D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[Janine]

Just think of exposition as filling in the missing information. Lawrence does it here by a sort of digression, a going backwards in time. He stops the narrative flow by going back. It's not complicated. You're probably over thinking here.

Virgil, great - that is a good way of thinking of it. Thanks.

That is great biographical background to the story Janine. Your knowledge of his life is invaluable. Thanks.

Thanks, I really got lucky on this one. I was just leafing through my book, looking for the date that Frieda and Lawrence eloped/married. I wasn't even looking for anything about PO in the book, when his reference just caught my eye. I was so happy to come across it, because my thoughts were running in that direction. Here was some solid proof of what I had been thinking. So often I don't remember specific things like that, which I have read in these biographies. I have biography overload by now! I should have kept notes all along; I am not good at doing so, nor do I like to mark up my books. I think this passage throws much light on the story, especially the fact that the officer was an aristocrat, like his father-in-law.

and

Ah, the sexual tension theme. I wanted to hold off a little on this. I wanted to see if anyone could pinpoint a tangible reason for the conflict between the two. Or is it just sexual? I'm going to re-read the story this weekend, looking specifically for the cause of their hatred. Can you skim over Part I again and try to find it too?

Yes, we can hold off. I knew I was venturing a bit into the rest of the story but it was in the passage and I really wanted to quote it while I knew where it was in the book. I will try to read all of Part I again this weekend. Funny, I have been thinking how I should read the whole story again, since I only read it once. I may have read it years back, because I felt like the ending was familiar.

Yes, I saw the similarity with Women In Love, the Birken/Gerald relationship. Definitely L is using the same imagery, and there is certainly significance there. But the Birken/Gerald relationship is quite different than the Captain/Orderly.

I definitely had thought of the Birkin/Gerald relationship. Funny because in a way Birkin was the gentler and Gerald more aristocratic and brutal at times. Birkin could never have been a brutal person I don't think. The two relationships in WIL are so different, setting up another contrast.
Also, the snow element is big - you might recall that. I did not want to mention specifically, just what that was all about, since it entails final scenes in the book; it might be our monthly read (keeping my fingers crossed).

Yes, I think we've said a lot already about the character's characteristics. Except for one detail there, and that is the horse. Horses repeatedly show up in L works, and just like Gerald is on horseback in WIL, the Captain is on horseback here.

Yes, I think horses represent power to Lawrence, or maybe more the idea of man having more power over the horse - another form of control. A horse is both a gentle and very powerful animal - again a dicotomy - but for a man to control so powerful a creature, he must therefore be the more powerful of the two. In HDD wasn't that the case - the scene with the work horses so graphically discribed? Yet man controlled them?

You know Lawrence did actually ride when he was on his ranch in New Mexico. Perhaps it made him feel powerful and controlling. Lawrence was a controlling type man, it is well documented. It is said he was so with his wife, Frieda, or at least tried to be.

A horse is prominent in St. Mawr - is that correct? I think he wrote that when he lived there, not sure, would have to look it up. But anyway, interesting to note that the orderly rides the captain's horse away towards the end. Hope I am not giving anything away mentioning that, but all should have read the story by now anyway.

Yes, Gerald is a great example of the horse being controlled by the man. Gerald represented power, maybe a false power since he really was very fragile in reality. He rides and could tower over people when he was high on horseback. He is the epitomy of power controlling his horse. Do you recall the vicious asault on the train when he was on horseback? The horse was greatly abused and frightened nearly to death, and this gave him a thrill and an instant sadistic sense of power, plus Gudrun and Ursula witnessed the whole scene and he knew it. He was quite brutal, beating the poor animal to charge into the moving train.

[Virgil]

Yes, I think horses represent power to Lawrence, or maybe more the idea of man having more power over the horse - another form of control. A horse is both a gentle and very powerful animal - again a dicotomy - but for a man to control so powerful a creature, he must therefore be the more powerful of the two. In HDD wasn't that the case - the scene with the work horses so graphically discribed? Yet man controlled them?

