D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

Printable View

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

05-19-2009, 11:25 PM
Virgil

Ok, trying to catch up. I suppose I will not be able to respond to everything. But here's my best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sapphire

I just found THIS on youtube (no sound). I know we are reading the Wintry and not the White Peacock, but just look at that bird! Wonderful :D

Fantastic! And thanks for yours too Janine. Now is that a phallic looking creature or what? :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinjang

I thought "a bit of to-do" means there was a big fight between Maggie and Alfred, especially after "''ers not bin very bright sin' Alfred came whoam" (She has not been very bright since Alfred came home.)

I took it as a sexual innuendo. The very next sentence Lawrence says: "He [the father] twinkled maliciously to his daughter-in-law, who flushed, brilliant and handsome." I do think it was a sexual reference.

Quote:

This shows simply that men - not referring to you though, should I?-lose their heads too much to think straight over sex, ruining their marriages and their lives sometimes like Alfred on the expense of happiness of others.

Referring to me? :lol: No I have not ruined my marriage if that's what you meant. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quark

That's a tall order, Janine. Let me just say that the narrator's lack of identity is odd, and then I'll wait and catch up to everyone else in the conversation.

This is a form of narrative of a first person narrator observer. This is a common form, especially in short stories, where one sees a story from one relatively removed from the central narrative. That's not unusual. I also don't think the narrator is all together removed, he does participate, though he is not part of the central core of the story. Why does Lawrence choose this form for this story? If he choose third person, he would feel obligated to give us Alfred's and Maggie's thoughts and that would have taken a lot of the mystery out. He could have picked first person from a central character, Maggie or Alfred, but then that would have been a different story and would have been obligated to give their perspective and the sympathies would have changed. I think Lawrence chose the best option.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinjang

Virgil triumphantly-excuse my impression-thought that the men had their dominance back at home, even though Virgil disliked Alfred and his behavior, while fearing there is still a female power over men.

I'm not sure I said that. I don't see any dominance by the men in the story. The war has essentially castrated them. There is a male clique where the narrator and Alfred understand each other, and possibly even the father. Maggie's love for a peacock seems to be a manifestation of warped sexual relationships, all caused by the ramifications of the war.

In one of my last posts, I commented on the psychic tension between Alfred and Joey. I think it's critical to understanding the story. I'm surprised no one commented on it.
05-19-2009, 11:35 PM
jinjang

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

I took it as a sexual innuendo. The very next sentence Lawrence says: "He [the father] twinkled maliciously to his daughter-in-law, who flushed, brilliant and handsome." I do think it was a sexual reference.

Do you really think so? I can't picture an English father-in-law blatantly referencing sex to a daughter-in-law no matter how close they feel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

Referring to me? No I have not ruined my marriage if that's what you meant.

I mean you may be thinking too much of sex to possibly misinterpreting the story.:D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

I'm not sure I said that. I don't see any dominance by the men in the story.

Excuse me if I misinterpreted what you said. I thought you mentioned something about the reversed dominance between men and women after the war and how men lost their ruling roles in their households. When Maggie has the letter, she had the upper end of the fight. Now the narrator turned around the situation and gave Alfred the excuse to fight back hence regaining the dominance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

I commented on the psychic tension between Alfred and Joey. I think it's critical to understanding the story. I'm surprised no one commented on it.

Yes, I wanted to ask you if Wintry peacock, Joey, means the manhood, why Alfred is trying to kill him. I lingered on the statement: Maggie is making too much of the bird. That is when I concluded Joey was in the way between Maggie and Alfred. I also called it Joey interfering innocently. What does it symbolize? I have no idea.
05-19-2009, 11:37 PM
Dark Muse

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinjang

I left you a happy child. Why are you returning a crying one? Of course, the thread is not mine. It belongs to Virgil and Janine and I am just a guest here.

I think leaving me with any child is considered child endagerment ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinjang

BienvenuJDC is not saying the narrator did the right thing to hide the truth. I think he is saying that it may be good for some people who cannot digest the whole truth and who may simply get a nervous breakdown, which may be irrelevant to the story.

I do not think it is the narrators call to determine what the wife does or does not have a right to know. And I just do not swallow the idea of secrets between spouces, I have to disagree with the notion the ignorance is what makes a happy and healthy marraige, or that a marraige must be spared above all else. I think Maggie deserves to know the truth and from that be able to make up her own mind about how she wants to apporach the situation.
05-19-2009, 11:58 PM
jinjang

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I do not think it is the narrators call to determine what the wife does or does not have a right to know. And I just do not swallow the idea of secrets between spouces, I have to disagree with the notion the ignorance is what makes a happy and healthy marraige, or that a marraige must be spared above all else. I think Maggie deserves to know the truth and from that be able to make up her own mind about how she wants to apporach the situation.

Now I agree with you because it did not do any good to Maggie since she has been heavy weather since Wednesday after the letter was read to her.

This idea of yours belongs to our modern society: breaking up a marriage by infidelities. But does it fit to that time period? Many women endured with unfaithful husbands in the past because the life of divorced women was a lot worse. They were outcasts in many societies as you well know.

Maggie definitely knows the truth or at least has the strong suspicion. It may be better for her to know it all at this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

If he choose third person, he would feel obligated to give us Alfred's and Maggie's thoughts and that would have taken a lot of the mystery out. He could have picked first person from a central character, Maggie or Alfred, but then that would have been a different story and would have been obligated to give their perspective and the sympathies would have changed. I think Lawrence chose the best option.

That is an excellent point! Here is a proof of an expert in Lawrence or short stories.
05-20-2009, 12:05 AM
Dark Muse

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinjang

This idea of yours belongs to our modern society: breaking up a marriage by infidelities. But does it fit to that time period? Many women endured with unfaithful husbands in the past because the life of divorced women was a lot worse. They were outcasts in many societies as you well know.

I did not spicify divorce or breaking up the marraige, I simply said she should be able to make up her own mind on how she wanted to handle the situation, that does not per sae mean explcitiy getting a divorce. But there were women whom even at this period of time did choose divorce over unhappy marraiges even knowing the difficulties that could come from such. So it would not be completely out of the question for Maggie. But I had not acutally directly suggested it. But at any rate Maggie should be alloud to decide for herself with the full truth what she thinks would be within her own personaly best interests.
05-20-2009, 12:07 AM
BienvenuJDC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I do not think it is the narrators call to determine what the wife does or does not have a right to know.

If that is the case, then the narrator should say absolutely nothing at all. And I myself would lean toward this. My advice to Maggie would be that she should ask Alfred about his OWN letter.

Quote:

And I just do not swallow the idea of secrets between spouses

I do not think that there should be secrets between spouses either. But let's put the emphasis where it belongs...between spouses

I am just curious... what is the marital status of each in this thread? If you want to share...
05-20-2009, 12:12 AM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I think leaving me with any child is considered child endagerment ;)

haha..Dark Muse, I think she means she left you (the child) as a happy one. She might have said 'a happy camper' instead. And jinjang, this thread does not belong to anyone. It's just that Virgil and I collaborated (ages ago) to start this thread and we do our darnest each month to keep it running. It helps to have a little structure in these discussions or they tend to get out of hand. We learned that from the past; and infact, these discussions seem to be getting better all the time. No one else that I know, really wants the responsibility of posting text, so that seems to have fallen on my shoulders; and I really don't mind. I love Lawrence's work so I love writing up the introduction or researching a background - it's a pure labor of love. I guess I have read the most Lawrence short stories so far or anyone. In fact, recently, I have been attempting to read all the ones, I have not yet read; so I can say I completed the entire three volume set. I am nearing my goal.

