I think we're ready for the next text Janine. :wink5:
Printable View
I think we're ready for the next text Janine. :wink5:
It can help to write down your toughts, then let it brood a while, and then read those over :nod: Works for me :wink5:Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace86
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace86
Especially with the production he had!Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
:hurray: See, we can do it :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I'm with Virgil :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Be back late afternoon or this evening with more text. Busy right now with PSE&G rep checking out our house. I will be able to think more clearly tonight...hopefully....
edit: please sit tight and I apologise but it won't be until tomorrow that I post the next part of the text. I had a tiresome day and I don't feel that well tonight. Tomorrow I am sure I will be better and will post a good chunk more of the story....so we can keep rolling along...
Here's the next part of the story as promised:
Quote:
Meanwhile youth and health and passion and promise. Winifred's father was always generous: but still, he was a man from the north with a hard head and a hard skin too, having received a good many knocks. At home he kept the hard head out of sight, and played at poetry and romance with his literary wife and his sturdy, passionate girls. He was a man of courage, not given to complaining, bearing his burdens by himself. No, he did not let the world intrude far into his home. He had a delicate, sensitive wife whose poetry won some fame in the narrow world of letters. He himself, with his tough old barbarian fighting spirit, had an almost child-like delight in verse, in sweet poetry, and in the delightful game of a cultured home. His blood was strong even to coarseness. But that only made the home more vigorous, more robust and Christmassy. There was always a touch of Christmas about him, now he was well off. If there was poetry after dinner, there were also chocolates and nuts, and good little out-of-the-way things to be munching.
Well then, into this family came Egbert. He was made of quite a different paste. The girls and the father were strong-limbed, thick-blooded people, true English, as holly-trees and hawthorn are English. Their culture was grafted on to them, as one might perhaps graft a common pink rose on to a thornstem. It flowered oddly enough, but it did not alter their blood.
And Egbert was a born rose. The age-long breeding had left him with a delightful spontaneous passion. He was not clever, nor even 'literary'. No, but the intonation of his voice, and the movement of his supple, handsome body, and the fine texture of his flesh and his hair, the slight arch of his nose, the quickness of his blue eyes would easily take the place of poetry. Winifred loved him, loved him, this southerner, as a higher being. A higher being, mind you. Not a deeper. And as for him, he loved her in passion with every fibre of him. She was the very warm stuff of life to him.
Wonderful then, those days at Crockham Cottage, the first days, all alone save for the woman who came to work in the mornings. Marvellous days, when she had all his tall, supple, fine-fleshed youth to herself, for herself, and he had her like a ruddy fire into which he could cast himself for rejuvenation. Ah, that it might never end, this passion, this marriage! The flame of their two bodies burnt again into that old cottage, that was haunted already by so much by-gone, physical desire. You could not be in the dark room for an hour without the influences coming over you. The hot blood-desire of by-gone yeomen, there in this old den where they had lusted and bred for so many generations. The silent house, dark, with thick, timbered walls and the big black chimney-place, and the sense of secrecy. Dark, with low, little windows, sunk into the earth. Dark, like a lair where strong beasts had lurked and mated, lonely at night and lonely by day, left to themselves and their own intensity for so many generations. It seemed to cast a spell on the two young people. They became different. There was a curious secret glow about them, a certain slumbering flame hard to understand, that enveloped them both. They too felt that they did not belong to the London world any more. Crockham had changed their blood: the sense of the snakes that lived and slept even in their own garden, in the sun, so that he, going forward with the spade, would see a curious coiled brownish pile on the black soil, which suddenly would start up, hiss, and dazzle rapidly away, hissing. One day Winifred heard the strangest scream from the flower-bed under the low window of the living room: ah, the strangest scream, like the very soul of the dark past crying aloud. She ran out, and saw a long brown snake on the flower-bed, and in its flat mouth the one hind leg of a frog was striving to escape, and screaming its strange, tiny, bellowing scream. She looked at the snake, and from its sullen flat head it looked at her, obstinately. She gave a cry, and it released the frog and slid angrily away.
That was Crockham. The spear of modern invention had not passed through it, and it lay there secret, primitive, savage as when the Saxons first came. And Egbert and she were caught there, caught out of the world.
:hurray:
First Paragraph NEXT TEXT Janine posted
:) I think this is a wonderful sentence – full of happiness for the moment and hope for the future :hurray: Those two were so happy, once.Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
The story has more sentences like this - summarizing.
A description of the father, the (formerly poor) northerling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
The father is a man of the world, but he tries to keep the world away from his family. The world is there to make money in, to acquire means to live – but not to truly live in. Apparently, when you want to live happily, you need to shut the world out. It is the world which brings trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
Ay… little stab at the literary world there… The real person the wife is based on, Mrs. Alice Meynell, was indeed quite known in the literary world. One of her more known poems is “Summer in England, 1914”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
I think that last part is wonderful: “good little out-of-the-way things to be munching” :cheers2: It really sounds like Christmas :D Mr Marshall must have been a good host :D.Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
First Paragraph NEXT TEXT Janine posted Surprise, surprise...I am here! :seeya: Yep, nice to have a fresh bunch of words/sentences, expressive phrases for us to study and dissect. I actually like this section of text very much. It's so beautifully written. And Sapphire, thank you for not using blue!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
I did as well; considering the way things go sour after the child's accident it makes the story even more sad and poignant to see how happy the two were in the beginning of their marriage. They used to say that the real test of love is raising children and money managing; I believe both have broken many a couple. If you notice the first years were lovely and not so complicated between them. There was a harmony and later it got interrupted by the child's accident and the feeling on Egbert's part of not being as productive as he was expected to be.Quote:
:) I think this is a wonderful sentence – full of happiness for the moment and hope for the future :hurray: Those two were so happy, once.
The story has more sentences like this - summarizing.
Quote:
A description of the father, the (formerly poor) northerling.
The father is a man of the world, but he tries to keep the world away from his family. The world is there to make money in, to acquire means to live – but not to truly live in. Apparently, when you want to live happily, you need to shut the world out. It is the world which brings trouble.
Yes, I find this a little more interesting as to what made the old man tick. He was rather a complex fellow and I liked him in this passage. Perhaps shutting out the world for your loved ones at times made the family unit stronger - everyone, does need 'down' time...even in our own fast paced society. He did seem to wish to control his little clan; that is obvious from his offerings of houses for all his daughters. I wonder if it would have been different had he had sons instead....most likely. Anyway, he definitely played the all protective father. Today, more than ever, the world can bring us trouble but of course it's a two sided sword. The world and it's offerings (globally) can also be a marvelous thing. However in the changing world of England at the time and considering the horrifying war taking place, truly the world needed to be forgotten at home for a time to preserve one's sanity.Quote:
Ay… little stab at the literary world there… The real person the wife is based on, Mrs. Alice Meynell, was indeed quite known in the literary world. One of her more known poems is “Summer in England, 1914”.
The poem is amazing and very powerful. I know of Owen's poems and have copied many to my hard-drive. Someone put them being read up on Youtube; narration by Kenneth Branagh. Wilfred Owens apparently knew Mrs. M? I adore Owens' poems. I downloaded many and someone from YT sent me the audiofiles as well. I must try and find more of the woman's poems. Wonder why she was so overlooked. She had a fine talent. Thanks so much, Sapphire, for looking this up and finding this poem, which I believe relates well to this story.Quote:
I think that last part is wonderful: “good little out-of-the-way things to be munching” :cheers2: It really sounds like Christmas :D Mr Marshall must have been a good host :D.
:D Great :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I think it is quite interesting (though indeed sad) to read how this marriage full of hope and happiness falls apart. I disagree on the child's accident being the main stressor: even before that, things start to go sour. It really is something which develops over time. To me, Joyce's accident is rather the last drop or a catalysator than a main reason for the marriage to go wrong. I do not even know whether it is that important. It is really just another step in the wrong direction...Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
But we'll get there in the story :) First we have a few pages of a "happy marriage" full passion :hurray:.
I like that idea: not only to shut the world out, but more importantly to keep your family close :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
There is a part in the story where the narrator talks about the possibility of sons and how he would have taken care of them. We will read that later on, but the point of it is that he would learn his sons to be an authority like he himself has become - mainly within his own family. Lawrence really stresses the father's wish for authority and controll.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I see where you're going with this, with the industrial revolution and the war in South Africa and colonialism and... well, there was a lot going on in those days :) But do remember that this is a description of the beginning of the wedding, even a description of how Godfrey Marshall raised his daughters. So we're not talking about WWI yet - Egbert and Winifred got married in 1904. I do not think there were that many people who saw the war coming at that stage in time... especially not the furious war it would be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Ah, Wilfred Owen. I am not sure whether he knew Alice Meynell, but he probably knew of her and he might have read her work. She was a fellow English poet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I quite like WWI poetry. Or well, like... it is often sarcastic and dark. I like that style. Take Owen's "Anthem for Doomed Youth" or "Dulce Et Decorum Est". I think those were among the first English poetry I read. I still think it is tragic that he died a week before the war ended. A bit like Anna Frank, who died 3 months before the liberation... They never knew the end of it.