You know Lawrence did actually ride when he was on his ranch in New Mexico. Perhaps it made him feel powerful and controlling. Lawrence was a controlling type man, it is well documented. It is said he was so with his wife, Frieda, or at least tried to be.

A horse is prominent in St. Mawr - is that correct? I think he wrote that when he lived there, not sure, would have to look it up. But anyway, interesting to note that the orderly rides the captain's horse away towards the end. Hope I am not giving anything away mentioning that, but all should have read the story by now anyway.

Yes, Gerald is a great example of the horse being controlled by the man. Gerald represented power, maybe a false power since he really was very fragile in reality. He rides and could tower over people when he was high on horseback. He is the epitomy of power controlling his horse. Do you recall the vicious asault on the train when he was on horseback? The horse was greatly abused and frightened nearly to death, and this gave him a thrill and an instant sadistic sense of power, plus Gudrun and Ursula witnessed the whole scene and he knew it. He was quite brutal, beating the poor animal to charge into the moving train.

Yes, I had forgotten the horse in St Mawr. They are very important there. Like many good symbols, the hosrse I believe symbolizes multiple things. One thing is I think is civilization. It is through the domestication and control of the horse that civilization was built. At least i think that is one of the things in L's mind.

[Janine]

Yes, I had forgotten the horse in St Mawr. They are very important there. Like many good symbols, the hosrse I believe symbolizes multiple things. One thing is I think is civilization. It is through the domestication and control of the horse that civilization was built. At least i think that is one of the things in L's mind.

Virgil, This is quite interesting. I did not know that horse had so many multiple symbols for Lawrence. "It is through the domestication and control of the horse that civilization was built." This statement especially interests me and I'd like to learn more about that and how it ties in with Lawrence's mind and ideas.

I was trying to find the snow reference or references in "D.H.Lawrence and Italy" - the 3 travel books. I know there was a steady climbing upward in one of the books in the mountains and a feeling of more freedom for Lawrence; the white purity of the snow seemed very symbolic to him. I recall reading it because, at the time, I thought of WIL and the dramatic snow scene. When I find it - more on this.

[inspirangel]

Wheeeeeew !! You have moved forward so rapidly - there is a lot there to think about and I am far too tired to exercise my mind on it !! However, I will be reflecting all the while and post tomorrow !! I have missed some bits and suspect that my attachment to Ls earlier work will go against me ! (Although I have read wil and tr and poetry) Am I trying to enshrine him? I think so but not very helpful for an all-encompassing view of his work !! GREATLY interested to hear he may have written po just after Sons and Lovers AND to hear he had given it a different title - how DARE they ? I did wonder about that title though - seemed to jar somehow !! til tomorrow ......

[Janine]

Wheeeeeew !! You have moved forward so rapidly - there is a lot there to think about and I am far too tired to exercise my mind on it !! However, I will be reflecting all the while and post tomorrow !! I have missed some bits and suspect that my attachment to Ls earlier work will go against me ! (Although I have read wil and tr and poetry) Am I trying to enshrine him? I think so but not very helpful for an all-encompassing view of his work !! GREATLY interested to hear he may have written po just after Sons and Lovers AND to hear he had given it a different title - how DARE they ? I did wonder about that title though - seemed to jar somehow !! til tomorrow ......

inspirangel, glad to see you again! I thought you ran off. Yes, it sure did take off and things are lively. But don't dispair at all. Virgil went on a short business trip, without his laptop, so now is a good time to jump in tomorrow. I was holding back some till he returned and now it's great you returned, too. Good timing. Take your time reading everything that has been posted for I am sure it will all be enlightening to you and we are all here to learn something new - right? You will catch up --- no hurry really! I need a break too; my poor brain has been taxed lately and it is aching I have to go out now so see you soon. Have a great evening! Janine

[grace86]

I know who the Lawrence fans are!!!!!

Decided to check the thread out Janine. Think I might participate in a couple of weeks (final exams coming up).

Virg, I didn't know you were such an avid fan of Lawrence.

