a big fish-bag with his battered head peeping out with wild uneasiness. And so I set off with him, slithering down into the valley, making good progress down in the pale shadow beside the rushing waters, then climbing painfully up the arrested white valleyside, plumed with clusters of young pine trees, into the paler white radiance of the snowy, upper regions, where the wind cut fine. Joey seemed to watch all the time with wide anxious, unseeing eye, brilliant and inscrutable. As I drew near to Tible township he stirred violently in the bag, though I do not know if he had recognized the place. Then, as I came to the sheds, he looked sharply from side to side, and stretched his neck out long. I was a little afraid of him. He gave a loud, vehement yell, opening his sinister beak, and I stood still, looking at him as he struggled in the bag, shaken myself by his struggles, yet not thinking to release him. Mrs. Goyte came darting past the end of the house, her head sticking forward in sharp scrutiny. She saw me, and came forward. 'Have you got Joey?' she cried sharply, as if I were a thief. I opened the bag, and he flopped out, flapping as if he hated the touch of the snow now. She gathered him up, and put her lips to his beak. She was flushed and handsome, her eyes bright, her hair slack, thick, but more witch-like than ever. She did not speak. She had been followed by a grey-haired woman with a round, rather sallow face and a slightly hostile bearing. 'Did you bring him with you, then?' she asked sharply. I answered that I had rescued him the previous evening. From the background slowly approached a slender man with a grey moustache and large patches on his trousers.
05-13-2009, 04:52 AM
Sapphire

Yes, a new part of the text :D But first some comments on the previous posts.

@Janine

Quote:

Where did you get the impression that her real family was more well off than Alfred's family is?

From her saying "not like here" when she tells about her folks place (a big farm) in Oxfordshire. That gave me the impression that she lived less "big" now, while living with Alfred's parents. It is not clear whether that place is Alfred's or the parent's.
On the other hand, she does say Alfred had a good education. She herself had quite something too, having had French at school - I do not think that was taught on the usual English primary schools? I do think she had a secondary education of some sort, but I do not know the school system of that time at all so I am just guessing here.
And she says "that is how he knew French" from him being a chauffeur, not from him being at school. But maybe she means that is how he really learned French - I myself have had French for 4 years in high school and have the same problem as Maggie :brickwall.

Quote:

and most of what you say is conjecture or making up a subplot

I know, my imagination can run wild sometimes (Ok... maybe not just sometimes) ;) And I often wonder why a writer does not elaborates on parts that are totally insignificant to most others who read a story/book :lol:

Quote:

I still hold to the idea that the peacock was not native to the land but imported from foreign regions where it is native.

I asked around a bit and nobody really seems to know for certain, not even people that know about birds. I know peacocks are not native in the UK, but imported from India (probably by Royalty first). I guess that is enough in answer to the story, but I keep wondering whether peacocks can survive in the wild. Or do they always need some home to belong to, some human to give them extra nutrition? Some human to take care for them? Are they to be regarded as pets (instead of a wild animal)?

@Virgil

Quote:

If you want a quick way to understand Lawrence, think of him as a primitive. The primitive is in touch with that natural spirituality but has no social convention.

Ah... a bit like Jean-Jacques Rousseau. And I also see a lot of T.Hardy in that idea - I think that indeed explains it better than anti-modernity, thank you for that.

Quote:

Read the last sentence of the story, the narrator's spontaneous and strange laugh that echoes Maggie's laugh earlier in the story. Obviously there is some significance to the laughing.

Yes, I wonder - is there any laugh out of joy in the whole story? Maggie seems to me to laugh out of nervousness and awkwardness and it seems to me that it might have sounded bitter (imagination again :p). The laugh of the narrator came as a big surprise to me and I actually thought he was going mad at that point. Or that it all was just a dream. Alfred also laughs "a burst of laughter" right before that moment. No idea what he was laughing about either, but I doubt it was joy - it seemed more like he remembered something about the girls which might have been funny to him but by the way the guys were talking it was probably not very respectful...
I think we might need to let this laugh-theme be until we come to the end of the story. That is, unless somewhere in between a character is found to be laughing :) I wonder whether the father laughs....

Quote:

:lol: And Janine thinks I talk dirty

Well, I never thought about it as a "wrong" word until I posted it and saw **** instead of the word itself - then it hit me :lol:

@the new text
Wow... where shall I start?! Every time I try to cut up the text I think "but this is also significant towards..." I guess I will just have to go for a long post again :p

Quote:

The next day was clear, and the snow had frozen, so I decided to carry him back to Tible. He consented, after various flappings, to sit in a big fish-bag with his battered head peeping out with wild uneasiness.