Quote:

I do not think it is the narrators call to determine what the wife does or does not have a right to know. And I just do not swallow the idea of secrets between spouces, I have to disagree with the notion the ignorance is what makes a happy and healthy marraige, or that a marraige must be spared above all else. I think Maggie deserves to know the truth and from that be able to make up her own mind about how she wants to apporach the situation.

I just realised something Dark Muse; you are an 'idealist'. The problem with that is we are reading a story where idealism does not dominate and we are not here to judge the characters by our own standards. Our world is not always an idealistic world either. I think Lawrence is going for reality here and not idealism or moral perfection. I would personally agree with you on the moral issues and very much not approve of a husband sneaking around behind my back or getting another woman pregnant, or even just fooling around, being secretive. I don't think, however, married couples have to tell each other everything about their lives - people need some space. I also think there is a thing called 'forgiveness'; that is not an easy road to travel and not always possible; but one has to consider the possibilty. I doubt I would be too forgiving in the instance of a filandering husband, but this was a different century for one thing; therefore, I am not sure this woman has a lot of options left to her. Apparently, she cannot even return to her former home. The point is, getting hung up again, on this moral debate, is not helping us to understand the story and the deeper meanings, themes, etc. If anything, Lawrence always treats his characters very humanly and humans are fallible; they certain are not always perfect, or moral.

I think that Virgil's post above is very good and his rendition of why this story was told in first person narrative is excellent. It would have been an entirely different story, as he says, if it had not been first person or had it been told from either Alfred or Maggie's perspective. Much of the mystery would have been lost or unbalanced. Being a first person narrative, also we must consider the perspective of the narrator. I agree with Virgil that Lawrence chose the right option in using the first person narrative.
05-20-2009, 12:34 AM
jinjang

Quote:

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I am just curious... what is the marital status of each in this thread? If you want to share...

I think I have abundantly cleared on this one: I am married with two children and I am the dominating wife or at least my husband allows me to think so so far as it does not interfere with his dominance or his couch. We met as good friends and we are married as good friends. He tells me almost everything honestly and so do I to him. I even told him on which friends or people I had crush. We have incessant topics to talk about over a dinner or on our walk. We fight, too, sometimes.

I know you were not asking me this question.
05-20-2009, 12:44 AM
Janine

Single; no secret there; it's in my profile information. I am divorced with one son. The divorce was eons ago, when I was quite young and foolish; I think that was one of my first lives. In fact, you might now refer to me as a widow, since my ex passed away a few years back. We were on casual speaking terms, since he was the father of my son; also he had been married two more times since.
05-20-2009, 12:52 AM
jinjang

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I did not spicify divorce or breaking up the marraige, I simply said she should be able to make up her own mind on how she wanted to handle the situation, that does not per sae mean explcitiy getting a divorce.

That is Maggie's dilemma. I would suggest her not to sleep with Alfred for a long time to punish him, but then he may repeat the offense again. Excuse me if I take it so lightly.

Quote:

But there were women whom even at this period of time did choose divorce over unhappy marraiges even knowing the difficulties that could come from such. So it would not be completely out of the question for Maggie. But I had not acutally directly suggested it. But at any rate Maggie should be alloud to decide for herself with the full truth what she thinks would be within her own personaly best interests.

One compensation for women is, as we men and women get older, we need men less and men need women more in their emotional need. I am past 30.
I was needy when I was 20's and happily not anymore.
05-20-2009, 01:01 AM
BienvenuJDC
I think that it is interesting how one's perspective is effected by personal experience. I've always had certain outlooks about raising children when I was single. Now that I am married with two children (even having one as a special needs child), I still hold many of the same views, but they are from different perspectives now. So also is my views of the marriage relationship. I don't think that one can have the same outlook (good word OUT -look...one who is in such situation...looking OUT) without the same experiences. You never hear of the term 'IN-look'...

I don't want anyone to respond with personal info, but what is the perspective of:
- a single person (Never been married)
- a young married person
- an experienced married person
- a married person (as the unfaithful one)
- a married person (as the one married to the unfaithful)
- a married person (as the unfaithful one -- Not forgiven)
- a married person (as the one married to -- Not forgiving)
- a married person (as the unfaithful one -- Forgiven)
- a married person (as the one married to -- Forgiving)
- a widow/widower - the loss of that loved one...especially before their time...would that loss change perspective
If you lost your spouse, might you say to yourself...if I only had them back...I would keep them no matter what mistakes that they would make...

And for the record...I think that there is a difference between someone who made a mistake and someone who makes a patterned lifestyle. Is there enough information in this story to indicate (for sure) if Alfred...made a mistake...or made a lifestyle...?
05-20-2009, 01:25 AM
Dark Muse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

I just realised something Dark Muse; you are an 'idealist'. The problem with that is we are reading a story where idealism does not dominate and we are not here to judge the characters by our own standards. Our world is not always an idealistic world either. I think Lawrence is going for reality here and not idealism or moral perfection. I would personally agree with you on the moral issues and very much not approve of a husband sneaking around behind my back or getting another woman pregnant, or even just fooling around, being secretive. I don't think, however, married couples have to tell each other everything about their lives - people need some space. I also think there is a thing called 'forgiveness'; that is not an easy road to travel and not always possible; but one has to consider the possibilty. I doubt I would be too forgiving in the instance of a filandering husband, but this was a different century for one thing; therefore, I am not sure this woman has a lot of options left to her. Apparently, she cannot even return to her former home. The point is, getting hung up again, on this moral debate, is not helping us to understand the story and the deeper meanings, themes, etc. If anything, Lawrence always treats his characters very humanly and humans are fallible; they certain are not always perfect, or moral.

I really do not consider myself an idealist. I just have very high standards and hold people up to high expectations though part of this comes from the fact that while I do not make any claims to perfection, the moral code I judge others by I do uphold for myself, so it is hardly something impossible that I am seeking. I just do not have much give when it comes to those of a weak willed nature. I am just very much into personal reasonability and people being held accountable for their actions.

There is this quote I read somewhere that sums up my basic feelings I cannot recall the exact words off the top of my head but it says basically. "You cannot always control what you feel, but you can control how you behave"
05-20-2009, 01:29 AM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinjang

That is Maggie's dilemma. I would suggest her not to sleep with Alfred for a long time to punish him, but then he may repeat the offense again. Excuse me if I take it so lightly.

I know this is to Dark Muse, but I think that tactic would drive him to more straying from the nest. The we would have a second story perhaps - a sequel.;)

Quote:

One compensation for women is, as we men and women get older, we need men less and men need women more in their emotional need. I am past 30.
I was needy when I was 20's and happily not anymore.

jinjang, wait till you reach my age! :lol:
05-20-2009, 01:29 AM
jinjang

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

jinjang, wait till you reach my age!

What do you mean? Do women get the upper hand? Or we are just better off without any men?

