D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[Janine]

Virgil,
Here's a little more evidence about the Brewsters being the couple in "Things". Seems it was about 1921 or so when he first meet the couple. One of my biographies, by Brenda Maddox, states:
"On the way to join Frieda in Baden-Baden, he stopped in Capri, where Compton Mackenzie introduced him to some very un-Jewish American expatriates about his own age, Earl Brewster and Achshah Brewster. Earl, born in Ohio, and Ashsah, born in Conneticut, looked like New England Puritans --neat, austere, quiet-- but were painters, who used there modest private incomes to live abroad with their small daughter, pursuing their passions, painting and Buddhism. Tenants of the Fontana Vecchia a decade earlier, they were instantly drawn to Lawrence, as he was to them, even though they personified the earnest seriousness he mocked in Americans."

I think that last statement is particularly interesting and appropriate to the short story. Also, the part where they went abroad to pursue their ---passions, painting and Buddhism. They had private income to be able to do so.

I know that it was Earl Brewter that accompanied Lawrence on his trip to the Etruscan tombs. This was later in life. Do you know the date "Things" was written? I don't know how to research the exact date.

I found this part a few pages later in my book:

"A month in bed hardly stemmed a flow of work that would have put a healthy writer to shame. By early December he was sending off to his New York and London agents a load of finished manuscripts, including six unpublished short stories, among them 'The Captain's Doll', 'The Ladybird', and the 'Horse-Dealer's Daughter', as well as a new version of 'The Fox', to which he had 'put a long tail.' He did not know if he would ever finish Mr. Noon.

So he was quite ill in bed when he wrote "Horse-Dealer's Daughter" ---amazing! All three of the stories are his well known ones. I wonder if the six manuscripts included "Things", as well. Interesting to note the last statement about Mr. Noon. I don't think he did finish that before he died, do you know? Seems illness actually enhanced his creativity...strange. He must have been grasping desperately at life during these dire periods of illness.

Hope all this interests you, Virgil, this is the second post I wrote so hope you found the preceeding one, too. I value you opinion.

Looks like Ethan Frome will be the book of month. As it was I found a copy of each in my bookcase, so I am set. Janine

[Virgil]

Virgil,
Here's a little more evidence about the Brewsters being the couple in "Things". ...They had private income to be able to do so.

Thanks. That settles it. The Melvilles were definitely modeled on the Brewsters.

I know that it was Earl Brewter that accompanied Lawrence on his trip to the Etruscan tombs. This was later in life. Do you know the date "Things" was written? I don't know how to research the exact date.

I have the rough date at home. I'm at work right now, but I'll look it up.

I found this part a few pages later in my book:

"A month in bed hardly stemmed a flow of work that would have put a healthy writer to shame. By early December he was sending off to his New York and London agents a load of finished manuscripts, including six unpublished short stories, among them 'The Captain's Doll', 'The Ladybird', and the 'Horse-Dealer's Daughter', as well as a new version of 'The Fox', to which he had 'put a long tail.' He did not know if he would ever finish Mr. Noon.

So he was quite ill in bed when he wrote "Horse-Dealer's Daughter" ---amazing! All three of the stories are his well known ones. I wonder if the six manuscripts included "Things", as well. Interesting to note the last statement about Mr. Noon. I don't think he did finish that before he died, do you know? Seems illness actually enhanced his creativity...strange. He must have been grasping desperately at life during these dire periods of illness.

I thought "Things" was much later. I'll look up the dates on all of them.

Hope all this interests you, Virgil, this is the second post I wrote so hope you found the preceeding one, too. I value you opinion.

Oh yes. I didn't think there was anything to respond to on the previous post. Of course i find this interesting.

Looks like Ethan Frome will be the book of month. As it was I found a copy of each in my bookcase, so I am set. Janine

I take it you found the thread. I've been busy today.

[Virgil]

This is from D. H. Lawrence: A Calendar of His Works by Keith Sagar, University of Texas Press, Austin, 1979. What Sagar has done is tabulate day by day what Lawrence did based on letters and records. I believe it's out of print, but perhaps a library might have it.