I found this site: {link} I think many of her poems are to be found there. I do not know whether she was overlooked - maybe she was quite known in her time? She seems to be... She has been forgotten over time though. :nod: BTW, did you know that she was quite the suffragette? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Janine
You're welcome :) And yes, that's why I picked it. I have tried to figure out whether she ever wrote a poem about what happened to her son-in-law (Egbert in this story, Percival in real life), but I could not find anything specific. That does not mean there is nothing - just that I could not find it on the internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Sapphire, I am going out for some errands and to eat a burger with my mother. I will be back later to answer your post. Lots there to discuss.
Have fun! :wave: I'll probably won't be back untill in the morning :D
BTW, I flipped through the booklet I have with war poetry in it: I've found at least 4 which I can connect to specific parts of this story :). Now all I have to do is remember them when we get to those parts :lol: Wish me luck ;)
Luck! see you later - tomorrow your time! haQuote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
I found the descriptive metaphors interesting:
If Winifred's family is "true English" what is Egbert? Holly trees and hawthorn versus a rose. Are these two sides of an "English" character? The rose almost seems to allude to the War of the Roses, the Plantagenet civil war - the house of Lancaster (red rose) versus the house of York (white rose).Quote:
Well then, into this family came Egbert. He was made of quite a different paste. The girls and the father were strong-limbed, thick-blooded people, true English, as holly-trees and hawthorn are English. Their culture was grafted on to them, as one might perhaps graft a common pink rose on to a thornstem. It flowered oddly enough, but it did not alter their blood.
And Egbert was a born rose. The age-long breeding had left him with a delightful spontaneous passion. He was not clever, nor even 'literary'. No, but the intonation of his voice, and the movement of his supple, handsome body, and the fine texture of his flesh and his hair, the slight arch of his nose, the quickness of his blue eyes would easily take the place of poetry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_RosesQuote:
The name "Wars of the Roses" is not thought to have been used during the time of the wars but has its origins in the badges associated with the two royal houses, the White Rose of York and the Red Rose of Lancaster. The term came into common use in the nineteenth century, after the publication of Anne of Geierstein by Sir Walter Scott. Scott based the name on a fictional scene in William Shakespeare's play Henry VI Part 1, where the opposing sides pick their different-coloured roses at the Temple Church.
This story does have a sort of Walter Scott plot and characterization.
You bet ya :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Me too :D I've written something about it in my commentary, which I will post underneath. You say:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
That war came to my mind too, but I think we're jumping a bit too far here. If that is what the narrator wants to allude too, why does he not talk about red and white roses? He mentions "a common pink rose" vs. "a born rose". I think this is rather pointing towards "common people" vs "noble people", the Marshalls being common and the southern Egbert being of higher breeding. Mind you, I am not too sure about this. After all, it is mentioned nowhere that Egbert is of nobility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
And I do not think that calling the Marshalls "true English" means that Egbert is not (not that you say that). You mention it might be that there are two sides of an "English" character, I think there are different English characters - either North vs South or common vs noble. One thing I do know for sure, is that all characters are "really English". Egbert and Godfrey are even said to be "two real Englishmen, and their instincts were almost the same" towards the end of the story.
Any special story you have in mind? I actually only know Ivanhoe :redface: And I do not see the similarities there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
-------------------------------------------------
And though Egbert’s paste will be explained, his past will not. We know what house Winifred is from, but we do not know what Egbert’s parents are like. His mother is named later on, but even shorter than Winifred’s mother. He really marries into the Marshall family :nod: Compare this to how women become a part of their husbands family… I wonder though: was that the case in England? I think I am comparing to Middle Eastern and Southern Europe families now :brickwallQuote:
Originally Posted by Story
“True English”. But if the father is from the North, he’s rather from Wales and thus British instead of English :angel: I am sorry, I just had to point that out :p It is a little pet peeve of me: do not call the Netherlands Holland and do not call the United Kingdom England ;) “North” can of course also just mean “Northern England”, it is not necessarily the extreme north of the British Island. I do think Lawrence just meant the country… it is probably not really important. “ Great Britain, My Great Britain” would just sound stupid for a title, would it not? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by story
“English as holly trees and hawthorn are English”. I never especially linked those two with England. I do connect holly with Christmas, and hawthorn with the start of spring (it is called May-thorn over here). I guess both are native plants?! I see the connection with the Marshalls and especially Godfrey: strong plants, with a tough shell (thorns).
I like the metaphor of the rose. It really helps to explain the point. Though I did need the sentence “it did not alter their blood” to completely grasp its meaning ;) And I do wonder why it has to be a “common pink rose”. All the other roses in the story are white or red, as are the famous symbols of roses in England itself (York and Lancastre). Are wild roses usually pink? I can not say I see those often around, but the huge question for red roses might have changed that over the years.
Completion of the metaphor.Quote:
Originally Posted by story
Note how it is stressed that he’s the last in a long line of breeding. I almost wanted to say he is of noble heritage, but that is never explicitly stated. I really got that impression - most be the “born rose” part :wink5:.Quote:
Originally Posted by story
While for the Marshalls it is stressed that they’re “true English”, this is not stressed for Egbert in this part of the story. For this moment it is more important that he is “higher” than that he is English. Or wait… “southerner” – that implicates South England. Lets state it is more subtle then :).
What is this “higher not deeper” stuff? I kind of grasp it, but I really can not put my finger on it. I see how Winifred puts him above herself in this stage of her life, sees him as a higher and maybe even better being. But what would Egbert have been if he was a “deeper” being? Would he be more grounded, more in touch with the world. Less of a dreamer. Or would it be a matter of knowing himself thoroughly?
He needs her to be happy. He not just loves her, he loves her with passion. Is it too much to make the connection: passion – warm – flame? :aureola:Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
Yes I agree. It was a thought to consider but I didn't put too much stock in it myself. I think you got it right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
I say two sides because Lawrence is known for his dualism. He always seems to think in opposing contrasts: male/female, north/south, industrial/rural.Quote:
And I do not think that calling the Marshalls "true English" means that Egbert is not (not that you say that). You mention it might be that there are two sides of an "English" character, I think there are different English characters - either North vs South or common vs noble. One thing I do know for sure, is that all characters are "really English". Egbert and Godfrey are even said to be "two real Englishmen, and their instincts were almost the same" towards the end of the story.
No, just the fact that it's historical fiction set in England.Quote:
Any special story you have in mind? I actually only know Ivanhoe :redface: And I do not see the similarities there.
Interesting that Egbert's past isn't more defined. Perhaps the story was getting too long. But it does seem like a hole in the story.Quote:
And though Egbert’s paste will be explained, his past will not. We know what house Winifred is from, but we do not know what Egbert’s parents are like. His mother is named later on, but even shorter than Winifred’s mother. He really marries into the Marshall family :nod: Compare this to how women become a part of their husbands family… I wonder though: was that the case in England? I think I am comparing to Middle Eastern and Southern Europe families now :brickwall
:blush: I'm so sorry if I did. I did not realize there is a distinction. I find it easier to trype out Holland.Quote:
“True English”. But if the father is from the North, he’s rather from Wales and thus British instead of English :angel: I am sorry, I just had to point that out :p It is a little pet peeve of me: do not call the Netherlands Holland and do not call the United Kingdom England ;)
:lol: :lol: Yes.Quote:
“North” can of course also just mean “Northern England”, it is not necessarily the extreme north of the British Island. I do think Lawrence just meant the country… it is probably not really important. “ Great Britain, My Great Britain” would just sound stupid for a title, would it not? :lol:
Don't know if there is a particular color to wild roses. What do you think Lawrence is alluding to by comparing Egbert to a rose? Delicate? pretty?Quote:
“English as holly trees and hawthorn are English”. I never especially linked those two with England. I do connect holly with Christmas, and hawthorn with the start of spring (it is called May-thorn over here). I guess both are native plants?! I see the connection with the Marshalls and especially Godfrey: strong plants, with a tough shell (thorns).
I like the metaphor of the rose. It really helps to explain the point. Though I did need the sentence “it did not alter their blood” to completely grasp its meaning ;) And I do wonder why it has to be a “common pink rose”. All the other roses in the story are white or red, as are the famous symbols of roses in England itself (York and Lancastre). Are wild roses usually pink? I can not say I see those often around, but the huge question for red roses might have changed that over the years.
Oh that's a possibility too, though we never get his background. That may be why he's so wasteful and not a worker.Quote:
Note how it is stressed that he’s the last in a long line of breeding. I almost wanted to say he is of noble heritage, but that is never explicitly stated. I really got that impression - most be the “born rose” part :wink5:.
I would associate that with the Nordic. Lawrence associates Nordic with idealism and etheral, more abstract.Quote:
What is this “higher not deeper” stuff? I kind of grasp it, but I really can not put my finger on it.
I think the reference is that he is less grounded in hard reality.Quote:
I see how Winifred puts him above herself in this stage of her life, sees him as a higher and maybe even better being. But what would Egbert have been if he was a “deeper” being? Would he be more grounded, more in touch with the world. Less of a dreamer. Or would it be a matter of knowing himself thoroughly?
Ah yes, lots of flames in the story. :wink5:Quote:
He needs her to be happy. He not just loves her, he loves her with passion. Is it too much to make the connection: passion – warm – flame? :aureola:
And here is that passage with the sanke. That littel drama with the frog in the mouth is fascinating. Very suggestive of something, but of what?Quote:
One day Winifred heard the strangest scream from the flower-bed under the low window of the living room: ah, the strangest scream, like the very soul of the dark past crying aloud. She ran out, and saw a long brown snake on the flower-bed, and in its flat mouth the one hind leg of a frog was striving to escape, and screaming its strange, tiny, bellowing scream. She looked at the snake, and from its sullen flat head it looked at her, obstinately. She gave a cry, and it released the frog and slid angrily away.