Do you say upper hand or upper end?
05-20-2009, 01:36 AM
BienvenuJDC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I really do not consider myself an idealist. I just have very high standards and hold people up to high expectations

That is pretty much what an idealist is...
05-20-2009, 01:43 AM
Janine
Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I think that it is interesting how one's perspective is effected by personal experience. I've always had certain outlooks about raising children when I was single. Now that I am married with two children (even having one as a special needs child), I still hold many of the same views, but they are from different perspectives now. So also is my views of the marriage relationship. I don't think that one can have the same outlook (good word OUT -look...one who is in such situation...looking OUT) without the same experiences. You never hear of the term 'IN-look'...

I don't want anyone to respond with personal info, but what is the perspective of:

a single person (Never been married)

a young married person

an experienced married person

a married person (as the unfaithful one)

a married person (as the one married to the unfaithful)

a married person (as the unfaithful one -- Not forgiven)

a married person (as the one married to -- Not forgiving)

a married person (as the unfaithful one -- Forgiven)

a married person (as the one married to -- Forgiving)

a widow/widower - the loss of that loved one...especially before their time...would that loss change perspective

If you lost your spouse, might you say to yourself...if I only had them back...I would keep them no matter what mistakes that they would make...

And for the record...I think that there is a difference between someone who made a mistake and someone who makes a patterned lifestyle. Is there enough information in this story to indicate (for sure) if Alfred...made a mistake...or made a lifestyle...?
Bien, you are doing a whole study here. Interesting I admit. I do wonder how our perspectives change according to our own experience and circumstances. I also think it has a lot to do with age. When we are younger we expect the world to run like clockwork. As we get older, we realise people have to make concessions and also people are fallible and we accept that more readily, than we might have done in our youth; that does not mean a wife should let a husband walk all over her or visa versa. I think a lot needs to be factored in. With a husband, I now know to have been a philandering mate, it's odd that I don't condemn Alfred. I certainly, would not find Alfred a suitable kind of husband. I just think that war drives people appart and as Virgil pointed out, gives rise to 'unnatural' circumstances, where perhaps people, who would have lived descently prior to the war, are drawn into doing things they later regret. Now if the lies in this story, can't be forgiven as human weaknesses, then I don't know what we can forgive. 'Forgiveness' is a Christian ideal and I believe in it. Other's might not. Christ forgave the theives hanging on the cross with him and he even forgave his crucifiers, am I not right? As the bibical verse goes "Let those free from sin cast the first stone." I think that is very wise.
05-20-2009, 01:48 AM
BienvenuJDC

And what goes around comes around...

maybe someday we might be in need of forgiveness...and I'm not talking about from God...but from each other...
05-20-2009, 02:25 AM
Dark Muse

I suppose that is the key for me there are some things that are beyond forgiveness and should not be forgiven nor do they deserve to be forgive. As well I do not think that "human weakness" is an excuse to let one off the hook. There should be consequences for ones actions.

While Maggie might "choose" to stay with Alfred, I do not think there is anything within her behavior that suggests she genuinely forgives him for what he did. She accepts and perhaps sees that her prospects are better with him than if she had attempted to left, but I don't think this story leaves one with the idea that from where on out they are going to repair their marriage. I think Maggie is still bitter toward him (and rightfully so) and no matter what Maggie may or may not do in regards to him, I do not think that this incident is just a one time thing.

Maggie's behavior and remarks about Alfred earlier within the story suggest that prior to the letter he has already acted in an untoward way toward her, be it another affair or some other less than appealing behavior. I just do not see Alfred as someone who has only made one mistake in his life and is now going to amend for it.

I think he is a cad through and through. Not just because of this single episode but because of what the story suggests to me about his past and future behavior outside of this incident.
05-20-2009, 02:41 AM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I suppose that is the key for me there are some things that are beyond forgiveness and should not be forgiven nor do they deserve to be forgive. As well I do not think that "human weakness" is an excuse to let one off the hook. There should be consequences for ones actions.

While Maggie might "choose" to stay with Alfred, I do not think there is anything within her behavior that suggests she genuinely forgives him for what he did. She accepts and perhaps sees that her prospects are better with him than if she had attempted to left, but I don't think this story leaves one with the idea that from where on out they are going to repair their marriage. I think Maggie is still bitter toward him (and rightfully so) and no matter what Maggie may or may not do in regards to him, I do not think that this incident is just a one time thing.

Maggie's behavior and remarks about Alfred earlier within the story suggest that prior to the letter he has already acted in an untoward way toward her, be it another affair or some other less than appealing behavior. I just do not see Alfred as someone who has only made one mistake in his life and is now going to amend for it.

I think he is a cad through and through. Not just because of this single episode but because of what the story suggests to me about his past and future behavior outside of this incident.

Well, even if what you say is the absolute truth then so what? How does it effect the story? I don't see why we have to take a stand either way. I just see this as a story or slice of life that we will never know all the circumstances behind the characters actions. Maybe Alfred was shell-shocked when he had his affair? of course I am just kidding but still the point is we don't know that much truly about #1 the affair with the Belgium girl #2 what Alfred went through in the war #3 how his married life has been with his wife up until now. Everything in the story is suggested but not spelled out, so who is to possitively say how things were. We only have gotten a glipse into Maggie and Alfred's personalities and dispositions. I don't think anyone can make a fair judgement on just these scanty impressions one gets of the characters, same applies for the narrator; whom actually we can feel his mind more clearly than the others since the story is in first person.

Asside from this, your personal beliefs, along with all others here are their own. They all 'own' them and have the right to think morally, as they feel compelled to think. You can't force your views on anyone else here or in the world in general. To say you don't believe in forgiveness (specifically, that there are some things beyond forgiveness) is one of those personal beliefs and you can't force others to agree with you, so you are wasting your time trying to do so. We need to respect everyone's person perspective on this story and their own opinions/beliefs.

I wish to move on with the text. Any objections to that idea? Otherwise, I see this going nowhere again, but round and round in endless circles. Let's shove on and explore the next part of the text. I will post that tomorrow, in a separate post; it is too late now.
05-20-2009, 02:47 AM
Dark Muse

I did not accuse you forcing your beliefs on others when you mentioned your views on forgiveness, so are people who disagree with you not alloud to express opinons without being accused of something.
05-20-2009, 07:40 AM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinjang

Do you really think so? I can't picture an English father-in-law blatantly referencing sex to a daughter-in-law no matter how close they feel.

He's certainly a very earthy fellow who is quite comfortable in his way of the world. This is Lawrence's ideal person, one whose gone through life and been honest about his sexuality, link to the nature and the cycles of life. Also he is the pre-war person of the story, removed from the distorted and dysfunctional ways of post war England. (Before I get comments on this, I am speaking from Lawrence's point of view, not my personal. How can I do this? Well, if I haven't mentioned this before, I did my master's thesis on DH Lawrence and have read not only a lot of his fiction, not only biographies, but also his a bit of his non-fiction ideas and many of his letters. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with his ideas, I'm just presenting them.)

Quote:

I mean you may be thinking too much of sex to possibly misinterpreting the story.:D

:lol: I may have sex on my mind. But for Lawrence sex is the central experience from which all other things come from. If there is a possible sexual connotation in a Lawrence work, it's almost certain he did it intentionally. Of course it's always possible it leaked in accidentally.

Quote:

Excuse me if I misinterpreted what you said. I thought you mentioned something about the reversed dominance between men and women after the war and how men lost their ruling roles in their households. When Maggie has the letter, she had the upper end of the fight. Now the narrator turned around the situation and gave Alfred the excuse to fight back hence regaining the dominance?