Lawrence wrote "Things" in May 1927, published in October 1928.
Wrote "The Capain's Doll" Sept-Nov 1921, sent proofs in for publishing in Feb 1923.
Wrote "The Ladybird" in Dec 1921, also sent proofs in Feb 1923.
Wrote "The Horse Dealer's Daughter" (originally titled, "The Miracle") in Jan 1916, actually fnished it in Jan 1917, re-wrote it again in Oct 1921, and sent proofs in Nov 1921.

Hope that helps.

[Janine]

Virgil, Yes - this is very helpful. I would like to pick up that book sometime. I will see if Amazon has it. Forget my library. I once requested the book of paintings and drawings and I never heard a word more about it. L's stuff is apparently too rare now and I suppose I am lucky the library has anything at all on him. From this book information, apparently then, when he was ill in bed he re-wrote "The Horse-Dealer's Daughter". I read in one of the books that he re-wrote many a book and story, sometimes up to 3 times. He would actually begin the whole story from scratch, but it must have been engraved in his memory. Another fact that convinces me of his genius. Thanks for looking those dates up and typing them.
Janine

[Virgil]

OK I'm going to start the discussion on "The Horse Dealer's Daughter."

Let me just summarize the story for this post. The story roughly divides into three parts. The siblings (three brothers and sister) who own the ranch are forced to sell the ranch and go their separate ways. Mabel the sister is forced to go live with another sister, with the presumption that she will now be an old maid. A friend of the family is a Doctor Ferguson who visits them on one of their last days at the ranch. That is the first part of the story. The second part we find Dr. Ferguson worn out with his job, but suddenly glimpses Mabel who is walking toward a near by pond. Mabel has decided that life isn't worth living and will drown herself. She walks into the pond and keeps walking until she has submerged herself under. Ferguson who has been following rushes in after her and after a bit is able to pull her unnconscious body out. He retores her breathing, and while still unconscious brings her into the house. That is the second part. Finally in the house after removing her wet clothes she regains consciousness and in a moment of reawakening falls in love with Ferguson. After realizing what has been missing from his life, he too falls in love with her. Their lives transformed now will marry.

That is the bare bones story line. But what Lawrence does with it is incredible. The symbolism of the horse as bound to social custom at the expense of passionate life permeates the story. Look at this passage:

The great draught-horses swung past. They were tied head to tail, four of them, and they heaved along to where a lane branched off from the highroad, planting their great hoofs floutingly in the fine black mud, swinging their great rounded haunches sumptuously, and trotting a few sudden steps as they were led into the lane, round the corner. Every movement showed a massive, slumbrous strength, and a stupidity which held them in subjection. The groom at the head looked back, jerking the leading rope. And the calvalcade moved out of sight up the lane, the tail of the last horse, bobbed up tight and stiff, held out taut from the swinging great haunches as they rocked behind the hedges in a motionlike sleep

.

Four horses echoes four siblings.

[Janine]

Good start Virgil, I like your pointing out the symbolism of the horses. I had not really thought of that - the four representing the four siblings. Interesting. The only part I might question is your take on the ending.

Finally in the house after removing her wet clothes she regains consciousness and in a moment of reawakening falls in love with Ferguson. After realizing what has been missing from his life, he too falls in love with her. Their lives transformed now will marry.

This seems too simply put to me. I feel a lot more is going on there than mere love. Of course you did state that this synopsis is the barebones rendition of the story. I have only re-read part of the story last night, I was too tired and could not keep awake, but I had a different idea of the ending the first time I read it. It sounds a little too set or absolute. I am not sure one could say they fell instantly in love. I think there was a lot more to that ending which I am sure we will discuss. Some plays into Lawrence's own personality and his notions/views on men and woman, and his keen observances of the human physcology. I will read the rest of the story tonight.