Hey, a new avatar :) I hardly recognised you, Virgil ;) I miss the blue, but this white/black contrast is certainly appealing. At first I thought it was abstract, with a big fork featuring in it :p Now I think it is Moby Dick :nod: :D
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Ah yes. So North/South like two sides of the same medallion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Funny thing: I bought myself the book "Sons and Lovers" two days agoo and in Chapter 7 Lawrence himself refers to Mr. Walter Scott :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
The girl in this paragraph is Marianne from the Willey Farm, and the boy is Paul, a miner's son. I cannot really point out Egbert or Winifred as a hero/heroinne. As for the plot, I do see it: two people fall in love and marry (a bit too easy for Mr. Scott :p) and then there is the misery of a wounded child and it all ends with the hero dying. That is a bit like a historical tale, isn't it? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Sons and Lovers
Especially as his mother does come into play a tiny bit. If she would have just been left out we could just assume his parents weren't in the picture anymore - but now they're just not in the part of the story the narrator tells and I do start to wonder... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
:lol: Thank you, but it really ... it really is just a pet peeve: many people just say "Holland" when they mean "the Netherlands". I know they do not mean that only the west of our country is important. It is just something which makes me want to explain the matter :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I do realise though that lately I start saying "England" rather than "Great Brittain". Especially since it was England that played the World Cup, not Great Brittain or the United Kingdom. In that case it really is England: they use the English flag and everything!
Me neither. In Sons and Lovers there's a wild rose bush with white roses - very usefull as it alludes to virginity in that scene :wink5: I am not sure what pink refers to... baby girls? :p I read somewhere that pink is considered a color of good health and life - think of people being "in the pink" or the "freshness" of a newborn baby. I guess that would fit the MarshallsQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
:nod: Maybe :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Probably, that would make him higher indeed - floating :p Funny though, in Sons and Lovers Miriam is called deeper because of her religious outtake. As far as I can detect, Egbert does not really have any religious feelings whatshowever... But he is a dreamer, just like Miriam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
PRIMITIVENESS! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Seriously: I have to ponder on that one, but on first thought it might be a lesson of what will be: Joyce who gets her leg hurt, while this is the only part of the frog that stays untouched by the snake. After all, it is not the snake that catches Joyce... It might be a bit farfetched...
I think it is interesting how the snake takes notice of Winifred: apparently, she has some influence on the native world around her. She does save the frog from the haughty snake - that is, it is not told whether the frog survives but otherwise it would be quite futile: denying the snake its dinner.
I have two more scenes from Sons and Lovers which reminded me of this story :)
Again, a family which is cut off from the world - just as the Marshalls are at Cottingham Cottage.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaL, chapter 7
Again a marriage in which the one person wants the other to be something he can not be, does not want to be. I think Winifred is a bit too impressed by Egbert to really be like the "she" in this paragraph, but the battle over responsibilities is also aparent in this story.Quote:
Originally Posted by SaL, chapter 1
Does it show that I'm reading the book? :p :)
Wonderful! I somehow just knew you were reading the book Sapphire. I think you can find the book read on Librivox as well. I often will listen to a book read after I read it myself. I find I actually notice new things about the story or descriptions. Strange, isn't it? I knew the temptation would be too great for you to resist. Reading S &L's is going to support your ideas of the short stories. Everything Lawrence wrote points to his own personal life and experience. He is a very intimate and personal author. That is what I like about Lawrence. If there is pain, I feel that pain. He makes one feel it. It's as though he paints a vivid picture that goes beyond the canvas into dark regions of the mind.
I am very much enjoying both of your interpretation of this story. I know I haven't taken much of an active role this time but just maybe that is ok, seeing I have done so many of the stories and perhaps I need a change in position - sitting her being the observer and learning a great deal. I appreciate both of your avid interest and enthusiasm for the story. When I pick one I never know if someone else will see what I had seen in it that attracted me enough to pick that particular story. I am happy to know you both liked it and are coming up with such great analysis and fresh ideas.
Hey, keep up the good work Miss. Netherlands and Mr. Virgil!
I guess you missed the literary villains weekend. We were to choose a literary villain for an avatar and i chose Moby. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
That is interesting. It's beens so long (15 years or more) since I read S&L that it's become vague in my mind. But that is important to note.Quote:
Funny thing: I bought myself the book "Sons and Lovers" two days agoo and in Chapter 7 Lawrence himself refers to Mr. Walter Scott :D
I don't think there's any question that Lawrence envisions this short story to be historical. One cannot get away from the WWI events, and of course there are all those English historical allusions.Quote:
The girl in this paragraph is Marianne from the Willey Farm, and the boy is Paul, a miner's son. I cannot really point out Egbert or Winifred as a hero/heroinne. As for the plot, I do see it: two people fall in love and marry (a bit too easy for Mr. Scott :p) and then there is the misery of a wounded child and it all ends with the hero dying. That is a bit like a historical tale, isn't it? :D
I agree. Unfortunately short stories are usually published with length restrictions.Quote:
Especially as his mother does come into play a tiny bit. If she would have just been left out we could just assume his parents weren't in the picture anymore - but now they're just not in the part of the story the narrator tells and I do start to wonder... :)
Could you be so kind and explain the matter to me? I am not aware of the distinction. :blush:Quote:
:lol: Thank you, but it really ... it really is just a pet peeve: many people just say "Holland" when they mean "the Netherlands". I know they do not mean that only the west of our country is important. It is just something which makes me want to explain the matter :p
:lol: But I think it's significant in this story. It is definitely not British history but English.Quote:
I do realise though that lately I start saying "England" rather than "Great Brittain". Especially since it was England that played the World Cup, not Great Brittain or the United Kingdom. In that case it really is England: they use the English flag and everything!
Interesting. I does foreshadow Joyce's injury, and the scyth is a sort of snake like object. But it foreshadows in reverse. The thought that came to me yesterday was that at this stage of the story, we are in an idyllic paradise, where even animals don't kill each other, at least not successfully.Quote:
PRIMITIVENESS! :p
Seriously: I have to ponder on that one, but on first thought it might be a lesson of what will be: Joyce who gets her leg hurt, while this is the only part of the frog that stays untouched by the snake. After all, it is not the snake that catches Joyce... It might be a bit farfetched...
Yes, and it suggests Eve and the snake, does it not? Only the snake has not deceived (ensnared?) Eve yet.Quote:
I think it is interesting how the snake takes notice of Winifred: apparently, she has some influence on the native world around her. She does save the frog from the haughty snake - that is, it is not told whether the frog survives but otherwise it would be quite futile: denying the snake its dinner.
There are definitely parallels.Quote:
I have two more scenes from Sons and Lovers which reminded me of this story :)
Again, a family which is cut off from the world - just as the Marshalls are at Cottingham Cottage.
Again a marriage in which the one person wants the other to be something he can not be, does not want to be. I think Winifred is a bit too impressed by Egbert to really be like the "she" in this paragraph, but the battle over responsibilities is also aparent in this story.
Yes, you've become quite a Lawrence afficionado. :DQuote:
Does it show that I'm reading the book? :p :)
:angel: Well, it is still a holiday over here :wink5: And it is a good way to pass the time :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Janine
That is good to hear :) Do put your opinion in when you find the time though: especially when Virgil and I start to agree too much :rofl: Commentary does need criticism :nod: :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I will try.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I see you changed the Mr into Miss ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Yes, sounds like a good idea though :D I have no clue who I would pick... The other day I saw the movie "A league of extraordinary gentleman" - it was fun to try and identify the characters (I fell in half way). :nod: It is not a great movie in itself, but to figure out which characters from novels are portrayed is quite the puzzle :) Ishmael is in it, but I did not identify him :blush: One of the villains is Dorian Gray, and I think I would choose him as an avatar-villain :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Maybe it was there, somewhere in your unconscious, when you made the comment :p.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Yes, I definitely think you have a point there. WWI would be a current event for him the first time round, but in 1922 it was (close) history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I posted some details on your profile page, but basically the west of the Netherlands ("the low lands") is called Holland, as the south of Great Britain is England.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Yes, otherwise the Irish struggle would have been in there. Didn't they start to revolt around WWI?!Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
That is one way to look at it :nod:. But in my eyes the point of Joyce's injury is that it was not the primitiveness of the place which did it. She was warned of the snakes a thousand times, but they proof not to be the problem. The scyth was a means to straighten out the primitiveness, and that's what hurt her. Definitely not the snake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I am not sure what you mean by that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Ok, so you think the part is there to show it is NOT a dangerous place? I can see how you get there, but it does not fit for me. If the frog had not screamed his little lungs out, Winifred would not have come running and the snake would have taken his dinner - what is he to eat if not other animals? It would starve itself to death... Lucky as Winifred's act might be for the frog, the snake had to skip dinner because of it. It was not the snake's will not to kill the other animal. He was made by man not to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I like this idea better :D I know it still points towards Eden, but it shows more the active role of the woman :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
:nod: I've read it all now, and there definitely are! But then again, this book was written in 1913, so pretty close to 1915. In 1915 he wrote the Rainbow, and in my (study edition) version of Sons and Lovers it is said that "it shows Lawrence moving on to a more visionary, mystic way of writing". So now I am very curious about that book :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
:nod: Definitely!Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Yes, but I especially like how his characters often do not know why they do what they do either. They just try to figure out life and love :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
As I've been reading the book Sons and Lovers I have not yet written my commentary on the last 2 paragraphs of the text Janine posted. I think I will not have the time to get into that until tomorrow. :blush:
Oh I think it was even before that but it must have been particularly eventful around the war time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
That's a good way to read it. You're right. But a scythe is a fairly primitive tool. But I guess it isn't natural but less modern than the war weopons.Quote:
That is one way to look at it :nod:. But in my eyes the point of Joyce's injury is that it was not the primitiveness of the place which did it. She was warned of the snakes a thousand times, but they proof not to be the problem. The scyth was a means to straighten out the primitiveness, and that's what hurt her. Definitely not the snake.