Joey consented to be transported. That word struck me, especially as in my mind it was the narrator who had been "good" to the bird and just wanted to do what is for the best - and now the bird had to give his consent. He has quite some power over humans, don't he? Is this maybe where the "nature over nurture" part might come in? Nah, I probably read too much into it - Joey is battered and uneasy. Of course he won't just give into transportation, it is probably all very new to him.
Are peacocks easily scared? I know there are birds that can get a heart attack just because a human tries to catch them... But I guess Joey is used to humans around him.

Quote:

And so I set off with him, slithering down into the valley, making good progress down in the pale shadow beside the rushing waters, then climbing painfully up the arrested white valleyside, plumed with clusters of young pine trees, into the paler white radiance of the snowy, upper regions, where the wind cut fine.

Leaving the "safe home" where an animal can be nursed back to live. This area is easy to leave (when the storm is over), it is however hard to get to the other home... Like nature does not want people to go there. And again, the wind is cutting...

Quote:

Joey seemed to watch all the time with wide anxious, unseeing eye, brilliant and inscrutable.

There are the eyes again. At least, I take it "eye" here means "eyes" and the bird is not blinded on one?! Coming to think of it, in the description of Joey right before the rescue the narrator also talks about just "eye". With the baby, narrator himself or Maggie it is "eyes". A peacock with one eye. Not sure what to make of that, besides that it must be ironic when he has a tail full of eyes he can't use in the breeding season ...

Quote:

As I drew near to Tible township he stirred violently in the bag, though I do not know if he had recognized the place. Then, as I came to the sheds, he looked sharply from side to side, and stretched his neck out long. I was a little afraid of him. He gave a loud, vehement yell, opening his sinister beak, and I stood still, looking at him as he struggled in the bag, shaken myself by his struggles, yet not thinking to release him.

I do not blame the narrator to be a bit afraid of him. Peacocks are quite big birds, and birds are scary creatures (just imagine if they pick your eye out!). I do not really know why Joey struggles - does he want to get away again, away from Alfred. Or does he want to get out and back on his home ground as fast as possible, happy to be home again (calling for Maggie)? It can easily go both ways...
The "yet not thinking to release him" struck me: the obvious (/right) thing to do does not come to his mind. Maybe a little nag to what he did with the letter? :p The moment I think of that I think that is going too far, but hey - a girl can dream :)

Quote:

Mrs. Goyte came darting past the end of the house, her head sticking forward in sharp scrutiny. She saw me, and came forward. 'Have you got Joey?' she cried sharply, as if I were a thief.

She guessed that in answer to Joey's cry, I guess.

Quote:

I opened the bag, and he flopped out, flapping as if he hated the touch of the snow now. She gathered him up, and put her lips to his beak. She was flushed and handsome, her eyes bright, her hair slack, thick, but more witch-like than ever.

Not sure what to make of this. Obviously the bird dislikes the snow that caused him to almost die, well the snow and Alfred that is. But why is Maggie suddenly handsome in this situation? Because she showed some true emotions?
I wonder, does "witch-like" mean mysterious, a double layer? Both in this world and in the magic world? Or does it rather imply wickedness?

Quote:

She did not speak. She had been followed by a grey-haired woman with a round, rather sallow face and a slightly hostile bearing. 'Did you bring him with you, then?' she asked sharply.

Notice the narrator says "grey-haired woman", not necessarily old. He calls both Maggie and Alfred "young" though. This made me think the narrator is older than both Alfred and Maggie, somewhere in his (late?) 30's probably.
I do not think it is strange that Maggie does not speak while the old lady does: she probably does not know the narrator and is hostile about him being on her land. Or maybe she also dislikes the bird? Maggie keeping quiet indicates to me she is too much taken in by Joey to care about the world around her at this point in time.

Quote:

I answered that I had rescued him the previous evening. From the background slowly approached a slender man with a grey moustache and large patches on his trousers.

Again, he does not say "old"

That is all I get out of this part. :) I really wish we could see in the mind of Mr. Lawrence more directly ;)
05-13-2009, 02:47 PM
jinjang

Welcome to Sapphire!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

I still hold to the idea that the peacock was not native to the land but imported from foreign regions where it is native.

The story itself says the peacocks are not native to England.

But, I also found this website:
http://birds.suite101.com/article.cf...ndian_peacocks

The site says "Successful peacocks form a harem with up to five peahens."

I am ready to get to the part where the father-in-law shows up...
05-13-2009, 02:48 PM
jinjang

I kind of feel Janine confuses, a few times, my postings with Dark Muse's, which is understandable because of the length of this discussion thread.

Sapphire gave me an idea to use different color.:D

Quote:

She was flushed and handsome, her eyes bright, her hair slack, thick, but more witch-like than ever.

Notice the change in Maggie's look! She is no longer sallow. Ignorance is a bliss! Acceptance to the lesser evil is a bliss.

I saw a glimpse of the father-in-law, the happier and wiser man!

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