[Virgil]

This seems too simply put to me. I feel a lot more is going on there than mere love. Of course you did state that this synopsis is the barebones rendition of the story. I have only re-read part of the story last night, I was too tired and could not keep awake, but I had a different idea of the ending the first time I read it. It sounds a little too set or absolute. I am not sure one could say they fell instantly in love. I think there was a lot more to that ending which I am sure we will discuss. Some plays into Lawrence's own personality and his notions/views on men and woman, and his keen observances of the human physcology. I will read the rest of the story tonight.

I agree Janine, it is too simple. I had a hard time coming up with a summary for that last section. Perhaps you can do it.

[Schokokeks]

Off topic, sorry for that -
I just stumbled over this:

you know more than enough to do a Masters for sure

Oh yes, Janine, please do !
You're a great contribution to this place and I like your style of writing very much, very refreshing .

Probably could, but don't have the energy to write all those papers and take tests. Besides most of my thoughts are rattling around in my head and jumbled by now - 3 biographers definitely contradict each other. I would rather study independently, then form my own ideas of L. It is just a love of learning, and understanding L better.

All right then, do a PhD .
But stay with us .

[Janine]

Off topic, sorry for that -
I just stumbled over this:


Oh yes, Janine, please do !
You're a great contribution to this place and I like your style of writing very much, very refreshing .


All right then, do a PhD .
But stay with us .

Schokokeks, I hope you are going to join our Lawrence thread. That would be so great. The stories are short and interesting - lots to discuss there. Schokokeks, you and Virgil flatter me way too much. At 57 yrs of age I don't think I have the energy to get a masters in literature, let alone a PHD. I graduated from art college in 1972 with a BFA in Illustration - one degree is enough for me. I would have to have a whole new college degree in literature. No, then it would not be fun for me. This is why I like it all so much. No pressure and I can think of it as enjoyment - not work. I am staying put here. I love it here - thanks so much, S, for your vote of confidence and liking my writing attempts. Mostly I just write random Haiku but I do find it fun. I do like writing about movies or books I have read as well. I hope all the time I am contributing something to the site.

S, I just stumbled on this in your profile - favorite book - A Prayer for Owen Meany - John Irving I have this book and want to read it. I got it free at my library. I saw the film it was based on "Simon Birch" and I loved it. Did you see it by any chance?

Manny, it is ok what you wrote, just simplified. It is hard to describe the end. All of L's endings are probably like that - hard to put into words. I will have to finish up the story tonight and I will try to come up with a few lines about the ending. In a way I hate giving the ending away, since someone might come into the thread who has not yet read the story.

[Virgil]

Well, lets start with the beginning then. I've already mentioned the symbolism of the horses, but what exactly do they symbolize? And what is the significance of Joe, the eldest brother, being associated most with the horses?

Joe watched with glazed hopeless eyes. The horses were almost like his own body to him. He felt he was done for now. Luckily he was engaged to a woman as old as himself, and therefore her father, who was steward of a neighbouring estate, would provide him with a job. He would marry and go into harness. His life was over, he would be a subject animal now.

[Janine]

Well, lets start with the beginning then. I've already mentioned the symbolism of the horses, but what exactly do they symbolize? And what is the significance of Joe, the eldest brother, being associated most with the horses?
Quote:
"Joe watched with glazed hopeless eyes. The horses were almost like his own body to him. He felt he was done for now. Luckily he was engaged to a woman as old as himself, and therefore her father, who was steward of a neighbouring estate, would provide him with a job. He would marry and go into harness. His life was over, he would be a subject animal now."

This whole paragraph is curious to me and almost feels contradictory at times. First line says "Joe watched with hopeless eyes". Then later it says "Luckily he was engaged"... Ending line says "His life was over, he would be a subject animal". My question is about the word "luckily". Is Lawrence using this ironically of cynically? Using the work "luckily" to emphasis the exact opposite for the fate of Joe, for surely the whole paragraph adds up to one conclusion. Joe was to become as a "subject animal" and his life (free will) would be over -"he was done for now." Why did L use the words "for now?" Also, he would "marry and go into harness" is not literal, but rather symbolic, and ties in with the horse comparison to his life of being harnessed to the middle class (servitude; L would see it this way) system strictly making a living. The woman's father would get him a job, so he really had no freedom of choice now in the matter of his existence or vocation. Also, the paragraph indicates Joe has no other choice apparently, but to marry the "woman as old as himself", with the father who will provide his keep. In doing so he will be under her service, as well as the fathers. He would be beholding to both.