I meant that the frog gets away while Joyce gets severely hurt and Egbert dies. So instead of a foreshadow it's the opposite of death.Quote:
I am not sure what you mean by that...
True, but I think Lawrence is presenting an idyllic place.Quote:
Ok, so you think the part is there to show it is NOT a dangerous place? I can see how you get there, but it does not fit for me. If the frog had not screamed his little lungs out, Winifred would not have come running and the snake would have taken his dinner - what is he to eat if not other animals? It would starve itself to death... Lucky as Winifred's act might be for the frog, the snake had to skip dinner because of it. It was not the snake's will not to kill the other animal. He was made by man not to do it.
:wink5:Quote:
I like this idea better :D I know it still points towards Eden, but it shows more the active role of the woman :)
When you get the chance you must read The Rainbow. It's my favorite of all his novels. I think it's his greatest.Quote:
:nod: I've read it all now, and there definitely are! But then again, this book was written in 1913, so pretty close to 1915. In 1915 he wrote the Rainbow, and in my (study edition) version of Sons and Lovers it is said that "it shows Lawrence moving on to a more visionary, mystic way of writing". So now I am very curious about that book :lol:
Great. :DQuote:
:nod: Definitely!
I agree. No one portrays unconscious actions better than Lawrence.Quote:
Yes, but I especially like how his characters often do not know why they do what they do either. They just try to figure out life and love :)
Yes, that is a better way to put it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Yes, I remember an Asterix & Obelix comic book about golden scythes :p You're right to point that out: not natural rather than not primitive/old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Ah, yes - Winifred can save the frog, but not Joyce or Egbert.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
:nod: Very idyllic :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I'll keep my eyes open for it :).Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
----------------------------------------------
Last part of the text Janine posted.
Nice detail: all alone, but they do have a house cleaner. I bet Mr Marshall paid her wages!Quote:
Originally Posted by story
"Wonderful" and "marvellous". But it did end, even before one of them died. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
There's the flame again :D It is a dark house, with dark rooms: it needs a flame to bring some light :). Funny how I always tought a haunted house was a bad thing. The two of them seem pretty happy with the physical desire the place is calling for :D Notice the mentioning of "generations": it has been going on for ages, without any change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
In case we had not noticed it yet: the place is dark and secretive...Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
I wonder why the strong beasts, which mated in there, are said to be so lonely. Left to themselves. Don't they need to be with at least 2 to be mating? But I guess even beast can be lonely in company... Not sure why it has to be mentioned though. A foreshadowing of what Winifred and Egbert become? They might be happy together now, mating happily - but this will change, as it was for those beasts long ago...
"They became different". As far as I can make out, the difference is that they are out of this (city, modern) world - they already were passionate, weren't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
This is quite a long sentence :) I thought "the sense of the snakes" was a phrase which would be repeated in this story, but "ctrl+f" made clear that this is the only place in the story where it is used. It sounds familiar though...Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Egbert, while working in the garden, disturbes these snakes. Just like Winifred denies one of them dinner :p. Those snakes must have been pretty annoyed with the pair :lol:
I can not really imagine what that sounds like: a screaming frog. It must be frightful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
Again, the primitiveness of the place is mentioned. Lawrence really stresses this point to annoyance :p :biggrin5:Quote:
Originally Posted by story
And being this primitive, it is not really in the “now” – in the world itself. And people who live there loose touch with the world “outside”. So Egbert and Winifred are “caught” there. Is it me, or is there a slightly negative connection to that word? I read it a bit like “trapped"... Which is odd, for I do get the idea that the narrator likes the “being out of the world”-feeling.
BTW is there anybody who has an idea what "Crockham" might mean? As far as I know, it is only the cottage of Winifred and Egbert which is called that way, so I do not think it is the name of the hamlet.
Maybe you will finish it before your holiday ends. It's a great read and a great book. It provides a lot of insight into Lawrence's early developmental years and his strange and close, thought suffocating relationship to his mother.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
I will try to and when Virgil goes to Europe again I will have to try and make a better effort to be more interactive. For now I am enjoying reading what you two write each day. I got quite busy asside from internet stuff but I will definitely not let the thread trail off to nothing. I am always determined to finish each story. Whenever you two want me to post more of the story - just give a yell and let me know. I have it marked off from where I left off and a copy on my desktop.Quote:
That is good to hear :) Do put your opinion in when you find the time though: especially when Virgil and I start to agree too much :rofl: Commentary does need criticism :nod: :)
I don't think you have to; commentary seems to come naturally to you Sapphire. You are very perceptive and smart about the stories. Keep up the good work.Quote:
I will try.
You are quick - didn't think I got caught. Yes, definitely a typo on my part - sorry about that.Quote:
I see you changed the Mr into Miss ;)
Wow, Dorian would be a great one. I love that story. I didn't even notice the avy change thread or I would have come up with someone - probably Iago from Othello.Quote:
Yes, sounds like a good idea though :D I have no clue who I would pick... The other day I saw the movie "A league of extraordinary gentleman" - it was fun to try and identify the characters (I fell in half way). :nod: It is not a great movie in itself, but to figure out which characters from novels are portrayed is quite the puzzle :) Ishmael is in it, but I did not identify him :blush: One of the villains is Dorian Gray, and I think I would choose him as an avatar-villain :nod:
haha....Virgil doesn't believe in the subconscious; not sure about the unconscious. I seem to be in a state of that lately - fatique getting the best of me most nights.Quote:
Maybe it was there, somewhere in your unconscious, when you made the comment :p.
Good observation. Was this story actually published after 1922 and did the war end earlier?Quote:
Yes, I definitely think you have a point there. WWI would be a current event for him the first time round, but in 1922 it was (close) history.
Gee, I never knew this. Thanks for the geography lesson. I am sorry if I mistook you for living in Holland. I didn't realise a difference in terms.Quote:
I posted some details on your profile page, but basically the west of the Netherlands ("the low lands") is called Holland, as the south of Great Britain is England.
I am not sure but I am always so fascinated with the Irish revolts. I think it was during or after the war it began. I just know that from some films I have seen...one being "Ryan's Daughter" by David Lean...a really fine film.Quote:
Yes, otherwise the Irish struggle would have been in there. Didn't they start to revolt around WWI?!
Seems these elements are always so present in L works - snakes, primativeness, war beneath the surface, discord in families. The scyth is an interesting device and you are right in saying it was the tool to tame the wilderness. I see it as the only control that Egbert had when working on his path and garden. The scyth might represent this and then it is spoiled once the child is injuried.Quote:
That is one way to look at it :nod:. But in my eyes the point of Joyce's injury is that it was not the primitiveness of the place which did it. She was warned of the snakes a thousand times, but they proof not to be the problem. The scyth was a means to straighten out the primitiveness, and that's what hurt her. Definitely not the snake.
Interesting take on that. I think I agree.Quote:
Ok, so you think the part is there to show it is NOT a dangerous place? I can see how you get there, but it does not fit for me. If the frog had not screamed his little lungs out, Winifred would not have come running and the snake would have taken his dinner - what is he to eat if not other animals? It would starve itself to death... Lucky as Winifred's act might be for the frog, the snake had to skip dinner because of it. It was not the snake's will not to kill the other animal. He was made by man not to do it.
Good point.Quote:
I like this idea better :D I know it still points towards Eden, but it shows more the active role of the woman :)
Good book and then you will want to read "Women in Love"; Virgil's favorite is the first and mine the second. WIL was the first L book I ever read and I was hooked after that.Quote:
:nod: I've read it all now, and there definitely are! But then again, this book was written in 1913, so pretty close to 1915. In 1915 he wrote the Rainbow, and in my (study edition) version of Sons and Lovers it is said that "it shows Lawrence moving on to a more visionary, mystic way of writing". So now I am very curious about that book :lol:
This is what I like about Lawrence too and I think it's because it mimics real life. Most of the time humans do not consciously know why they act as they do. Lawrence captures this perfectly. People are always seeking, or so is Lawrence.Quote:
Yes, but I especially like how his characters often do not know why they do what they do either. They just try to figure out life and love :)
[/QUOTE]Quote:
As I've been reading the book Sons and Lovers I have not yet written my commentary on the last 2 paragraphs of the text Janine posted. I think I will not have the time to get into that until tomorrow. :blush:
Take your time. I will keep reading along.