Actually I did say that. I meant that in the post war scene of the story, the men have lost dominance, and I think now I see the witch references to Maggie as a suggestion by Lawrence to women's gaining of power in the post war world.

Quote:

Yes, I wanted to ask you if Wintry peacock, Joey, means the manhood, why Alfred is trying to kill him. I lingered on the statement: Maggie is making too much of the bird. That is when I concluded Joey was in the way between Maggie and Alfred. I also called it Joey interfering innocently. What does it symbolize? I have no idea.

Very good questions. I'm not sure I've reached any conclusions on this yet. Let me hold off, but the tension between Alfred and the peacock and Maggie's love for the peacock creates a classic triangle of jealosies. I guess it comes down to what exactly the peacock is symbolizing.
05-20-2009, 08:24 AM
Nightshade
Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I think that it is interesting how one's perspective is effected by personal experience. I've always had certain outlooks about raising children when I was single. Now that I am married with two children (even having one as a special needs child), I still hold many of the same views, but they are from different perspectives now. So also is my views of the marriage relationship. I don't think that one can have the same outlook (good word OUT -look...one who is in such situation...looking OUT) without the same experiences. You never hear of the term 'IN-look'...

I don't want anyone to respond with personal info, but what is the perspective of:

a single person (Never been married)

a young married person

an experienced married person

a married person (as the unfaithful one)

a married person (as the one married to the unfaithful)

a married person (as the unfaithful one -- Not forgiven)

a married person (as the one married to -- Not forgiving)

a married person (as the unfaithful one -- Forgiven)

a married person (as the one married to -- Forgiving)

a widow/widower - the loss of that loved one...especially before their time...would that loss change perspective

If you lost your spouse, might you say to yourself...if I only had them back...I would keep them no matter what mistakes that they would make...

And for the record...I think that there is a difference between someone who made a mistake and someone who makes a patterned lifestyle. Is there enough information in this story to indicate (for sure) if Alfred...made a mistake...or made a lifestyle...?
Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Bien, you are doing a whole study here. Interesting I admit. I do wonder how our perspectives change according to our own experience and circumstances. I also think it has a lot to do with age. When we are younger we expect the world to run like clockwork. As we get older, we realise people have to make concessions and also people are fallible and we accept that more readily, than we might have done in our youth; that does not mean a wife should let a husband walk all over her or visa versa. I think a lot needs to be factored in. .

Right having finally pulled myself together and decided to join in I just want to say before i forget after rereading the thread and reading thje story, what your talking about here bein is really an application of media relativist ( or was in the pluralist?)audiance theory. and ther have been studies that show that people form different backgrounds bring differnt things to a 'reading' of a pice. If you are intrested I could dig out the referances to studies sometime this week. :D
05-20-2009, 08:29 AM
Sapphire

Wow... that's a lot of posts since I left! Lets try catching up...

And sorry in advance for talking about ALBERT all the time instead of ALFRED. I have been making this mistake all along and I try to catch myself before I post my messages. It might go wrong one day though: So if I write Albert I mean Alfred :).

@Virgil
I really liked to read your explanation of why Lawrence choose for a narration in the first person here. Thank you for that.

Quote:

n one of my last posts, I commented on the psychic tension between Alfred and Joey. I think it's critical to understanding the story. I'm surprised no one commented on it.

I do not really know what to say about that. I think it is there. JinJang asks why Alfred would kill Joey if he symbolizes the manhood. In my eyes that is easy enough: Alfred does not like competition. He has been unfaithful, but he detests the idea that Maggie might be too. So he wants this other (symoblic) manhood out of the way. Maybe it even goes so far that he thinks such will give him back his own manhood?!

Quote:

I may have sex on my mind. But for Lawrence sex is the central experience from which all other things come from. If there is a possible sexual connotation in a Lawrence work, it's almost certain he did it intentionally. Of course it's always possible it leaked in accidentally.

Personally, I think that once an author is known for focussing on sex a lot - people will start looking for it and always manage to find it. I mean, there is symbolism towards sex to be found in everything. The most innocent words will be the first to be turned dirty.
Having said that, I think that in a short story like this Lawrence will probably have thought ever sentence over and over and I think high enough of him to believe he saw every possible connection :p So I think you're right in always pointing it out. :) Especially if Lawrence looked at sex as the "central experience". I think that explains a lot, thank you for pointing that out.

@JinJang

Quote:

They are all meddlesome and manipulating bunch of miserable people!

Definitely. And maybe that is why I appreciate having read this story. :) Humans will be humans, humans make mistakes (and I believe they SHOULD admit those). Here we see the mistakes being made over and over again and all on top of one another. The one lie follows on the next - maybe the message of it all is that once you start being untrue (both as in sleeping with another girl as in not telling about it or lying about it) you can never ever be truthful again? You just get sucked into the lies and people around you start/keep lying too. Just a thought ;)

@Dark Muse
I see your strong point on never keeping secrets from your spouse. However, I think both Maggie and Albert are keeping their secrets too much to themselves.

Quote:

I think Maggie deserves to know the truth and from that be able to make up her own mind about how she wants to approach the situation.

I do not know what Maggie told to Albert about the letter, but he never read it. And even after the narrator told his version of the letter Maggie did not seem to believe him - what stopped her from throwing that letter in Albert face, telling him she knew all about (OK, putting in a lie there) this Eliza and letting him explain? He did not know the narrator's version of the story so he might just have admitted the whole thing. Instead she... well, we do not know what she does, do we? I am pretty sure she is keeping her own secrets about it all - maybe not even telling Albert there is a child.
I do think the moment Albert got home - he should have told Maggie about Eliza. If he did not, the coming of the letter might have been a good reason to come clean. And I think his response to the narrator when he told him there was a baby (after all, why would Albert know that if he did not read the letter) was downright appealing. But there is enough time to rant about that when we come to that part of the text. ;)

The narrator was (in my eyes) wrong in reading a personal letter. Maggie was wrong in burning a letter that was meant for her husband.

@BienVenuJDC
A whole study indeed! Of course our perspective is influenced by our marrital status, but lets not put too much weight on it. I think that in the end it is all our experiences in this world, and all our circumstances that make our out/inlook on life (even fictional life). To make your "study" thorough, one should definitely add the kind of marriage (or not) a person's parents/guardians had/have. Just everything that might shape our idea of this institution. :)
That is, if you would want to make this study scientific. Reading your post I take that you "just" think it an interesting idea - I am all in favour of exploring such. So here is my status: single, and not planning on ever getting married or having children for that matter. I know my mother was the same at this age though, so you never know :p.

@Janine

Quote:

When I heard you all discussiong her as being 'Northeast' it seems to have set off a bell in my head and I thought of something that Hamlet said when talking to Polonius in double meanings or it may have been R & G, is former classmates.

I found in ACT2, SCENE2 the following: "I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw." To be honest, that just confuses me - more cardinal directions which are bounded to an emotional state of mind :lol:. I guess it will be a study in itself. Respect that you manage to remember such!

Quote:

The point is, getting hung up again, on this moral debate, is not helping us to understand the story and the deeper meanings, themes, etc. If anything, Lawrence always treats his characters very humanly and humans are fallible; they certain are not always perfect, or moral.