Question - was it a disgrace to marry a woman as old as the man in L's time? I found this statement curious. Why does L seem to emphasis that fact?

I think the entire paragraph indicates a bondage for Joe as a final solution, and maybe only alternative, to his survival. So he was once the master of his life and of the horses, but now he will become like them - "a subject animal" in all respects of life.

Knowing the rest of the story, this first paragraph sets the tone effectively for the theme of the story to come, which is really quite brilliant on L's part.

And what is the significance of Joe, the eldest brother, being associated most with the horses?

Not sure really - maybe just that the oldest man then would be responsible for the other siblings, following the death of the father. Usually the ultimate responsibiliy would fall on the oldest and L mentioned that there were debts to be paid left on the estate they are leaving behind.

[Virgil]

This whole paragraph is curious to me and almost feels contradictory at times.

You're right. There are several discordant notes here.

First line says "Joe watched with hopeless eyes". Then later it says Luckily he was engaged... Ending line says "His life was over, he would be a subject animal". My question is about the word "luckily". Is Lawrence using this ironically?

I guess he is. I read it as only to do with Joe having a fall back now that the ranch is to be sold.

Using the work "luckily" to emphasis the exact opposite for the fate of Joe, for surely the whole paragraph adds up to one conclusion. Joe was to become as a "subject animal" and his life (free will) would be over -"he was done for now." Why did L use the words "for now?"

Very good, but one note of caution. Was Joe really free while on the ranch? Are these free will comments Lawrence's points of view or just Joe's? The horses are not all that free on the ranch either, and they are animals.

Also, he would "marry and go into harness" is not literal, but rather symbolic, and ties in with the horse comparison to his life of being harnessed

Nice metaphor, isn't it?

Question - was it a disgrace to marry a woman as old as the man in L's time? I found this statement curious. Why does L seem to emphasis that fact?

Not sure, but it does tie in with Mabel and her life being over. Nice pick up Janine.

I think the entire paragraph indicates a bondage for Joe as a final solution, maybe only alternative, to his survival. So he was the master of his life and the horses but now he will become like them - "a subject animal" in all respects of life.

Yes, but there is the complexity that Joe wasn't necessarily free on the ranch either. I think we should contrast his character with his brother Fred Henry.

Knowing the rest of the story - this first paragraph sets the tone effectively for the theme of the story to come, which is really quite brilliant on L's part.

That's why I picked it. But let's contrast the brothers and i think we will understand the framework of the story.

[Janine]

Hmm, I had not thought of contrasting the brothers. Yes, let's do that. You no doubt have picked up on somethings I have missed.

Yes, but there is the complexity that Joe wasn't necessarily free on the ranch either.

I will be curious as to what makes you think he was not free on the ranch or at least his own person and happy. Perhaps he was under the rule of his father when he was alive. What statements would lead you to draw this conclusion?

Funny I read the word "Luckily" as you did originally, and then I thought more on it. L really takes individual words to a new level. I started thinking of L's own sarcastic way and his cynicism about being harnessed to a middle class way of life - yes, nice metaphor, indeed. I know L felt harnessed in his life as a school master, so he would relate in that way to this story. He also knew one of the brothers at the Haggs farm who got involved with horse dealing after he married the daughter of a dealer. I will try to look that up in my books tonight. This, no doubt, is where he originally got the idea for the story, which is interesting since he wrote it years later, correct? Wasn't he in Italy when he wrote this story? The young man from his youth ended up married and quite "harnessed" to a life obviously all wrong for him; he gave way to a life he did not truly welcome in having to leave his beloved family farm; Haggs farm was sold because of financial difficulties. This beginning mimics the whole time L witnessed this kind of thing really happening to his close friend and the family. I see Joe as the same character as in "The White Peacock"; he was fashioned after one of Jesse's brothers, I think George. I will look up his name tonight, since I may be mixing some fact with fiction. Remember L always did write from his own life or friend's life experiences and his observations. I am glad you did pick this particular story because it ties in with L's early life and his first novel "The White Peacock", which is very interesting to me.