:hurray: You've found the time to post :hurray: :D
I have ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I know that is a main theme, but somehow it did not stand out that much to me :blush: Maybe because I knew it would be there :) Oedipus definitely came to mind a couple of times :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Well, I am ready - post #3219 was on the last part of the text you posted :D Not sure whether Virgil is though - he must be busy planning his trip :hurray:Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
:blush: Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
No worries, made me smile :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I really like that story too :nod: I always thought I never liked Oscar Wilde's work, but last year that somehow changed :crazy: I have no clue what happened :lol: Just yesterday I bought "the greatest works of Louis Couperus", a Dutch writer who apparently inspired Oscar Wilde with one of his stories/novelles. There are said to be some similarities in style between his work "Footsteps of Fate" and "the Picture of Dorian Gray". I need to get into that when I find the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Iago is a great choice indeed!
Aw... take good care of yourself and try to get your energy back! Don't force it too far because you think you have to post something here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
It was published first in 1915 (during the war), but the edition we're reading is from 1922 and he rewrote the whole thing until it became twice as long. It is from the beginning of 1922 and as WWI ended 11/11/1918 I would say the war was over for 3 years when this story was published.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I thought about it again and I think "Holland" is also an accepted term in the English language. Like saying "America" when you mean the USA. Basically it is not the right term, but everybody knows what you mean and only the nitpicks (like me :rofl:) notice :wink5: So really, no need for appologies!Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I think it is as Virgil says: Ireland has an history of "struggling for independence" and how far they've come really depends on where you stand in history. In 1916 there was the "Easter Rising (1916)" which was pretty major, but as this story plays from 1903 to 1915 it can not be featured. I think I see what you mean with "fascination": I've had the same thing ever since I heard "Sunday, Bloody Sunday" by U2. Just the thought that there is a region of this much tension so nearby... Europe is not that peaceful: both world wars started here. I think me realising that started with that song...Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
The other day I watched an interview with Paul Verhoeven (Basic Instinct etc.) and he talked about his admiration for David Lean. :) There's always a connection, isn't there? :lol: I checked the movie out on wiki (a classic, I know :blush:), and it says there that it was loosely based on Madame Bovary by Flaubert. I think this was very loosely, for the summary I read does not resamble that book at all. I do think I need to see it for myself before I judge: it is a classic. And it says there's a reference to Lawrence of Arabia in it, which I think to be one of the greatest movies ever :D. Which brings us to T.E. Lawrence and back to D.H. Lawrence :p.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Well, there's his spade which he uses when the snake hisses away:Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
A spade could also have made a good "injury" weapon. I myself tried to do some gardening when I was about 10: I used a "grown up" spade while I was barefoot... Almost cut my heal of :bangheadQuote:
Originally Posted by Story
I've added it to my list :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Janine
:nod: Nicely said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
This story does make us talk about all sort of stuff :D
Note: my last "direct" commentary is in post #3219, under the dotted/striped line.
Sort of; didn't write my usual long epic posts though. I was late when I posted and only one eye was still open. I just looked at when you posted this and it 8:30 this morning - Yikes, I don't even have one eyelash open at that time. :smilewinkgrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
Fantastic! Good for you. You must be one of those fast readers! I read it twice. I wasn't as impressed first time around but then on second reading I saw the genius in it. First time I tried it I didn't realise it was Lawrence's story with the names changed. That made all the difference to me in the world. I must love prying into other's lives since I loved all the biographies I read on L as well and loved the travel book because the experience of mentally traveling elbow's length from our Lawrence was amazing and so intimate. By the end of the three books on his travels I felt I actually knew the man personally.Quote:
I have ;)
People always say so and point out the Oedipus thing but I think it went beyond that. Many parents latch onto children for comfort in a bad marriage. I don't think that is necessarily a matter of Oedipus complex; people get carried away with that term as they do in "Hamlet"...I personally have never seen Hamlet's jealousy and suspicion of his mother that way. At any rate a lot more is going on in S&L, don't you think? It's a coming of age story and it chronicles the Lawrence family dynamics well. I loved the book. I hope to listen to the narration soon. I have a film adaptation done not long ago which is quite good but basically is altered some from the novel - they always are. I still think it's a fine film - a miniseries - so they were able to expand on the finer points of the novel. The young man playing Lawrence is quite good. I have watched it many times now and enjoy it each time. So sad when the brother died.Quote:
I know that is a main theme, but somehow it did not stand out that much to me :blush: Maybe because I knew it would be there :) Oedipus definitely came to mind a couple of times :nod:
Ok, I will do so soon; either tonight or tomorrow - ok? Yes, Virgil must be soooo busy and excited about the trip as well to reunite with his little boy.Quote:
Well, I am ready - post #3219 was on the last part of the text you posted :D Not sure whether Virgil is though - he must be busy planning his trip :hurray:
No need to blush because it is true. Hey, Sapphire I think you have blossomed and matured in the past few years; I can imagine you are quite good at your studies.Quote:
:blush: Thank you.
It did me as well. :smile5:Quote:
No worries, made me smile :D
I was lucky that my father introduced us to Oscar Wilde's children's fairytales at a young age. I loved them all and thought they went beyond the ordinary. I loved the one about the giant building a wall around his estate and not letting the children in to play. I also loved the one about the Prince and the little bird. They have such deep meanings; I suppose are more intended for adults. Interesting about that other author's novels. I will keep them in-mind.Quote:
I really like that story too :nod: I always thought I never liked Oscar Wilde's work, but last year that somehow changed :crazy: I have no clue what happened :lol: Just yesterday I bought "the greatest works of Louis Couperus", a Dutch writer who apparently inspired Oscar Wilde with one of his stories/novelles. There are said to be some similarities in style between his work "Footsteps of Fate" and "the Picture of Dorian Gray". I need to get into that when I find the time.
He is puzzling and evil, isn't he? I like at the end when he says he will speak no more...something like that.Quote:
Iago is a great choice indeed!
I won't; I can't. I am having some health issues and they haven't improved with medications. I hope soon they find out specifically which antibiotic will work. Thanks for being understanding.Quote:
Aw... take good care of yourself and try to get your energy back! Don't force it too far because you think you have to post something here.
That makes sense; Lawrence often rewrote his works. I think he was a tortured perfectionist; because most cases, he did this rewriting. Who would think he would produce so much material and have time for all the re-writes? I read a lot of Lawrence but keep discovering more. How did he have time to sleep?Quote:
It was published first in 1915 (during the war), but the edition we're reading is from 1922 and he rewrote the whole thing until it became twice as long. It is from the beginning of 1922 and as WWI ended 11/11/1918 I would say the war was over for 3 years when this story was published.
I thought that as well. Good I wasn't totally wrong. I get what you mean. America one thinks of the US; but really the America's encompasses the whole two continents.Quote:
I thought about it again and I think "Holland" is also an accepted term in the English language. Like saying "America" when you mean the USA. Basically it is not the right term, but everybody knows what you mean and only the nitpicks (like me :rofl:) notice :wink5: So really, no need for appologies!
My son is Irish; his great-grandmother (now deceased) lived during those periods. It was sort of family joke, since when I meet her grandson he said she hated the English; and my background was English, Protestant, and Scottish - three strikes against me. However, his grandmother took to me and loved me dearly which was mutual. My ex took my son to Ireland for a visit. I have an Irish last name since it was never changed back. So I feel this affinity to my son's cultural background. I have been watching a lot of plays and movies based on those uprisings and revolutions...they are very interesting. The author Sean O'Casey wrote some good plays and one is "Shadow of a Gunman" which is on YT; it stars a younger Kenneth Branagh and I love the play. Another film I recently bought is "The Wind that Shakes the Barley" about the uprising in the country. It stars Cillian Murphy, a young Irish actor with emense talent. I like the film very much; you get a sense of how it was back then - brothers pitted against each other and all this upheaval in political beliefs.Quote:
I think it is as Virgil says: Ireland has an history of "struggling for independence" and how far they've come really depends on where you stand in history. In 1916 there was the "Easter Rising (1916)" which was pretty major, but as this story plays from 1903 to 1915 it can not be featured. I think I see what you mean with "fascination": I've had the same thing ever since I heard "Sunday, Bloody Sunday" by U2. Just the thought that there is a region of this much tension so nearby... Europe is not that peaceful: both world wars started here. I think me realising that started with that song...
You are probably right about the tension beginning there at home; not sure but it must have had an influence.
Quote:
The other day I watched an interview with Paul Verhoeven (Basic Instinct etc.) and he talked about his admiration for David Lean. :) There's always a connection, isn't there? :lol: I checked the movie out on wiki (a classic, I know :blush:), and it says there that it was loosely based on Madame Bovary by Flaubert. I think this was very loosely, for the summary I read does not resamble that book at all. I do think I need to see it for myself before I judge: it is a classic. And it says there's a reference to Lawrence of Arabia in it, which I think to be one of the greatest movies ever :D. Which brings us to T.E. Lawrence and back to D.H. Lawrence :p.
TrueQuote:
Well, there's his spade which he uses when the snake hisses away:
Yikes, glad you didn't! You better stay clear of gardening.Quote:
A spade could also have made a good "injury" weapon. I myself tried to do some gardening when I was about 10: I used a "grown up" spade while I was barefoot... Almost cut my heal of :banghead
Chronologically, " he did write a few early novels - "White Peacock" and "The Trespasser". I read them both and liked them.Quote:
I've added it to my list :D
Oh, thank you.Quote:
:nod: Nicely said.
Best thing about these discussions I believe. Opens many new worlds of thought to us.Quote:
This story does make us talk about all sort of stuff :D
Ok, thanks.Quote:
Note: my last "direct" commentary is in post #3219, under the dotted/striped line.
