Yeah, I had to sneak that in or I would never get it posted and we will be here all summer, stuck on this one story. But hey, Saphire, I am more than happy that you are posting so much. Usually I am the longest poster here. I tend to be 'long-winded' I know, but I like to be thorough, too. At first you were just reading behind the scenes and I am delighted to see you taking such an active role now. I enjoy reading your posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
I just read this part over and, yes, I too, get the impression her former home was larger and probably more prestigious; as you say, she had a education which would have allowed for French to be taught. It doesn't seem that Alfred's education was anything shabby though. She states that he liked farming better. We are only getting the information from Maggie here and she is acting like her background was more important that Alfred's; since no one is telling the complete truth in this story, who knows if that is true or if her family were even nice people to live with. Yet, she does claim Alfred's mother and father are good people and especially good to her. Also, did you notice this:Quote:
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.
"We've been married six years--and he joined up the first day of the war."
This makes me think that they were not married very long or maybe he joined even prior to their marriage, at the time that he went off to the war; maybe, they never spend that much time together during the war years. I can't recall now how long WWI lasted? I will have to look that up online. Also, she does say 'had' a farm - concerning her parents and her. Maybe she was an 'only child', and she lost both parents - who knows? Maybe this family took her in; then it resulted in the two marrying. In that case, it might not have been that she truly loved Alfred, but it was a sort of 'marriage of convenience' or rather her position would not give her much choice in the matter, she being all alone in the world now. Saphire, I had two years of French in HS and feel the same way :brickwall...haha....
Because it's only a short story. I think Lawrence does elaborate more in his novels, don't you? Hey, these stories do get people thinking and talking; that may just be Lawrence's intention. I think any good writer achieves that sort of thing and it's fine. One wants reader's imagination to be stimulated. That's the sign of a good author and a good story.Quote:
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:
Maybe we should ask the peacock....;) just kidding of course....I think Royalty probably brought them to England. I am sure they were a total fascination at the time. I do think they could survive in the wild of England which is a moderate climate. Birds are very resilent and they adapt over time. I think any domestic animal can survive on it's own in the wild; we had domestic geese on our lake and they ate all kinds of natural things. Only occasional did neighbors buy grain feed for them and usually only if we had a severe winter.Quote:
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)?
That's great Jean-Jacques Rousseau is one of my favorites! Definitely, Hardy was a huge influence, especially at this time for Lawrence. This is an early story, which appears in the first book of the 3 part set of short stories, so it's definitely early. I think both men mentioned here were quite inovative and ahead of their times - not one bit anti-modern.Quote:
@Virgil,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.
No, I don't think there is anything joyous about the story. I don't see the story as that type of tale; not many of Lawrence's are or maybe none really. It's more ironic in parts, but never joyous. Oh, I do think Maggie's laugh indeed bitter at times; also resentful, suspicious. The narrator's laugh came as a surprise at first to me but the more I read it the more I thought he laughed at the irony of the whole situation: a man saying it was all a set up; a wife loving a peacock more than of her husband; a husband jealous of a peacock - what is'nt there to laugh at? Maybe, he is scolfing more than truly laughing. I don't think he is laughing with them, I think he is laughing at them.Quote:
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...
Yes, we should wait actually, until we get to that specific part of the text. You can see how much we get out of phrases and key words. There may be a clue there as to the laugh.Quote:
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....
Not you, but Virgil's repetition of anatomical parts. I had to laugh and joke with him about that. Shocked to see my name in the same paragraph. I have done that same think you did with the other word for a female dog and I really had to laugh. Also, the animal, basically a donkey. Don't try posting that word either.:crash:Quote:
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:
I am going to put the new text part into a new post - next one; just afraid I might loose this one.
I second that! :thumbs_up But I can't read that green type at all, jinjang. Are you two trying to make me go blind? I can barely read the blue. I have bad eyes at my age!Quote:
Originally Posted by jinjang
jinjang, can you post the exact quote in the text where it says that. I do believe you but wish to read that part.Quote:
The story itself says the peacocks are not native to England.
I didn't check that out yet, but thanks for finding that. I will do so after posting this and the next part of Saphire's last post.Quote:
Oh, I would imagine that to be so. Most animals in the wild do survive by banding together in groups. I know our domestic geese always traveled that way with one prominent goose as the leader of the group and he would oversee their care and well-being. Actually, that goose was the one I told you about who was killed. It was sad to see because the group did not do well after that and now I believe they have dwindled down and are non-existent.Quote:
The site says "Successful peacocks form a harem with up to five peahens."