[Virgil]

OK, let's compare the two brothers. In addition to the paragraph I quoted above, this other one also characterizes Joe:

Yet they were three fine, well-set fellows enough. Joe, the eldest, was a man of thirty-three, broad and handsome in a hot, flushed way. His face was red, he twisted his black moustache over a thick finger, his eyes were shallow and restless. He had a sensual way of uncovering his teeth when he laughed, and his bearing was stupid. Now he watched the horses with a glazed look of helplessness in his eyes, a certain stupor of downfall.

Now let's look at Fred Henry:

There was another helpless silence at the table. Joe sprawled uneasily in his seat, not willing to go till the family conclave was dissolved. Fred Henry, the second brother, was erect, clean-limbed, alert. He had watched the passing of the horses with more sang-froid. If he was an animal, like Joe, he was an animal which controls, not one which is controlled. He was master of any horse, and he carried himself with a well-tempered air of mastery. But he was not master of the situations of life. He pushed his coarse brown moustache upwards, off his lip, and glanced irritably at his sister, who sat impassive and inscrutable.

And then he tries to push Mabel to a decision:

'You'll go and stop with Lucy for a bit, shan't you?' he asked. The girl did not answer.

'I don't see what else you can do,' persisted Fred Henry.

'Go as a skivvy,' Joe interpolated laconically.

The girl did not move a muscle.

and later:

'Have you had a letter from Lucy?' Fred Henry asked of his sister.

'Last week,' came the neutral reply.

'And what does she say?'

There was no answer.

'Does she ask you to go and stop there?' persisted Fred Henry.

'She says I can if I like.'

'Well, then, you'd better. Tell her you'll come on Monday.'

This was received in silence.

'That's what you'll do then, is it?' said Fred Henry, in some exasperation.

So Joe is the "harnessed" one, while Fred Henry is the controling one, the one who directs the horses. Both are within the context of society, society being made up of both halves of this coin. True, Joe is "flushed" while Fred is "sang-froid" (cold blooded). And certainly this carries weight in Lawrence's conception of humanity, ("If he was an animal, like Joe, he was an animal which controls, not one which is controlled.") but they are both different than Mabel and what she will experience.

Mabel next, after your thoughts on this.

[Janine]

OK, let's compare the two brothers. In addition to the paragraph I quoted above, this other one also characterizes Joe:


Now let's look at Fred Henry:

And then he tries to push Mabel to a decision:

and later:


So Joe is the "harnessed" one, while Fred Henry is the controling one, the one who directs the horses. Both are within the context of society, society being made up of both halves of this coin. True, Joe is "flushed" while Fred is "sang-froid" (cold blooded). And certainly this carries weight in Lawrence's conception of humanity, ("If he was an animal, like Joe, he was an animal which controls, not one which is controlled.") but they are both different than Mabel and what she will experience.

Mabel next, after your thoughts on this.

Virgil, were there two brothers or three? I thought there were 4 siblings. Isn't the other mentioned? I forget now. Well, ok Joe is more contolled then and Fred Henry is a controlling type. Now as to regarding life prior to this crisis of selling their home and the horses, etc. do you think this indicated that the older brother, Joe, was controlled by the younger brother, Fred Henry. Coming from a family of 3 siblings myself I know all too well how different personalities are. Still I am not sure how significant this is to the story. I did not see as much meaning in it as you do. Perhaps it indicates that Fred tried to dominate Mabel. What do you think? Also, the boys may gang up on her and make both dominate her or bully her. The way they spoke to her was not exactly sensitive or kind. Isn't it setting it up that Mabel does not have much choice in her life to come? She is being put out by her brothers - neither of them seem to want her with them, which would make her loneliness even more pronounced.
What does he mean when he says:
'Go as a skivvy,' Joe interpolated laconically.
What is a skivvy?