[Janine]

Hi Grace, You really take a person's advice to heart! You came to check this out so fast. So glad you could stop by and glad too, that soon you hope to join in these discussions. We have been trying to choose stories available on this site or at least on the internet.
Virgil is away on a short business trip, so I can vouch for him - he loves Lawrence, and did his thesis on key aspects of his work. I also adore Lawrence and have for many years now. In the last two years I have been exploring his life by reading several biographies, which have been wonderfully enlightening. We both are of a similiar mindset, not alway agreeing with all of Lawrence's ideas or theories, he could be pretty eccentric and extreme at times, but we think he was an extraodinary writer, no doubt one of the best. He was very prolific, as well. Asside from all the novels, travel books, critical analyasis books, poetry, letters (he wrote thousands), etc. his short stories are numberous and are among the best in literature.
I wish you the greatest success in your exams. I know a lot of people on this site are going through that now and so many are super busy and probably stressed, in the bargain. When things quiet down and summer is finally here, you can come back and join in. You will enjoy it and learn much from this thread. I am learning myself from every post, which is so marvelous.
inspirangel recently joined in, as did Nossa and Malwethien; and Asa Adams was planning to post for this story, but he is probably busy, also with exams. So you see there are some Lawrence enthusiasts here. It is nice to see so many new faces on this thread lately.

[inspirangel]

Tired as usual ! I really must learn not to log on so late in the day !! but a few points briefly

1. As you say, Lawrence may not have had experience of the military before he supposedly wrote this story

2 Some elements of it are genius - others child-like and still maturing (bluey, whitey - i would never let myself off so lightly in a story of mine!!)

3 the Freidas family thing - would he have known vicariously enough about her relatives lives by this time to write with such a knowledge of this life?

4 the shaking hand - reminiscent of lawrences father after drink in the morning?

5 The subjugation hatred from lawrence - learnt at his father fists ?

6 Description of soldier very similar to Pauls brother Arthur in S and L ? and to father

7 The rape of the orderly's privacy - the Officer could tell from the orderly's
body language that he did not consider himself to be beneath him and took against this suppressed insubordination - the orderly's divine right to guard his precious privacy was taken as rejection - this privacy was raped at the point where the Officer wrongly expects him to share his poetry/girlfriend confidences - this is violation of (one of ) the worst kinds and may have been suffered as a hate -engendering humiliation many times in Lawrences own childhood .............. (his father may have been jealous of Ls writing for his mother/girlfriend?)

I posit that the story was started early and added to later ???????????

that's all !! ........ for now ......... worn out today !!

[Janine]

Tired as usual ! I really must learn not to log on so late in the day !! but a few points briefly

Hi inspirangel, good to see you are back and thinking. Yes, I also start in too late and get tired this time of day, but I will try my best to address each of your statements/questions/ideas.

1. As you say, Lawrence may not have had experience of the military before he supposedly wrote this story

2 Some elements of it are genius - others child-like and still maturing (bluey, whitey - i would never let myself off so lightly in a story of mine!!)

Believe it or now, Lawrence uses these combination words often and up until he died. I just read "Twilight in Italy", "Sea in Sardinia", and "Etruscan Places" and he used these words often and liberally. They are not "child-like" or a "still maturing" element of Lawrence's work. They are not a mistake - he very much meant just what he wrote and he took the liberty to devise these words in a poetic way. "Poetic license" is the usual term and he knew he could legally do this, even in his prose. Do you know how many words came about due to Shakespeare's writings? Thousands! It is not that uncommon for authors to make up words or combine them to suit the mood and their decriptions.

3 the Freidas family thing - would he have known vicariously enough about her relatives lives by this time to write with such a knowledge of this life?

Absolutely, he was quite involved with Frieda's family by the time he wrote PO. He adored Frieda's mother and I think he was close to the sister as well. It is well documented. It was not so much vicariously, as the daughter's information and the father's diary, which would be a first hand account. Lawrence picked up on all stories he heard and people he met; this is what so often got him into trouble with friends and aquaintances and usually they rejected him knowing they could see themselves portrayed in his novels, stories, etc. I think by now the father of Frieda was dead, but I will check my biographies to see if that is true. Either that or he was still in the service.