I do think this story was meant to make people think about morality and what to do in situations like that. In that light, it is interesting to talk about this. I do not think there is one answer to it - people will see it in their own light. I totally agree with you though, that we should not get too much hung up about it - lets not forget about the text itself.

Janine, I think we're all ready for a new piece of this wonderful story! Bring it on :D
05-20-2009, 12:28 PM
Quark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sapphire

I do not really know what to say about that. I think it is there. JinJang asks why Alfred would kill Joey if he symbolizes the manhood. In my eyes that is easy enough: Alfred does not like competition. He has been unfaithful, but he detests the idea that Maggie might be too. So he wants this other (symoblic) manhood out of the way. Maybe it even goes so far that he thinks such will give him back his own manhood?!

Yeah, the peacock is weird symbol. Or is it even a symbol? I kind of like Virgil's idea that the peacock is just another character who creates a second love triangle between itself, Maggie, and Alfred.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sapphire

The one lie follows on the next - maybe the message of it all is that once you start being untrue (both as in sleeping with another girl as in not telling about it or lying about it) you can never ever be truthful again? You just get sucked into the lies and people around you start/keep lying too. Just a thought ;)

I don't know if there's much of a message to this one. I tend to agree with Janine that this is slice of life kind of story. There isn't really much you're left with at the end of the story other than a dysfunctional couple. I suppose that's why the story ends with laughter. There really isn't anything else one can do with this.

I do think lies are important somehow, but I'm not entirely sure what exactly they do. Obviously, they cover the truth from the person being lied to. But, then again, they don't really seem to work. The other person always knows what's going on, and the lies are circumvented. Maggie knows Alfred is having an affair, and Alfred knows that Maggie knows. Even the family knows. Yet, they don't know all the details, and the picture they get of the affair is rather shadowy. Maybe that's the message (it's difficult not to find messages, I guess) that people know each other only loosely. They rarely ever have a complete picture of the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sapphire

I found in ACT2, SCENE2 the following: "I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw." To be honest, that just confuses me - more cardinal directions which are bounded to an emotional state of mind :lol:. I guess it will be a study in itself. Respect that you manage to remember such!

In that quotation, Hamlet is hinting to Polonius (and the audience) that he is feigning madness. To say that he's mad only when the is north-north-west is to say that he's made only some of the time--meaning when he chooses. It has some parallel with "The Wintry Peacock." The father is saying that Maggie is ill only some of the time--meaning when Alfred is away.
05-20-2009, 02:14 PM
Sapphire

Just passing through...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quark

In that quotation, Hamlet is hinting to Polonius (and the audience) that he is feigning madness. To say that he's mad only when the is north-north-west is to say that he's made only some of the time--meaning when he chooses. It has some parallel with "The Wintry Peacock." The father is saying that Maggie is ill only some of the time--meaning when Alfred is away.

I really think that if the father refers to Maggie as being North-East the last 2 days, he's referring to her being ill WHEN ALFRED IS HOME. Isn't he home those last 2 days?! At this moment, it is the time frame that might confuse me more than the expression itself...
05-20-2009, 03:30 PM
Quark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sapphire

?!

Yes, my bad. Alfred had "come whoam a Wednesday night."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sapphire

At this moment, it is the time frame that might confuse me more than the expression itself...

Oh, when you said

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sapphire

"I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw." To be honest, that just confuses me - more cardinal directions which are bounded to an emotional state of mind :lol:. I guess it will be a study in itself. Respect that you manage to remember such!

I thought you were wondering about the connection between the expression and the story.

Anyway, I do hope there's something beside the last word of my post that's interesting.
05-20-2009, 03:59 PM
Sapphire

Quote:

I thought you were wondering about the connection between the expression and the story.

Yes, thank you for the explanation. I am sorry that I forgot to state so :brickwall

I guess it is the time frame that confuses me now ;) One problem solved, one to go :)
05-20-2009, 04:41 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quark

Yeah, the peacock is weird symbol. Or is it even a symbol? I kind of like Virgil's idea that the peacock is just another character who creates a second love triangle between itself, Maggie, and Alfred.

Hi Quark, glad you returned and glad you read the story. You have been highly missed here.

I agree with you two. Good observation and we have seen many a 'triangle', before in Lawrence's short stories, haven't we?

Quote:

I don't know if there's much of a message to this one. I tend to agree with Janine that this is slice of life kind of story. There isn't really much you're left with at the end of the story other than a dysfunctional couple. I suppose that's why the story ends with laughter. There really isn't anything else one can do with this.

That is how I saw it; how I saw the narrator perceive it. I said before, that he was not laughing 'with' the couple, or with Alfred, but at him and the whole scene, sort of like the whole joke was on him at the end, ironic. He couldn't really spare the couple from each other. He's seeing that, in the end, they are are rather ridiculous in their little lies and deceits. Maybe the fact that, the narrator got dragged into this whole affair of lying, also is ridiculous to himself, at the end. Really, as soon as he runs down the hill and away from the scene and the family, it's all up to them to carry on as they will. I see the ending as a sort of letting go, for the narrator. He's done with the whole sorid affair now. Let what comes next naturally happen. It's out of his hands, his control.

Quote by Quark

Quote:

I do think lies are important somehow, but I'm not entirely sure what exactly they do. Obviously, they cover the truth from the person being lied to. But, then again, they don't really seem to work. The other person always knows what's going on, and the lies are circumvented. Maggie knows Alfred is having an affair, and Alfred knows that Maggie knows. Even the family knows. Yet, they don't know all the details, and the picture they get of the affair is rather shadowy. Maybe that's the message (it's difficult not to find messages, I guess) that people know each other only loosely. They rarely ever have a complete picture of the other.

Exactly, no one is being fooled here. That also could be why the narrator laughs, as he runs home. He realises now, that no one is fooling anyone in the end. Let's look at that text more closely, when we get to it and see what we can discover. I think the timing of the words and conversation between the two men is important, crucial.

Quote:

In that quotation, Hamlet is hinting to Polonius (and the audience) that he is feigning madness. To say that he's mad only when the is north-north-west is to say that he's made only some of the time--meaning when he chooses. It has some parallel with "The Wintry Peacock." The father is saying that Maggie is ill only some of the time--meaning when Alfred is away.

You are right, after reading that quotation over a few times here, I finally got it's full meaning. That one had stumped me for sometime. That whole double meaning conversation with Polonius, in that part of the play, always fascinates me. I knew Lawrence's line was something like this line, but now I see not quite the same - here it is 'Northwest'. But, it still describes a temperment or a state of being. Apparently, the term 'Northwest' and the term 'Northeast' is used to indicate a person's temperment, at that particular time. Like someone pointed out, in relation to England, Northeast would be windy and colder. I think that is what he is referring to. Northeasters here are storms so maybe hs is saying that Maggie has been like a storm, 'stormy', the past few days, since Alfred returned.

I agree with Saphire, that Maggie may have shown Alfred the letter and then burned it or destroyed it; or even mentioned that she knows the contents. I think that part is not made very clear and besides we only have the narrators impression of what happened to that letter, after it left his hands. Let me review what she wrote:

Quote by Saphire

Quote:

I do not know what Maggie told to Albert about the letter, but he never read it. And even after the narrator told his version of the letter Maggie did not seem to believe him - what stopped her from throwing that letter in Albert face, telling him she knew all about (OK, putting in a lie there) this Eliza and letting him explain? He did not know the narrator's version of the story so he might just have admitted the whole thing. Instead she... well, we do not know what she does, do we? I am pretty sure she is keeping her own secrets about it all - maybe not even telling Albert there is a child.
I do think the moment Albert got home - he should have told Maggie about Eliza. If he did not, the coming of the letter might have been a good reason to come clean. And I think his response to the narrator when he told him there was a baby (after all, why would Albert know that if he did not read the letter) was downright appealing. But there is enough time to rant about that when we come to that part of the text.