Now that I think of it, Winifred, through her father does save Joyce.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
Nice detail: all alone, but they do have a house cleaner. I bet Mr Marshall paid her wages!
That is very sensual writing, with double entendre. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Story
Marvellous days, when she had all his tall, supple, fine-fleshed youth to herself, for herself, and he had her like a ruddy fire into which he could cast himself for rejuvenation. Ah, that it might never end, this passion, this marriage!
"Wonderful" and "marvellous". But it did end, even before one of them died. :(
I wonder if Lawrence connects the flame with the bombs that kill Egbert? It wouldn't fit logically as far as I can tell, but the thought occurred to me. Generations recalls The Rainbow, which is a novel about generations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
The flame of their two bodies burnt again into that old cottage, that was haunted already by so much by-gone, physical desire. You could not be in the dark room for an hour without the influences coming over you. The hot blood-desire of by-gone yeomen, there in this old den where they had lusted and bred for so many generations.
There's the flame again :D It is a dark house, with dark rooms: it needs a flame to bring some light :). Funny how I always tought a haunted house was a bad thing. The two of them seem pretty happy with the physical desire the place is calling for :D Notice the mentioning of "generations": it has been going on for ages, without any change.
Interesting you should point out the loneliness of the beasts. Lawrence's ideal creature is a flower, which is a solitary being and has the absense of will. Creatures that have mates have a battle of wills between them. I think the solitude suggests a happy state, closer to nature. And yes it does foreshadow as well.Quote:
In case we had not noticed it yet: the place is dark and secretive...
I wonder why the strong beasts, which mated in there, are said to be so lonely. Left to themselves. Don't they need to be with at least 2 to be mating? But I guess even beast can be lonely in company... Not sure why it has to be mentioned though. A foreshadowing of what Winifred and Egbert become? They might be happy together now, mating happily - but this will change, as it was for those beasts long ago...
I just realized. That flame is a suggestion of a certain spirituality, and that spirituality is rooted in nature, the Eden, and yes out of the modern world.Quote:
"They became different". As far as I can make out, the difference is that they are out of this (city, modern) world - they already were passionate, weren't they?
It's a beautiful sentence, especially this: "suddenly would start up, hiss, and dazzle rapidly away, hissing." The snakes seem to threaten the hapiness, no? That frog in the mouth suggests their danger.Quote:
This is quite a long sentence :) I thought "the sense of the snakes" was a phrase which would be repeated in this story, but "ctrl+f" made clear that this is the only place in the story where it is used. It sounds familiar though...
Egbert, while working in the garden, disturbes these snakes. Just like Winifred denies one of them dinner :p. Those snakes must have been pretty annoyed with the pair :lol:
"The spear of modern invention..." Ha, a war metaphor tied into the modern world, and the spear is connected to the snakes. The snakes (modern world, war) do threaten their Eden.Quote:
And being this primitive, it is not really in the “now” – in the world itself. And people who live there loose touch with the world “outside”. So Egbert and Winifred are “caught” there. Is it me, or is there a slightly negative connection to that word? I read it a bit like “trapped"... Which is odd, for I do get the idea that the narrator likes the “being out of the world”-feeling.
I can't think of any connection with the name.Quote:
BTW is there anybody who has an idea what "Crockham" might mean? As far as I know, it is only the cottage of Winifred and Egbert which is called that way, so I do not think it is the name of the hamlet.
I'm going to Kazakhstan, which is in Asia not Europe. :wink5:Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
The sub-conscious is mostly B.S. :DQuote:
haha....Virgil doesn't believe in the subconscious; not sure about the unconscious.
Yes, this is very classic Lawrence.Quote:
Seems these elements are always so present in L works - snakes, primativeness, war beneath the surface, discord in families. The scyth is an interesting device and you are right in saying it was the tool to tame the wilderness. I see it as the only control that Egbert had when working on his path and garden. The scyth might represent this and then it is spoiled once the child is injuried.
I agree. But where I disagree with lawrence is that there is no sub-conscious phenomena behind it. :)Quote:
This is what I like about Lawrence too and I think it's because it mimics real life. Most of the time humans do not consciously know why they act as they do. Lawrence captures this perfectly. People are always seeking, or so is Lawrence.
:rofl: Trust me, they're long enough :wink5: And always a treat to read :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I do like the morning :) But also the (late) night :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Hamlet an Oedipus complex? First time I heard of it... No, I would not state that :nonod: And yes, there is a lot more going on - that is probably why it did not stand out to me so much. I did not mean to state Paul has a problem as huge as Oedipus had :p But he is a mother's boy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Is the miniseries from BBC? They are quite productive in that department :) If it is, I should keep an eye on the TV-guide - they might air it sometime soon.
And that makes me blush again ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
That sounds wonderful! :hurray: I'll have to check those out. My mother never let us read fairytales: she thought them too gruesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Yes, he is :nod: I always wondered why Othello calls him a "demi-devil". I mean, he's not HALF mean is he? He's quite whole in his meaniness :nod:Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
And then everybody dies, like so often in Shakespeare :coolgleamA:Quote:
Originally Posted by Iago in Othello
Me too. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v7...smiley/hug.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Yes, he wrote so much - and then re-wrote almost everything! :crazy: It must have been both a blessing and a curse...Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I can imagine: it comes closer that way, doesn't it? For me geographically, for you familiary (:p I don't think that is right regarding the grammar, but I hope you get the point). I think I've heard about both the titles you mention. Especially the movie sounds very familiar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I'm a born amateur at it ;) Or rather a born destroyer :lol: Cutting bushes way too small and tearing out plants which turned out to be beautiful flowers instead of weed...Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I've read the first, not yet the second. I can not really recall the story anymore though :blush: I mix it up with "the Wintry Peacock" all the time :banghead:Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
From death, yes. But not from being a cripple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
You mean the implication of sex? :angel: Very sensual indeed, and in my opinion much stronger than when it would have been explicit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Maybe... but it is not really his passion which kills him, does it? It is rather the fact that he gives in to letting go of his passion and to just take orders. I think to Lawrence flames mean life. But in his dualism life might mean death so death can be connected to flames: phoenix-like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Well, he did write "the Rainbow" while he also wrote this story (1915) :).Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I also think that solitude is connected to happyness - or maybe rather seclusion, and being away from the modern world. But loneliness implies sorrow. You can be alone in a room full of people...Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Nicely put. And yet it is fire which the humans took from the gods and which made them think they could act like gods... Creating their own garden...Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Me neither, but it is named so explicitely. :idea: We could read it as Crock+ham. Isn't "crock" slang for somebody who's not good on his/her legs, somebody who is broken? And "ham" just means "city/village", possibly from "hamlet". I'm just throwing this out: I have no proof for this idea! Just a dictionary with synonyms :p.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
I hope you'll have a good trip and wish you and your wife the best with this new stage in your lives!Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Ok, this is odd: all my "quotes" are italic! Always! And the quotes in your posts are not?! :out: :crazy: Sometimes computers dazzle me :rofl:
I just thought of something: We've been talking about Ireland and about Roses, but we did not make the connection. Roses remind of the Wars of the Roses and thus England, but in Irish mythology Ireland is called "Roisin Dubh" or "the dark rose". The roses in this story by Lawrence are not dark, so I do not think there is a connection there, but it did remind me of a poem by Yeats. He could have read it, for it was in a collection called "the Rose" from 1893. Did Lawrence read Yeats?
It has some sense of history and primitiveness which I also find in this story by Lawrence :).Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeats
Sapphire, that is a beautiful poem. I have no idea if Lawrence read Yeats but I will try looking that up in the index of my autobiography books. I will come back later this evening to comment more and to post some new text.
Back again - here is the link to the YT poetry reading of Lawrence's "Snake"...it's an interesting poem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vddYmmxdKZo
Here is the next part of the text:
Go to it Sapphire! hahahahaQuote:
He was not idle, nor was she. There were plenty of things to be done, the house to be put into final repair after the workmen had gone, cushions and curtains to sew, the paths to make, the water to fetch and attend to, and then the slope of the deep-soiled, neglected garden to level, to terrace with little terraces and paths, and to fill with flowers. He worked away, in his shirt-sleeves, worked all day intermittently doing this thing and the other. And she, quiet and rich in herself, seeing him stooping and labouring away by himself, would come to help him, to be near him. He of course was an amateur--a born amateur. He worked so hard, and did so little, and nothing he ever did would hold together for long. If he terraced the garden, he held up the earth with a couple of long narrow planks that soon began to bend with the pressure from behind, and would not need many years to rot through and break and let the soil slither all down again in a heap towards the stream-bed. But there you are. He had not been brought up to come to grips with anything, and he thought it would do. Nay, he did not think there was anything else except little temporary contrivances possible, he who had such a passion for his old enduring cottage, and for the old enduring things of the bygone England. Curious that the sense of permanency in the past had such a hold over him, whilst in the present he was all amateurish and sketchy.
Winifred could not criticize him. Town-bred, everything seemed to her splendid, and the very digging and shovelling itself seemed romantic. But neither Egbert nor she yet realized the difference between work and romance.