4 the shaking hand - reminiscent of lawrences father after drink in the morning?

5 The subjugation hatred from lawrence - learnt at his father fists ?

Ok, you are going by your impressions alone in "Sons and Lovers". Later Lawrence was known to have stated that he was too harsh in his portrayal of the father. His father was not nearly as bad as portrayed in S&L. Lawrence felt he had been unfair to his father in his early days. I don't think in "Sons and Lovers" it ever mentions his father using fists against the children or Lawrence. I don't think he beat up on the wife either - it was more of a bad temper and constant bickering and fighting between his mother and father. Physical abuse in Lawrence's real life story, no, I don't believe it existed in his childhood home. I will review my books on that but I don't recall reading that at all.

6 Description of soldier very similar to Pauls brother Arthur in S and L ? and to father

I don't have a clear recollection of Arthur, the brother, in S&L, (been awhile since I read the book), but I would say that Lawrence drew on any image he would have had of military life. He also had friends/aquaintances who went into the military and he observed the military everywhere - on the train to London, in the city, etc.

7 The rape of the orderly's privacy - the Officer could tell from the orderly's
body language that he did not consider himself to be beneath him and took against this suppressed insubordination - the orderly's divine right to guard his precious privacy was taken as rejection - this privacy was raped at the point where the Officer wrongly expects him to share his poetry/girlfriend confidences - this is violation of (one of ) the worst kinds and may have been suffered as a hate -engendering humiliation many times in Lawrences own childhood .............. (his father may have been jealous of Ls writing for his mother/girlfriend?)

I am pretty much lost here - is part of this a quote from the book or what you wrote yourself? Can you explain this a little clearer to me? Do you mean that Lawrence's father was jealous of his letters to his mother or girlfriend and that made him humiliate Lawrence? I think, if this is what you mean, that is really stretching it. No, I don't think his father would be jealous of letters or L's attention to others such as his mother or his girlfriend and her family, later his finance, Louie Burrows. The mother was the one who was critical of Lawrence's girlfriends and if anyone was jealous it was Lawrence's mother. His mother in reality was very overbearing and controlling. Neither parent was perfect and today one would just say L grew up in a 'disfunctional' family.

I do think in this story of the PO, the officer is jealous of the young man going out with his sweetheart. For one thing that left him alone and to fend for himself that day; he must have took it as a sort of rejection, don't you think? "The rape of the orderly's privacy" did this come from the story or did you write it and suggest it to be a sort of rape? I will check the next part of the story and try to find the section where the orderly takes the days off to see his sweetheart. Then I will get back to you further on this thought.

I posit that the story was started early and added to later ???????????

No, If you mean within many years expanse - no, I don't think it was added to. I don't think he did that with the short stories. Pretty much with this one he wrote it one year 1913 and it was published the next 1914, so there would have been no time to add to it and for what reason would he?
Lawrence was noted for rewriting whole novels and I mean rewrite, not revise. He seemed to remember what he had written and wrote them over again sometimes 3 whole times. I just read this not long ago and was amazed. He wrote several versions of "Lady Chatterly's Lover". Generally now the last version is widely read. I believe I read two of the versions, since I read one years back, that seemed to be different than the one I read about 2yrs ago.

inspirangel, hope all this helps throw light on the things you have pointed out and asked about. I hope too, it does not bruise your 'enshrined image' of Lawrence. I too, tend to 'enshrine' him, but now I see him more realistically, flaws and all, and still greatly admire the boy and the man.
I tend to love the earlier images of him the most, but in reading "Twilight in Italy" and "Sea and Sardinia" recently, I fell in love all over again with the older Lawrence.