"but he never read it." How do you know that - didn't Alfred read French? It was only Maggie and the parents who could not interpret the letter. Perhaps, Alfred saw that letter, but is not letting on he did; playing dumb.

"she... well, we do not know what she does, do we?" Exactly, we don't what she does or what Alfred and her say to each other. We can't know what goes on behind closed doors. Now, I can picture Maggie simply lying to Alfred or stretching the truth and she might say 'I know the truth of this letter'; lead him into admitting his fault. I can easily see this, happening with Maggie. She seems very sly to her filandering husband. I will, of course, have to take a closer look at that part of the text (if we ever get there...*sigh*)...

Quote by Saphire

Quote:

I do not really know what to say about that. I think it is there. JinJang asks why Alfred would kill Joey if he symbolizes the manhood. In my eyes that is easy enough: Alfred does not like competition. He has been unfaithful, but he detests the idea that Maggie might be too. So he wants this other (symoblic) manhood out of the way. Maybe it even goes so far that he thinks such will give him back his own manhood?!

I can see it this way, also. I think her affection for the bird intimidates Alfred's manhood and degrades him in his eyes; must have been a huge putdown to know your wife perfers a bird over you! Therefore, he wishes, even needs to eliminate the bird, the object of her admiration. She certainly doesn't admire her husband - that's evident. Should he kill the animal, he would show his male dominance; or so he views it that way. Isn't hunting a male thing and nurturing a womanly thing? He is exerting his maleness very much by striking out at the bird. Also, the bird is connected to Maggie's past. He wishes to sever that tie forever. He definitely wishes to rule the roost, but in the end, it's questionable as to who will do that - the wife or the husband? It's a whole power-play; that's how I see it.

Quote by Virgil

Quote:

He's certainly a very earthy fellow who is quite comfortable in his way of the world. This is Lawrence's ideal person, one whose gone through life and been honest about his sexuality, link to the nature and the cycles of life. Also he is the pre-war person of the story, removed from the distorted and dysfunctional ways of post war England.

Virgil,You know, in someways this character reminds me of Lawrence's character in "The White Peacock", Frank Annable; however more developed and probably kinder, as well; it's been awhile, since I read the novel; I should read it again; the descriptions are beyond compare in that first novel. I agree with you that he represents the 'ideal man' for Lawrence. He is tied to the earth in a natual way and he is honest about his own sexuality, being fully in tune with the earth's cycles/seasons. Good point, your last statement here!

Quote by Virgil

Quote:

I may have sex on my mind. But for Lawrence sex is the central experience from which all other things come from. If there is a possible sexual connotation in a Lawrence work, it's almost certain he did it intentionally. Of course it's always possible it leaked in accidentally.

I can and cannot agree with you on this entirely. I know that statement sounds odd. Sex is not always central to his work. I would agree that exploring comflict, between sexes is, even between same sexes, in some of the works is central. In this story we are primarily interested in that of husband and wife. At this particular time, this was very much an issue with Lawrence, concerning his own marriage. He was not all that trusting of Frieda, when she went off to Germany alone. A lot more was going on there, than mere sex or lust. No, in this way, I disagree. Sex is a huge part of Lawrence's work, but in "Women in Love" , Birkin says, when asked what he wishes for, 'he wants to sit in a field of daisies perfectly happy with the woman he loves'. He does want sex, but it goes far beyond mere sex. He refuses to call it 'Love' at times, abhoring the word, because of it's connotations and restrictions. He feels the coming together is holy and worthy of comparison to two stars in the heavens uniting or facing each other in perfect balance; it's a great mystery not to be solved. Isn't that how it goes, something like that? It's not mere sex that is central to Lawrence's stories; that would make him ordinary and Lawrence was no ordinary author. I see the central theme in this story, as much more than mere sex; I see it as the war background and the alienation of the couple in an unnatural time; barring them from the sensual life, they might have had, had the war not driven them appart. In "Women in Love" I see a sense of letting go and experiencing a true sensualtiy. Sex and sexuality must go hand in hand here and are connected with nature. I guess this could be a whole debate in itself. Leave that for another day, we need to progress with this story.

:wave:Hi Nightshade! Glad to have you on board. I am glad too, that you reviewed all the posts and were able to locate the story to read. It's never too late to join in, as you are proving. That study sounds interesting. It would interesting to post that at the end of this discussion so that we can discuss those ideas separately.

We need to move onto more text today. I will post that in my next post.
05-20-2009, 10:56 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sapphire

[color="blue"]@Virgil
I really liked to read your explanation of why Lawrence choose for a narration in the first person here. Thank you for that.

Thank you. I think that comes more from my writing short stories than my reading Lawrence.

Quote:

I do not really know what to say about that. I think it is there. JinJang asks why Alfred would kill Joey if he symbolizes the manhood. In my eyes that is easy enough: Alfred does not like competition. He has been unfaithful, but he detests the idea that Maggie might be too. So he wants this other (symoblic) manhood out of the way. Maybe it even goes so far that he thinks such will give him back his own manhood?!

I think Janine answered it well and I'll address it below.

Quote:

Personally, I think that once an author is known for focussing on sex a lot - people will start looking for it and always manage to find it. I mean, there is symbolism towards sex to be found in everything. The most innocent words will be the first to be turned dirty.
Having said that, I think that in a short story like this Lawrence will probably have thought ever sentence over and over and I think high enough of him to believe he saw every possible connection :p So I think you're right in always pointing it out. :) Especially if Lawrence looked at sex as the "central experience". I think that explains a lot, thank you for pointing that out.

Yes, and I think Janine makes it clearer as to how sex is important to Lawrence. I'll get to that below too.

Quote:

@Dark Muse
I see your strong point on never keeping secrets from your spouse. However, I think both Maggie and Albert are keeping their secrets too much to themselves.

I haven't addressed D-M's comments about the slimyness of this marriage, especially Alfred. I agree with D-M. I don't think any of these characters are supposed to be likable. I think Alfred is supposed to be dispicable. I think Maggie is supposed to be witchy.

Quote:

I do think this story was meant to make people think about morality and what to do in situations like that. In that light, it is interesting to talk about this. I do not think there is one answer to it - people will see it in their own light. I totally agree with you though, that we should not get too much hung up about it - lets not forget about the text itself.

I guess I can go along with that, though is it so much morality or the dysfunctionality of the marriage realtionship? They are kind of intertwined.

Quote:

Janine, I think we're all ready for a new piece of this wonderful story! Bring it on :D

Yes. :)

[QUOTE=Janine;723999] Hi Quark, glad you returned and glad you read the story. You have been highly missed here.

Quote:

I agree with you two. Good observation and we have seen many a 'triangle', before in Lawrence's short stories, haven't we?