That is the next part I have ready to post - it will be will very soon.Quote:
I am ready to get to the part where the father-in-law shows up...
Oh, jinjang, I am very sorry if I have ever done that. I did have this feeling that somehow I had not totally answered one or two of your posts a few pages back. It is true that with more posters here, we either do one of two things - skip over things or confuse things that people say. Once I recall that Dark Muse and Quark's posts got confused in a one of the former discussion. We all ended up laughing about it in the end. I am so sorry if it was frustrating for you. Next time please point that out to me at once or even post something in my profile page so I can catch up with your post(s).Quote:
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.
eeeekkkk...like I said - please spar my eyeballs! :eek2:Quote:
Sapphire gave me an idea to use different color.
Quote:
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!
Yes, I agree - perhaps ignorance is bliss. Or at least, it seemed she accepted the fact, that her husband had cheated; then resigned herself to make the most of it. That's the impression I get. But that might be only a temporary state of mind she will exist in; perhaps it's a form of survival for her. I don't think the woman will ever live a happy existence, with a husband who oviously strays.
Yes, the father-in-law seems to be the wiser man or so the story puts forth he is. Apparently Maggie is close to the parents. In this way she has ties to the family unit and it would be hard to break those ties now; especially seeing she probably has not family of her own as she once did. If her parents are still alive perhaps they did not approve of Alfred and told her if she left she would not be allowed to return. That's another posibility.
Saphire, No problem with long post; just don't lose them before you hit the 'Post Reply' button. Happened to me more than once.Quote:
@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
You know this part didn't strike me as unusual at all. I told you all about my pet goose who got a sick eye and we had to take him to the vet. Now who think this big proud male goose, 'leader of the pack', would let us take him in the car; and yet he was quite resigned to go. I do think animals have a sixth sense that humans are kind and will help them when they are ill or in danger. I would could well imagine the opposite, too. He obviously, must know that Alfred is a constant thread to his life and he needs to flea from him. Now stuffing the bird into a bad and carting him across the frozen expanse would be a bit scary for the animal. I can see why he was wary and also remember, he doesn't know the narrator as well as he knows Maggie. He knows him only barely so his trust would be a bit shakey.Quote:
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.
What bird is that? Maybe he has high cholestrol. I didn't know that was true. However, I am sure that Joey was fearful. I would think that peacocks, having been brought to England as a sort of fascination would be very used to humans and would hang about farms. After all farms have food that has fallen from wagons, etc and they can peek at the scraps. By now, I am sure humans pose no threat to them.Quote:
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.
Well, nature is hard and conditions here are shown to be 'unnatural' for this part of the country this time of year, with the snowstorm and all. I am sure the treak was not easy to the next farm. It might have been several miles and uphill over uneven land, maybe hilly, even rocky.Quote:
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...
I think it's just a way of saying 'eyes' by referring to 'eye' as singular. I am not sure if that has special significance beyond the idea of the 'eye' being all seeing or insightful, like the inner eye and one of wisdom or knowledge. Could be that is why he is using 'eye' singularly; but I am not certain...just thinking outloud on my part.Quote:
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 ...
Right, I agree... haha...I get your joke - pick your eye out!...:lol: No, this is not Hitchcock's "The Birds", Saphire. However, a lot of people do have a fear of bird beaks. I think peacocks are kind of scary...they are large and sort of long necked and they tend to show off those feathers and act a bit threatening at times. I have seen them in the zoo parading around like that and they are sort of awesome and a bit frightening.Quote:
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...
To your last statement, it can easily go either way. He probably just wants to be home -birds are territorial, so he comes home to roost.
I think he was just dumbfounded and stunned at the time; forgetting to release him. Like you said he seemed kind of scary and threatening to the narrator. I think maybe comparing it to the letter is going a too little far, but who knows.Quote:
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 :)
I imagine.Quote:
She guessed that in answer to Joey's cry, I guess.
Perhaps. Not sure either. She does seem some changed the next day to the narrator.Quote:
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?
To Lawrence usually witch-like is not a bad thing but a possitive and connected to the natural world - like the world of fairied and magic and more of the primitive idea of the pagan world. It could also indicate the 'mysterious'.Quote:
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?
I got that impression as well. Virgil gets the opposite impression. I don't know how to definitely answer this question or this idea of the narrator's age.Quote:
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.
Can't answer this yet. This involves the part of the text I did not post yet but will next. It will be easier to answer after I review that part with the dialogue/interchange between the characters.Quote:
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:
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 ;) [/color]