[inspirangel]

OK OK - you made me laugh - as this is not the first time I have been accused of "stretching it" with my over-active imagination !! I was not critisicing L, just thinking aloud !! (although bluey/whitey would never make it past an editor now - I still hold to that one!!) - no - no quotes from book, all my own doing Im afraid and I realise that you are something of an authority on his life story too so they were mostly questions. The marital "fights" overhead in Sons and Lovers are too realistic from my point of view to have been imagined so I still suspect some kind of aggresion - call it a gut-feeling that wont go away, not cold fact I admit freely - I somehow feel that I soak up these impressions from Lawrences writing- I really look forward to you checking back as I would like to know more - yes, you correctly judge that I am referring back continually to S and L and we are not here on this occasion to discuss that one !!
til tomorrow ........

[Janine]

OK OK - you made me laugh - as this is not the first time I have been accused of "stretching it" with my over-active imagination !! I was not critisicing L, just thinking aloud !! (although bluey/whitey would never make it past an editor now - I still hold to that one!!) - no - no quotes from book, all my own doing Im afraid and I realise that you are something of an authority on his life story too so they were mostly questions. The marital "fights" overhead in Sons and Lovers are too realistic from my point of view to have been imagined so I still suspect some kind of aggresion - call it a gut-feeling that wont go away, not cold fact I admit freely - I somehow feel that I soak up these impressions from Lawrences writing- I really look forward to you checking back as I would like to know more - yes, you correctly judge that I am referring back continually to S and L and we are not here on this occasion to discuss that one !!
til tomorrow ........

Hi again, inspiragel, yes I know how overly imaginative people can be because I tend to one of them! I used to hold on tight to the early images of Lawrence; then a friend of mine suggested I read a biography (he read in college) which was suppose to be the best on record at the time. He said I would be shocked to find out things about Lawrence - for instance L could be very cynical and critical of others, even lashing out verbally, and he was even so with his wife, he lost many friends although he made friends easily and women especially were drawn to him. Now in several biographies it even says he hit Frieda - oh dear, I know this is really going to mar your imagine of our guy Lawrence, but really he and Frieda had a marriage that was far from "one made in heaven". Who knows which reports were actually true or exaggerated, but many of the friends swore it was true and who knows what goes on 'behind closed doors' in a marriage, anyway. They did get into some very strong fights and bickered often. This is well documented. Lawrence was not an easy man to live with. He was a very complex personality and he demanded much from others.

Referring back to PO: if anything Lawrence could be exploring the universal idea of dominance in the male and the male ego and the sadistic potential in all males or females to act in a violent manner, for that matter.

Lawrence was a great exaggerator in his books especially S&L and the father images. Did it ever state that the father beat either the wife or the children in S&L? I thought it was only mental abuse and verbal combat, that is if my memory serves me on this one. Like I said it has been a few years since I read the book. When he wrote S&L, remember at this time he very much idealised his mother, also her imagine in the book. In actual fact, she had a strong hold on young Lawrence's life. He was the youngest child and nearly died at birth - so to her, he was her baby. Might things have turned out differently if she had not died so young; perhaps so. He may or may not have married Frieda, because his mother's approval was paramount to him. Although he loved his mother intensely her opinion on his relationships had a profound affect on L and I believe all of L's works.

although bluey/whitey would never make it past an editor now - I still hold to that one!!

I am sorry, but I don't agree with this at all - I think you are wrong here. I have even read contemporary authors who used words like this - not necessarily proper English, this is true, but used for art's sake. Authors have that right and freedom. Take a look at e e cummings poetry. He did this sort of thing for years, and was aclaimed for his creativity. I think Joyce also make up his own sort of language. I happen to love the way Lawrence uses these wordsm because it does evoke a very 'creative' feeling by Lawrence and also of lyrical poetry. Good for him, I say, having the guts to write just what he wanted to say in Lawrence's natural sort of flow. He never stopped this flow of splendid words pouring forth, in doing so he described perfectly things like the look and feel of the mountains and the sky with words such as 'bluey-gray' or 'whitey haze'. I don't think his editors, nor the censors back then had any qualms with these innocent words at all - they accepted them as simply being 'Lawrencian language'. It was the more intimate references concerning the human body and sex they had their arguments with.