Godfrey Marshall, her father, was at first perfectly pleased with the ménage down at Crockham Cottage. He thought Egbert was wonderful, the many things he accomplished, and he was gratified by the glow of physical passion between the two young people. To the man who in London still worked hard to keep steady his modest fortune, the thought of this young couple digging away and loving one another down at Crockham Cottage, buried deep among the commons and marshes, near the pale-showing bulk of the downs, was like a chapter of living romance. And they drew the sustenance for their fire of passion from him, from the old man. It was he who fed their flame. He triumphed secretly in the thought. And it was to her father that Winifred still turned, as the one source of all surety and life and support. She loved Egbert with passion. But behind her was the power of her father. It was the power of her father she referred to, whenever she needed to refer. It never occurred to her to refer to Egbert, if she were in difficulty or doubt. No, in all the _serious_ matters she depended on her father.
For Egbert had no intention of coming to grips with life. He had no ambition whatsoever. He came from a decent family, from a pleasant country home, from delightful surroundings. He should, of course, have had a profession. He should have studied law or entered business in some way. But no--that fatal three pounds a week would keep him from starving as long as he lived, and he did not want to give himself into bondage. It was not that he was idle. He was always doing something, in his amateurish way. But he had no desire to give himself to the world, and still less had he any desire to fight his way in the world. No, no, the world wasn't worth it. He wanted to ignore it, to go his own way apart, like a casual pilgrim down the forsaken sidetracks. He loved his wife, his cottage and garden. He would make his life there, as a sort of epicurean hermit. He loved the past, the old music and dances and customs of old England. He would try and live in the spirit of these, not in the spirit of the world of business.
Snake is indeed an interesting poem :nod: it was also quoted while talking about the stories "the Sun" - Lawrence did use this imagery quite a bit :wink5: In this post {link to 583, last paragraph} you say you are not sure when it was written: either in 1920 or 1923. You state it might be that he wrote it in 1920 in Taormina and then got it published in 1923. Do you think you can check on this: if he wrote it in 1920 he had already written it when he rewrote this story, in 1923 he would have written it after he rewrote this story. So what I mean to say is: I wonder whether the poem influenced the story or the other way around.
Maybe it is neither, probably he just has a thing for snakes :lol: He was afraid of them...
Quote:
Originally Posted by poem
Well, lets start with the first paragraph you posted :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
This gets said 2 more times: “he was not idle”. And no, he was not. But he was not doing anything enduring either. But in the big scheme of things, what is enduring? :p Let’s go philosophical! :nonod: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
I guess the point is that he is not idle, but he might as well have been. He only works for himself: only to be busy. To feel the joy of doing something, creating something. While over time, he does not create anything. He amounts to nothing.
I am not sure what he should have done to avoid this though… Earning money would not exactly have been enduring either, would it? Does “being paid” for a job make that job worthy?
:D Plenty indeed! At this point in the story I felt like I should step in and lend a hand. Not that I am very handy :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
We do know, from the beginning of the story, that Egbert succeeds in filling the place with flowers :nod: He has to keep attending to the garden, but in my experience even the best gardener has to keep on working to get his/her garden trough the seasons.
Maybe his work was a bit superficial? Jumping from one job to the next before the first was done?Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
And I noted the "shirt-sleeves". Am I right to assume that in those days there was something slightly sensual about him being dressed like that? Like when a woman would go with bare arms?
Aw… so sweet :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
A born rose and a born amateur. I wonder whether those two are automatically connected? Too much of an idealist and a dreamer to ever be practical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
Which would be understandable the first time around, but he should have learned from his mistake and do a better job next time. Apparently not…Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
Ah… so now it is not only breeding, but also upbringing. I guess those two are connected though :wink5: Sentences like this make me wonder what family Egbert is from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
Curious indeed, and nicely put. Again: two sides of the medallion, like nord/south and dark/light.Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
Sapphire, I loved what you wrote but I have to delay until the weekend. I cut two fingers and they are hurting a lot. I wrote you a more detailed note in messages. Stay calm and patient and I will get back to you on the Saturday. Enjoy the rest of your vacation. I am sure by now you have read dozens of commentaries on S&L's, too. I love your enthusiasm for our guy, L. I cherish sharing that with you.
I'm really looking forward to start this discussion again :hurray:
Two months of silence - time to get back into this story :D
Lets remember where we're at:
In the beginning, we are introduced to a man who's working in the garden - it seems quite idillic, but he's not happy. He can not conquer nature and is "fighting" to cultivate the garden - without hope and pleasure. He thinks back to happier days. Back when he fell in love with his (now) wife, back when this cottage seemed a dream come true, back when being one with nature was enough.
The family of his wife is introduced: a patriarchal father, an artistic mother and 3 daughters. They all have a (second?) house near the cottage. Egbert and Winifred live in the country all the time though - "caught out of the world".
This was where we were before Janine posted a new part of the text (#3226, first post on this page). I commented on the first paragraph (post #3227, 2 posts up). Here, we read about the first cracks in this ideal life. Or at least about something which is not a problem yet, but might become in the future. I did not mention this before, but this working in the garden is also what the story starts with. From the beginning Egberts is presented as a hard working man - as flawed as his works might be.
I wonder what you all think of that first paragraph of the next text :) I can not have gotten it right on the first try :lol:
I really think the last line is key to Egberts dualism:
I'm really looking forward to start this discussion again :hurray:Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
Hi Sapphire, good post summarizing and keeping us up-to-date on the story. You write like a teacher, organized in your mind. Lately I have been so scatter-brained; this really helps to anchor me again. I like the fact you bring up the time element - present and past.
Indeed the past is more comfortable a zone for Egbert to live in. He has no ambition to break out of his routines and he might work hard but the world would look on his work as pointless. I can't help but think that this mimic's Lawrence's own life - the part about not wanting to give oneself over to the world or the norm. Lawrence, as we all know, was very prolithic and productive with his writing and art, but at the time, many thought he was wasting his time and puttering. Lawrence fought the establishment and always traveled his own path. He wanted nothing to do with capitalism and lived frugally, just enough to travel and to support his wife and himself. Unlike Egbert he never truly settled down but he did have 'homes' for periods of time in certain locations which he loved. Oddly enough, Lawrence chose his early nickname, Bert, to form his protagonist's name - Egbert...so there must be some connection there to how he could relate to the character. Lawrence also loved gardens and was ambitious in this way.
Interesting line indeed.Quote:
Curious that the sense of permanency in the past had such a hold over him, whilst in the present he was all amateurish and sketchy.
I am also looking forward to picking up from where we left off. Nice to see some action in this thread after all those silent months.
Thank you :blush: My mind might be organized when it comes to this story, but you should see my room :lol: Total dualism there :p.
I myself like how time is used in this story: we drop in with a disillusioned Egbert, get a look in the past (how it got this way) and then ... but we're not there yet :wink5: Rembember how I tried to visualise the timeline in post #3165? (bottom of the page, 3 posts got merged) It helps me to keep things organized :lol:
I agree with this. Those are the days when he lives his romance, when he is not expected to take any responsibility. This is the time when the people who surround him accept him to behave like a newly wed - just enjoying life as it comes with the seasons. He is less comfortable in the present, because people expect him to develop in a certain way - and he refuses ;) But we're not there yet :nonod:Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
This all brings me back to high school literature lessons: flat characters and full characters. Flat characters are something like a caricature: they don't change during the story - at least, that is the definition I remember. Egbert is definitely a full character, but he refuses to be one - he refuses to develop. He wants to be a flat character :D.
Maybe, with the difference that Egbert's work is the labour of the body, he tries to influence the country. Lawrence's work is the labour of the mind, he tries to influence the way people think. Or at least to tell a story which will linger in our thoughts. You're right that they both "do" a lot, while this is but limitedly appreciated during their lifetime. This must have frustrated Lawrence, he must have doubted his own talents... But he stubbornly went on, just like Egbert :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
NEXT PART OF THE TEXT, the second alinea
First I thought Winifred could not criticize him as she sees him as a “higher” being. But the second sentence seems to imply she can not criticize him as she does not know what to do herself either. I wonder whether Egbert is town-bred... maybe he’s city-bred. NOTE: he isn't, we'll learn this soon :) It is just what I thought at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
The last sentence is again a warning, a foreshadowing of what they will learn: the (will to) work (for money) will kill the romance. Right now, work (as unproductive as it is) and romance are one.
:seeya:Hi Sapphire, Mine, too....you should see how much I have crammed into a small space.....pretty hopeless....:brickwallQuote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
:iagree:I agree. Not sure what post that is, but I agree with you either way...and you sure are organised on here. :lol:Quote:
I myself like how time is used in this story: we drop in with a disillusioned Egbert, get a look in the past (how it got this way) and then ... but we're not there yet :wink5: Rembember how I tried to visualise the timeline in post #3165? (bottom of the page, 3 posts got merged) It helps me to keep things organized :lol:
That seems like the 'honeymoon' period. It eventually turns out to be real life with responsibilies and that is why there was so many divorces. Fairytales are nice but they are not realistic....neither is Egbert.Quote:
I agree with this. Those are the days when he lives his romance, when he is not expected to take any responsibility. This is the time when the people who surround him accept him to behave like a newly wed - just enjoying life as it comes with the seasons. He is less comfortable in the present, because people expect him to develop in a certain way - and he refuses ;) But we're not there yet :nonod:
That's really good. I like the way your teacher described the characters...I never thought in these terms before. Mostly I think I agree with you...in Egbert's case, he is wishy washy and not really thinking of anything to do of great importance. He just muddles along at his own pace, yet his life in his way is full...that is, for a time; then after the child's accident, the dynamics of the family just don't work anymore and he is forced into accepting the quote 'normal' way of life. In other words stark reality settles in. He has lost the magic of his existence when he was forced to see outside his perimeters and his garden project and his so called, idealic life. I think the story has a lot to do with idealism vs. realism, don't you?Quote:
This all brings me back to high school literature lessons: flat characters and full characters. Flat characters are something like a caricature: they don't change during the story - at least, that is the definition I remember. Egbert is definitely a full character, but he refuses to be one - he refuses to develop. He wants to be a flat character :D.