Well, that's just classic approach to creating conflict. But who in there right mind would have used a peacock as the third party? :lol:

Quote:

That is how I saw it; how I saw the narrator perceive it. I said before, that he was not laughing 'with' the couple, or with Alfred, but at him and the whole scene, sort of like the whole joke was on him at the end, ironic.

We have to look at those laughs. I re-read the story looking for all the laughs and found there were nine references to laughs in there.

Quote:

I can see it this way, also. I think her affection for the bird intimidates Alfred's manhood and degrades him in his eyes; must have been a huge putdown to know your wife perfers a bird over you! Therefore, he wishes, even needs to eliminate the bird, the object of her admiration. She certainly doesn't admire her husband - that's evident. Should he kill the animal, he would show his male dominance; or so he views it that way. Isn't hunting a male thing and nurturing a womanly thing? He is exerting his maleness very much by striking out at the bird. Also, the bird is connected to Maggie's past. He wishes to sever that tie forever. He definitely wishes to rule the roost, but in the end, it's questionable as to who will do that - the wife or the husband? It's a whole power-play; that's how I see it.

Yes, I think this is right on how we should see Alfred's antogonism toward Joey. His manhood is threatened, and that is a manisfestation of the dysfunctionality of the modern post-war time. Who in there right mind would be threatened by it? But then again who but Maggie would feel such sexual attraction towrd him? The whole situation exudes dysfunctionality.

Quote:

Quote by Virgil
Virgil,You know, in someways this character reminds me of Lawrence's character in "The White Peacock", Frank Annable; however more developed and probably kinder, as well; it's been awhile, since I read the novel; I should read it again; the descriptions are beyond compare in that first novel. I agree with you that he represents the 'ideal man' for Lawrence. He is tied to the earth in a natual way and he is honest about his own sexuality, being fully in tune with the earth's cycles/seasons. Good point, your last statement here!

Yes, and he reminds me of Tom Brangwen in The Rainbow when Tom has aged.

Quote:

Quote by Virgil
I can and cannot agree with you on this entirely. I know that statement sounds odd. Sex is not always central to his work. I would agree that exploring comflict, between sexes is, even between same sexes, in some of the works is central. In this story we are primarily interested in that of husband and wife. At this particular time, this was very much an issue with Lawrence, concerning his own marriage. He was not all that trusting of Frieda, when she went off to Germany alone. A lot more was going on there, than mere sex or lust.

When I mean sex, I do not mean lust. You know that Lawrence was against porn and trivial sex. "Sex in the head" is what he called it.

Quote:

No, in this way, I disagree. Sex is a huge part of Lawrence's work, but in "Women in Love" , Birkin says, when asked what he wishes for, 'he wants to sit in a field of daisies perfectly happy with the woman he loves'. He does want sex, but it goes far beyond mere sex.

Yes, for Lawrence true sexual relations is a transcendence into a spiritual dimension. That is completely lacking in this story. The sexual dynamics that go on ion this story are warped.

Quote:

He refuses to call it 'Love' at times, abhoring the word, because of it's connotations and restrictions. He feels the coming together is holy and worthy of comparison to two stars in the heavens uniting or facing each other in perfect balance; it's a great mystery not to be solved. Isn't that how it goes, something like that? It's not mere sex that is central to Lawrence's stories; that would make him ordinary and Lawrence was no ordinary author.

We completely agree on this Janine.

Quote:

I see the central theme in this story, as much more than mere sex; I see it as the war background and the alienation of the couple in an unnatural time; barring them from the sensual life, they might have had, had the war not driven them appart. In "Women in Love" I see a sense of letting go and experiencing a true sensualtiy. Sex and sexuality must go hand in hand here and are connected with nature. I guess this could be a whole debate in itself. Leave that for another day, we need to progress with this story.

I think we agree. *shocking* :D That is the central theme of the story.
05-20-2009, 11:02 PM
Dark Muse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil

I guess I can go along with that, though is it so much morality or the dysfunctionality of the marriage realtionship? They are kind of intertwined.

I think with the figure of the narrator acting as a sort of middle man so to speak both between the reader and the characters as well as between Alfred and Maggie does introduce the idea of mortality within the story. I think the story would be different if it was just a 3rd person way of viewing the relationship between Maggie and Alfred, but the narrator himself has to deal with questions of morality in what to say, or not to say, both to Maggie and to Alfred. Maggie and Alfred do not deal directly with each other in reaguards to the letter, so I would say the narrator's pressence and him being a sort of go between invites one to consider the morality of the issue.
05-20-2009, 11:15 PM
Virgil

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I think with the figure of the narrator acting as a sort of middle man so to speak both between the reader and the characters as well as between Alfred and Maggie does introduce the idea of mortality within the story. I think the story would be different if it was just a 3rd person way of viewing the relationship between Maggie and Alfred, but the narrator himself has to deal with questions of morality in what to say, or not to say, both to Maggie and to Alfred. Maggie and Alfred do not deal directly with each other in reaguards to the letter, so I would say the narrator's pressence and him being a sort of go between invites one to consider the morality of the issue.

Good point.
05-20-2009, 11:19 PM
BienvenuJDC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I think with the figure of the narrator acting as a sort of middle man so to speak both between the reader and the characters as well as between Alfred and Maggie does introduce the idea of mortality within the story. I think the story would be different if it was just a 3rd person way of viewing the relationship between Maggie and Alfred, but the narrator himself has to deal with questions of morality in what to say, or not to say, both to Maggie and to Alfred. Maggie and Alfred do not deal directly with each other in reaguards to the letter, so I would say the narrator's pressence and him being a sort of go between invites one to consider the morality of the issue.

I think that Virgil is right...good point...
But I'm just a little short on getting it completely...not your fault DM...the deficiency is in me. Can anyone elaborate a little? Too many engineer's notes fried my brain today!!
05-20-2009, 11:26 PM
jinjang

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightshade

Right having finally pulled myself together and decided to join in I just want to say before i forget after rereading the thread and reading thje story, what your talking about here bein is really an application of media relativist ( or was in the pluralist?)audiance theory. and ther have been studies that show that people form different backgrounds bring differnt things to a 'reading' of a pice. If you are intrested I could dig out the referances to studies sometime this week.

Welcome to the thread, Nightshade! I thought I was reading BienvenuJDC’s posting because he said something similar. I said this once but it is better to repeat that the different views of the story brought by different people in the discussion is more fascinating for me than the story itself. That is why I think I am drawn to the thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sapphire

Personally, I think that once an author is known for focussing on sex a lot - people will start looking for it and always manage to find it. I mean, there is symbolism towards sex to be found in everything. The most innocent words will be the first to be turned dirty.

This may be also different personal views of the story. Virgil’s view of the story, I mean. He repeats often enough to the point where I am almost convinced but not quite yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sapphire

Maggie and Albert

I think you are like Dark Muse. You just want to hook up Maggie with someone else than Alfred. Here comes a charming prince on a white horse named Albert! Just teasing!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quark

Yeah, the peacock is weird symbol. Or is it even a symbol? I kind of like Virgil's idea that the peacock is just another character who creates a second love triangle between itself, Maggie, and Alfred.

Welcome back! Everyone seems to know you except me. I am new and you must be an old timer (not old but been here longer before me.)
We talked about what “wintry peacock” means for a long time. Please look at the thread on P.187 #2799 and a few following posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quark

Yet, they don't know all the details, and the picture they get of the affair is rather shadowy. Maybe that's the message (it's difficult not to find messages, I guess) that people know each other only loosely. They rarely ever have a complete picture of the other.