If you stick with us you will learn a great deal. We all do, all the time. Each story brings up new aspects of Lawrence which reveal more about this great genius of a man and his writing.

[malwethien]

Hey everyone. I have been following the thread thus far and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little confused by the whole discussion..LOL...I have never read about D.H. Lawrence as a person / writer...so I'll believe whatever element you guys bring on in here regarding the tie-up between his real life experiences in relation to the story. To be honest, my first thoughts about the Prussian Officer was that he might be gay...and frustrated by or attracted to his orderly. Of course after reading it more, I realized that it was more than that...something deeper....but, just for the sake of discussion, I will throw the idea in here. Is it possible that the Prussian Officer was in love with his orderly and that the orderly knew about this? There have been discussions earlier about the sexual tension between the two, so I'm sure I was not the only one who felt it. So there it is...for everyone to criticize...or ponder....

[Janine]

Hey everyone. I have been following the thread thus far and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little confused by the whole discussion..LOL...I have never read about D.H. Lawrence as a person / writer...so I'll believe whatever element you guys bring on in here regarding the tie-up between his real life experiences in relation to the story. To be honest, my first thoughts about the Prussian Officer was that he might be gay...and frustrated by or attracted to his orderly. Of course after reading it more, I realized that it was more than that...something deeper....but, just for the sake of discussion, I will throw the idea in here. Is it possible that the Prussian Officer was in love with his orderly and that the orderly knew about this? There have been discussions earlier about the sexual tension between the two, so I'm sure I was not the only one who felt it. So there it is...for everyone to criticize...or ponder....

Hi malwethien, I am so glad you have been reading along and condemplating everything. Your post was very well expressed. Probably all that read Lawrence would be liars if they did not admit he can be a bit confusing at times, not to mention downright enigmatic, so join the club. Your confussion is understandable, especially not having read Lawrence before. This is not an easy story to discuss or analysis - none of L's stories are - that is what makes them fascinating, I think. It is always mysterious as to just what L intended us to get from his stories or what he himself was thinking at the time he wrote them.
I think you bring up a very good point about the officer and whether he had some type or degree of homosexual feelings for the orderly. I got that impression in several of the passages, when there was interaction between them. I certainly think there is a counterpoint, such as feminine/masculine or dominent/submissive between them. Perhaps it is not a full-fledged homosexual thing, but often when men are thrown together without women they some tend to behave this way, such as in prison environments, armies, etc. Remember that the officer is very isolated - more so than the orderly, who can take off a few days to be with his sweethheart and enjoy being in a woman/man relationship. The officer has no such relief from tension - be it sexual or other.
I will try later on to post the next part of the story, probably about 8 more paragraphs to discuss. I am thinking that these will reveal more about all of this. I have not looked ahead too far, but I am hoping the text begins to indicate at least the hint of sexual tension/tension between the two men. I imagine it does set up the idea of jealously on the part of the officer. I think it is time to post those and go on with the story.
malwethien - glad you are reading along and ask any questions you want to - please feel free - discussing and asking questions is how we learn more and I know you have a keen curiosity about such things.

[Janine]

Edited by poster - go to next posting. Thanks!

[Janine]

I will make some comments on the posted paragraphs:

To his orderly he was at first cold and just and indifferent: he did not fuss over trifles. So that his servant knew practically nothing about him, except just what orders he would give, and how he wanted them obeyed. That was quite simple. Then the change gradually came.

Here is further description of the officer, as viewed once again by the orderly. This states that the orderly knew practically nothing about the officer....interesting. So the relationship between them is strickly one of servant and master. Last line indicates the change that gradually occurs between them.

The orderly was a youth of about twenty-two, of medium height, and well built. He had strong, heavy limbs, was swarthy, with a soft, black, young moustache. There was something altogether warm and young about him. He had firmly marked eyebrows over dark, expressionless eyes, that seemed never to have thought, only to have received life direct through his senses, and acted straight from instinct.