It is that but also Lawrence very much liked to putter and work around the house or his ranch in New Mexico. He was never idle or lazy even though he would take breaks from his writing. I think he would have related well to his character in this way. Some of his happiest and most idyllic moments were those spend on a farm or tending a garden. Lawrence indeed was frustrated often with his work because he was simply not accepted in his day as he is now. He fought against so much hypocrisy and unfair criticism.Quote:
Maybe, with the difference that Egbert's work is the labour of the body, he tries to influence the country. Lawrence's work is the labour of the mind, he tries to influence the way people think. Or at least to tell a story which will linger in our thoughts. You're right that they both "do" a lot, while this is but limitedly appreciated during their lifetime. This must have frustrated Lawrence, he must have doubted his own talents... But he stubbornly went on, just like Egbert :)
:nod:Correct. It sounds logical. Lawrence hated 'the love of money'.Quote:
NEXT PART OF THE TEXT, the second alinea
First I thought Winifred could not criticize him as she sees him as a “higher” being. But the second sentence seems to imply she can not criticize him as she does not know what to do herself either. I wonder whether Egbert is town-bred... maybe he’s city-bred. NOTE: he isn't, we'll learn this soon :) It is just what I thought at this point.
The last sentence is again a warning, a foreshadowing of what they will learn: the (will to) work (for money) will kill the romance. Right now, work (as unproductive as it is) and romance are one.
Let me know when you want to move onto new text.
:lol: Thank you :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Spot on :nod: He surely tries to stay in that honeymoon period. He even expects things to stay the same when the children are born... A man can dream ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
In the biography on DH Lawrence by Mark Kinkead-Weekes, it is mentioned that the first version of this story was mainly about Egbert living in a dream at Crockham - while the later (1922) version turned Crockham much more into a place from the past, the old England.
This is also what Virgil has been saying, about this being meant by Lawrence to be a historical story.Quote:
Originally Posted by MKW biograpy
I'm with you on most, but I don't think the child's accident is when the dynamics of the family stop to work. I would rather put that moment at the birth of the first child - but we'll get there ... Moving slowly :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
Yes :nod: I think you found a theme there :hurray:Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I just thought he wouldn't have time for that anymore, with all the writing he did! :) Thank you for telling this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
The difference though, is that Egbert is not happy with his work in the garden. Or at least he does not seem to be all that happy at the beginning of the story: being worried about how he doesn't get it quite right.
Maybe I should say he isn't ALWAYS happy to work in the garden. But then again, we all have our "off" days :p.
Hold on, we still have quite some text to cover :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I'll be back :)
Back :D
On to the NEXT PARAGRAPH of the text
I had to read this sentence 3 times before I realized it just said “ménage” and not “ménage a trois”. Funny how some words are always connected to others – or at least in my brain ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
Notice how this sentence is a warning again, just like the last one in the previous paragraph. It is all positive, but by adding the word “first” the reader immediately knows that the opinion of the father is probably going to change.
This was also the point in the story where I realized I wasn’t reading Egbert his view on things. Until here I did not realize there was a (omniscient) narrator. I thought we were just in Egberts mind while he thought back at days gone by :) But we do not just learn his point of view, we learn a lot about the ideas and dreams of the father and the daughter too.Notice the part “the many things he accomplished”. What had Egbert accomplished at this point in time?! Concluded his study? Married Winifred? Surely the dad would not look at that last one as an accomplishment – he himself made that possible by giving them the cottage. He does expect Egbert to accomplish things, and that is what drives the two apart in the end… That is why I am so surprised to read here that he thought Egbert had accomplished things…Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
I think the last part of the sentence might have made some people frown in 1920. :wink5:
Wow, this is quite a sentence :D It points a lot of things out again: how mr. Marshall has enough money, but is not rich – he still has to work to provide. How he loves his daughters and is glad one of them has found a partner that loves her. How he is a bit Christmassy: a sucker for a happy ending :p.Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
Here we read their life at the cottage is like a “chapter of living romance”. A chapter, not the whole book. And again that word romance, that word which the happy couple can not yet differentiate from “work” (see last paragraph)
What?! Erm… I’m not really feeling this… :blush:Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
Flame again :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Story
He stays the responsible one, the patriarch. He likes to be the one in control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
I’m not sure what to say about this last bit, just that it is important :D Winifred keeps attached to her father, reliant on her father. Egbert does not only not take that responsibility, Winifred does not ask it of him either. “It never occurred to her”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Story
I am not sure whether marrying somebody means you have to refer to that person in difficulty and doubt. I do think something like that is said in the vows…
Sapphire, I hurt my shoulder; think it's burstitis. It's getting better with rest. I had to take my mother out today and I am exhausted. Hold up a day and don't post anymore and tomorrow hopefully I can answer what you wrote. It's quite insightful and good.
I hope you will understand Sapphire...can't get back to this until the weekend. I seem to be overly busy all week; whereas weekends feel a little more relaxed. Be back soon, unless some earth shattering event happens here...hope surely it doesn't...haha.
No worries :D Take all the time you need - there are no deadlines :wink5:
Well, I found it more difficult than I predicted to get back here again...but better late than never. Anyway, I meant what I said. You think clearly and write well expressing yourself about the story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sapphire
Yes, so true. He is rooted in the soil which comprises his little quiet fantasy world. He is very comfortable - it's his comfort zone, so to speak. When the children come along reality does alter; things get more real and he is forced to face reality. He's very much a dreamer I believe.Quote:
Spot on :nod: He surely tries to stay in that honeymoon period. He even expects things to stay the same when the children are born... A man can dream ;)
And that is so Lawrence...looking at the old England in contrast to a new one. Lawrence is always about opposites. Looking at his early life one can see why.Quote:
In the biography on DH Lawrence by Mark Kinkead-Weekes, it is mentioned that the first version of this story was mainly about Egbert living in a dream at Crockham - while the later (1922) version turned Crockham much more into a place from the past, the old England.
Definitely so. I think everything that Lawrence writes is historical or autobiographical in a sense. His work is so intimate and personal. This is what always draws me to the author and his words.Quote:
This is also what Virgil has been saying, about this being meant by Lawrence to be a historical story.
You are probably right. It begins before that when the child comes into the picture. The dynamics between he and his wife change as they natually do in most instances in life. Egbert fights against any change so that his whole fantasy world is then disrupted and that is dramatic for him; even more so when he is blamed for the child's injuries.Quote:
I'm with you on most, but I don't think the child's accident is when the dynamics of the family stop to work. I would rather put that moment at the birth of the first child - but we'll get there ... Moving slowly :)
Hopefully...haha.Quote:
Yes :nod: I think you found a theme there :hurray:
You kidding, surprisingly Lawrence seemed to have time to do a lot of unusual things. I sometimes wonder when he slept. He was so prolithic a writer/artist but he also was a regular man and liked simply living and taking part is joyous things in life, like baking bread. He was quite extraordinary. He loved living on a ranch and back then, that meant a lot of work, like hauling your own water. I have a movie version of Lawrence in Australia and he loved being a part of a group working the land. Well, the character is not really based on Lawrence, but somehow one gets the sense, that a lot of the character is Lawrence. I think this closeness to nature and land gave his work the richness it has.Quote:
I just thought he wouldn't have time for that anymore, with all the writing he did! :) Thank you for telling this.
True. Not sure if that was not due to some sense of being a perfectionist or an idealist in whatever the work in the garden entailed or his vision of what is should become. L and the character, remember, had that artistic temperment.Quote:
The difference though, is that Egbert is not happy with his work in the garden. Or at least he does not seem to be all that happy at the beginning of the story: being worried about how he doesn't get it quite right.
Maybe I should say he isn't ALWAYS happy to work in the garden. But then again, we all have our "off" days :p.
How true. Well, I will only answer this one tonight and do the other soon. I am so darn busy. Wish I wasn't, but it's going to get worse with the construction taking place in our house. I am starting to get stressed about that...it may involve more than I anticipated.Quote:
Hold on, we still have quite some text to cover :D
I see you did come back by the entry below. Don't answer yet and I will get to that one, too...promise.Quote:
I'll be back :)
i never predcited that the thread about D.H. LAWRENCE could last such long, but i really him, and his writing, i gotta read this thread from the very beginning~
Welcome trypsin, I hope you can join us; although not much action is happening presently. One person dropped out of the site for a time and I am awfully busy with home improvement projects and the impending holidays; but pay no mind to that. I am sorry I only just now noticed you here. Yes, indeed this thread has run a long time and we have discussed many a great L story. I am an avid fan of the author and proudly say I have read most of all he wrote; although some has still eluded me since he was such a prolithic author. Take you time reading back and enjoy yourself. Sapphire very kindly copied everything in PDF format for eternity; so, if you need a copy it is possible you can get one or read along online.Quote:
Originally Posted by trypsin
Hope my 'welcome' didn't come too late and you stick around the site. It's a good one and this thread has been very rewarding.