People can be elusive and I think people suffer more over the suspicion than the painful truth itself. What the narrator did can then be deemed as cruel to Maggie. Towards the end of our discussion, I am realizing the narrator was not doing any favor to Maggie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

Exactly, no one is being fooled here. That also could be why the narrator laughs, as he runs home. He realises now, that no one is fooling anyone in the end. Let's look at that text more closely, when we get to it and see what we can discover. I think the timing of the words and conversation between the two men is important, crucial.

Yes, now I can’t wait for the conversation between the narrator and Alfred.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janine

"but he never read it." How do you know that - didn't Alfred read French? It was only Maggie and the parents who could not interpret the letter. Perhaps, Alfred saw that letter, but is not letting on he did; playing dumb.

I do not think Alfred read the letter himself. Isn’t it why Alfred intercepted the narrator to know what is in the letter and what Maggie knows?
Yes, Janine. I think we are all ready for the next part.
05-20-2009, 11:35 PM
Janine

Quote:

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

I think that Virgil is right...good point...
But I'm just a little short on getting it completely...not your fault DM...the deficiency is in me. Can anyone elaborate a little? Too many engineer's notes fried my brain today!!

Is that why the guy in your avatar looks like that? :lol:
05-20-2009, 11:49 PM
jinjang

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Muse

I would say the narrator's pressence and him being a sort of go between invites one to consider the morality of the issue.

I am just talking to myself here:
The narrator is immoral though not as bad as the one in Lolita. The narrator is an observer and mediator forced into meddling into the affair of Maggie and Alfred.

Do we still consider the narrator is the author?
05-21-2009, 12:00 AM
Janine

Before we go on, I wanted to just post this part, because I was not sure we discussed it. This is actually, from the last segment of text that I posted earlier, at the end. It's fairly short and after, this I will add on the new part of the text.

Quote:

The mother came in again, and the talk became general. Maggie flashed her eyes at me from time to time, complacent and satisfied, moving among the men. I paid her little compliments, which she did not seem to hear. She attended to me with a kind of sinister, witch-like graciousness, her dark head ducked between her shoulders, at once humble and powerful. She was happy as a child attending to her father-in-law and to me. But there was something ominous between her eyebrows, as if a dark moth were settled there--and something ominous in her bent, hulking bearing.

She sat on a low stool by the fire, near her father-in-law. Her head was dropped, she seemed in a state of abstraction. From time to time she would suddenly recover, and look up at us, laughing and chatting. Then she would forget again. Yet in her hulked black forgetting she seemed very near to us.

There is one of those 'laughs', Virgil, which you referred to. I also, want to say, I read everyone of your posts today and yesterday, even if I failed to comment on all. I am happy to see all this enthusiasm. Everyone seems to be drawn to this thread and actually having a great time. This story can't be that bad, since we have posted tons of pages of commentary. I am very happy to see that. This is a very lively group, with lots of great ideas and new spins on the story. I didn't answer posts individually for this evening, because I will never get the new part of this text posted. It was difficult to figure out where I left off. So here goes....

Next Part of Text

Same paragraph continued

Quote:

The door having been opened, the peacock came slowly in, prancing calmly. He went near to her and crouched down, coiling his blue neck. She glanced at him, but almost as if she did not observe him. The bird sat silent, seeming to sleep, and the woman also sat hulked and silent, seemingly oblivious. Then once more there was a heavy step, and Alfred entered. He looked at his wife, and he looked at the peacock crouching by her. He stood large in the doorway, his hands stuck in front of him, in his breeches pockets. Nobody spoke. He turned on his heel and went out again. I rose also to go. Maggie started as if coming to herself. 'Must you go?' she asked, rising and coming near to me, standing in front of me, twisting her head sideways and looking up at me. 'Can't you stop a bit longer? We can all be cosy today, there's nothing to do outdoors.' And she laughed, showing her teeth oddly. She had a long chin. I said I must go. The peacock uncoiled and coiled again his long blue neck, as he lay on the hearth. Maggie still stood close in front of me, so that I was acutely aware of my waistcoat buttons. 'Oh, well,' she said, 'you'll come again, won't you? Do come again.' I promised. 'Come to tea one day--yes, do!' I promised--one day. The moment I went out of her presence I ceased utterly to exist for her--as utterly as I ceased to exist for Joey. With her curious abstractedness she forgot me again immediately. I knew it as I left her. Yet she seemed almost in physical contact with me while I was with her. The sky was all pallid again, yellowish. When I went out there was no sun; the snow was blue and cold. I hurried away down the hill, musing on Maggie.

After this is discussed I will post the last section of text; which is will take us to THE END....

hahah...yes, that is Saphire Blue type...
05-21-2009, 12:03 AM
BienvenuJDC

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinjang

I am just talking to myself here:
The narrator is immoral though not as bad as the one in Lolita. The narrator is an observer and mediator forced into meddling into the affair of Maggie and Alfred.

Do we still consider the narrator is the author?

I don't know if I would say IMmoral, though he may not have the highest standard of morality. He...as we might choose to assume...has been faithful in his own relationship....if we take it that he is married. My own definition of IMmorality is to be against morality. He doesn't condemn, nor condone the events, although he himself bears some guilt of sin.
05-21-2009, 12:11 AM
jinjang

Quote:

Originally Posted by BienvenueJDC

I don't know if I would say IMmoral, though he may not have the highest standard of morality. He...as we might choose to assume...has been faithful in his own relationship....if we take it that he is married. My own definition of IMmorality is to be against morality. He doesn't condemn, nor condone the events, although he himself bears some guilt of sin.

:D Excuse me for being short on the meaning of the word "immoral."
Can I say he was unethical to hide the truth?

Wait! The dictionary says the meaning of "immoral" as follows:
not moral ; broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles

I am okay to say what I said, right?
05-21-2009, 12:54 AM
Dark Muse

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinjang

I am just talking to myself here:
The narrator is immoral though not as bad as the one in Lolita. The narrator is an observer and mediator forced into meddling into the affair of Maggie and Alfred.

Do we still consider the narrator is the author?

While the narrator does not directly pass judgement and his own ethics can be questioned, there is a very specific reason why a narrator is used within this story and why the letter falls into his pocession more or less. Between Alfred and Maggie he is the only one that knows what it truly says, not matter what the others may susepct or think.

The only way the story could be told from a completely amoral way would be to simply have some unknown non-exisitent 3rd person, view of Maggie and Alfred, but the story is looked through the eyes of another preson active wihtin the story. This does sort of invite the readers into thier private lives.

Rather than viewing the story form a more distant stance of a 3rd person narration. In a way the narrator can be seen as creating a more interactive role betwene reader and the characters, as we can see the letter through is eyes, and also see the way he reinterpts the letter later.
05-21-2009, 01:21 AM
Janine

Can we now discuss the new part of the text, which I just posted? If it flips to the next page, then you will all disregard it again and I will have to repost it. It took me a half hour to find out where I left off, another 15 minutes to post it. Can we just move on and later on anyone who wants to dispute the moral makeup of the author/narrator, can do so at the end; because otherwise, we will just be going in circles again. I am more interested in getting on with the story at this point; several of you have requested I post that part of the text, so I did. I have another story in the Chekhov thread, which I want to start and a blog I wish to write.

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