Again the point of view is from the story-teller and is shifted back to the physical appearance of the youth. It is obvious that he is strong and handsome and someone who would be envied by the officer, who is probably aging or knows he has limited years of youthfulness. Most important, is this last line which seems to indicate that the orderly is driven by instinct and his senses. This would relate to 'blood' philosophy and relationships that Lawrence talks about often in his writing, whereby the intellect gives over to the deeper senses of the blood and animal instinct. I am sure Virgil can further comment on this idea.

Gradually the officer had become aware of his servant’s young, vigorous, unconscious presence about him. He could not get away from the sense of the youth’s person, while he was in attendance. It was like a warm flame upon the older man’s tense, rigid body, that had become almost unliving, fixed. There was something so free and self-contained about him, and something in the young fellow’s movement, that made the officer aware of him.

This passage eloquently describes how the officer perceives the youthfulness of the orderly and suggests he is taken by it and feels a "warm flame" within his own "tense, rigid body". It further describes his body as "unliving, fixed". In contrast the youth is full of life and vigor, and he envies this and the fact that the youth can be less controlled (by himself) than he is and more natural in his being.

And this irritated the Prussian. He did not choose to be touched into life by his servant. He might easily have changed his man, but he did not. He now very rarely looked direct at his orderly, but kept his face averted, as if to avoid seeing him. And yet as the young soldier moved unthinking about the apartment, the elder watched him, and would notice the movement of his strong young shoulders under the blue cloth, the bend of his neck. And it irritated him. To see the soldier’s young, brown, shapely peasant’s hand grasp the loaf or the wine-bottle sent a flash of hate or of anger through the elder man’s blood. It was not that the youth was clumsy: it was rather the blind, instinctive sureness of movement of an unhampered young animal that irritated the officer to such a degree.

Now we can really see what is irritating the officer. He is put out about the youth possessing what he no longer has and obviously longs for; he is fighting being "touched into life" by by this awareness and the affect the servant has on his being. Now Lawrence actually uses the term "animal" in the last statement. In this entire passage the officer observes the freedom and beauty of the youth and is drawn to him, but rejects this notion and it irritates him at the same time. In some sense he is trapped within himself and within his own 'reserve'. He cannot let himself go and feel anything animalistic or natural.

Once, when a bottle of wine had gone over, and the red gushed out on to the tablecloth, the officer had started up with an oath, and his eyes, bluey like fire, had held those of the confused youth for a moment. It was a shock for the young soldier. He felt something sink deeper, deeper into his soul, where nothing had ever gone before. It left him rather blank and wondering. Some of his natural completeness in himself was gone, a little uneasiness took its place. And from that time an undiscovered feeling had held between the two men.

In this paragraph the incident of the wine being spilt and the reaction of the officer is profound enough to have an adverse affect on the relationship of the two men. Now the youth sees the "bluey like fire" in the officers eyes and has the first indication of unsettling feelings between the two men - he is confused by the older man's reaction. This moment is a sort of warning for what is to come in the future. From this point on the orderly is unnerved to a degree and loses some of his ease of manor that the officer was admiring/rejecting, at the same time. The last line leaves off with the feeling of a definite change between them, further emphasising the point.

Henceforward the orderly was afraid of really meeting his master. His subconsciousness remembered those steely blue eyes and the harsh brows, and did not intend to meet them again. So he always stared past his master, and avoided him. Also, in a little anxiety, he waited for the three months to have gone, when his time would be up. He began to feel a constraint in the Captain’s presence, and the soldier even more than the officer wanted to be left alone, in his neutrality as servant.

Now fear creeps in with the first statement, and in the second it states it is 'subconscious' fear. Now the orderly begins to avoid the officer. He starts to put himself into a vulnerable situation with his attitude or constraint in the officer's presense. Obviously the officer will now sense this change. I think this leaves the orderly open for abuse. The officer sees this vulnerable anxiety in the youth and later takes advantage of it.