D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[Janine]

Hello Janine! I am sorry for not posting lately, but I decided to have a break after this difficult school year and these difficult posts I will try to comment this part of the story so here it is.

I perceive Sam Adams like an evil spirit, even though this seems unfit in Lawrence's short stories. I'd like to exaggerate saying this, because he is stirring up the peace of the couple. L. uses the word ''antagonism'' in the following statement with the intention of describing the relationship between the two men:

Yes, perhaps evil spirit is a bit strong a phrase to use to describe Sam Adams, but he does exert a kind of 'spell' over Elsie with his 'physicality' and his smooth dancing style. She is in a sort of swoon or spell, as she dances with him. He has a magical effect upon her, but I think that instances like this, with frenzied passionate dancing, can take us out of the realm of reality, don't you?
Yes, there is a lot of antagonism between the two men, throughout this whole section of the story. SA is definitely stirring up the peace between Whiston and Elsie and undermining their relationship.

I find this phrase interesting. It seems that Elsie understands that she is provoking pain to Whiston, but at the same time temptation is strong. To some extent, she likes to dance with Adams. Lawrence does a great depiction here:

Downing, Lawrence's dance depictions are some of his very best. I quite agree, and I think she does like dancing with Adams very much so. Lawrence totally captures the passion of the dance, don't you think?

The stocking episode reveals Adams' brazeness.
The discussion between Whiston and Elsie seems very real and I like the part when he soothes her.

As I said, he is exerting, once again, but even more prominently, his strong will over her. He has done that all along in the dance, mesmerizing her, and when she begins to regain her consciousness, this golden oportunity, to really exert his will, is presented to him; naturally he snatches it up and the stocking. He is an opportunist and it is quite brazen, especially in the time this story takes place. In some sense he rescues her from embarrassment, but also, he does this to get his own prize and exert his manhood.

[Janine]

Posting next part of story:

III
She refused to go to her work at Adams's any more. Her father had to submit and she sent in her notice--she was not well. Sam Adams was ironical. But he had a curious patience. He did not fight.

So she quits her job after the stocking incident. What does Lawrence mean by SA was ironical and also does the last statement refer to Adams or to her father?

[Quote]In a few weeks, she and Whiston were married. She loved him with passion and worship, a fierce little abandon of love that moved him to the depths of his being, and gave him a permanent surety and sense of realness in himself. He did not trouble about himself any more: he felt he was fulfilled and now he had only the many things in the world to busy himself about. Whatever troubled him, at the bottom was surety. He had found himself in this love.[Quote]
This paragraph is interesting to me in pointing out how Whiston perceives his love for Elsie and how he has 'found himeslf in this love,' in finality. She loves with a 'passion' and a sense of 'worship' and 'fierce abandon' while Whiston sees his love as a 'surety' or a sense of security in marriage and is 'fulfilled' in this love for Elsie.

They spoke once or twice of the white stocking.

"Ah!" Whiston exclaimed. "What does it matter?"

He was impatient and angry, and could not bear to consider the matter. So it was left unresolved.

They spoke of it only 'once or twice', apparently because Whiston could not face his feelings about it, so the whole matter was left 'unresolved' about the white stocking incident; yet still it is there to (subconsciously) undermine their relationship or create a sense of something without closure, something unsettled between them.

She was quite happy at first, carried away by her adoration of her husband. Then gradually she got used to him. He always was the ground of her happiness, but she got used to him, as to the air she breathed. He never got used to her in the same way.

That last statement seems very significant to me. Does Whiston not get used to Elsie the way she does to him? Does it just show the difference in the sexes or has Elsie now fallen out of 'passion' with Whiston and settled into 'getting used to him' only? At first she is 'carried away' by him and 'adores' him, now she is merely 'used to him'. Is she bored in a way?

Inside of marriage she found her liberty. She was rid of the responsibility of herself. Her husband must look after that. She was free to get what she could out of her time.

So marriage has 'freed' Elsie of the 'responsibility of herself'. Does this indicate now that she is totally dependent on Whiston? If so, in what ways? Seems 'he must look after that' and so she 'is free to get what she could out of her time'. That last statement is interesting and leaves me with more questions in my mind. I am not entirely sure of it's full meaning.

So that, when, after some months, she met Sam Adams, she was not quite as unkind to him as she might have been. With a young wife's new and exciting knowledge of men, she perceived he was in love with her, she knew he had always kept an unsatisfied desire for her. And, sportive, she could not help playing a little with this, though she cared not one jot for the man himself.

So here is proof that she likes playing with the man's emotions, but she cares not a 'jot' for Sam Adams, the man. Elsie is very reckless when it comes to other's emotions.

When Valentine's day came, which was near the first anniversary of her wedding day, there arrived a white stocking with a little amethyst brooch. Luckily Whiston did not see it, so she said nothing of it to him. She had not the faintest intention of having anything to do with Sam Adams, but once a little brooch was in her possession, it was hers, and she did not trouble her head for a moment how she had come by it. She kept it.

She gives little regard for the giver, but loves the gift, but mostly I think she likes best having the secret from her husband, that secret is a possession in itself.

Now she had the pearl ear-rings. They were a more valuable and a more conspicuous present. She would have to ask her mother to give them to her, to explain their presence. She made a little plan in her head. And she was extraordinarily pleased. As for Sam Adams, even if he saw her wearing them, he would not give her away. What fun, if he saw her wearing his ear-rings!

So she quite enjoys this sneaking around behind her husband's back. She certainly feels no guilt about it and schemes and plans how to get away with wearing them without Whiston detecting anything to do about Sam Adams. Her delight is further enhanced with the idea of SA seeing her wear the earrings. All this really to feed Elsie's ego.

She would pretend she had inherited them from her grandmother, her mother's mother. She laughed to herself as she went down town in the afternoon, the pretty drops dangling in front of her curls. But she saw no one of importance.

So wearing the earrings, she feels quite smart and covert in her plans to cover up the fact of the real gift-giver. Ironically, her first trip she encounters no one of any importance, which makes her seem a fool in her vanity. In the last line do you think that 'no one of importance' directly or specifically means Sam Adams?

[Quark]

So she quits her job after the stocking incident. What does Lawrence mean by SA was ironical and also does the last statement refer to Adams or to her father?

I think by "ironical" Lawrence was trying to say that Adams was pretending not to understand why she was leaving her job. Also, it is Adams that L refers to when he says he didn't fight with her. Adams, rather than openly confront Elsie about their romantic interest in each other, decides to fake ignorance of their relationship.

This paragraph is interesting to me in pointing out how Whiston perceives his love for Elsie and how he has 'found himeslf in this love,' in finality. She loves with a 'passion' and a sense of 'worship' and 'fierce abandon' while Whiston sees his love as a 'surety' or a sense of security in marriage and is 'fulfilled' in this love for Elsie.

Elsie and Whiston both love each other, but there are psychological complication which make their marriage troublesome. Downing brought up the childishness of Elsie, and I think that's a good way to describe how she handles her relationships. She looking for pleasure--both physical and psychological. She likes her marriage to Whiston because it frees her of any compunctions she might suffer after her enjoyments. She says that she's given herself over to Whiston, but in what way? She still keeps secrets from him, and she has her own life outside of him. So what part of her life has she given over Whiston? Elsie pushes onto Whiston her permanent social consciousness--or as she puts it: her everyday life. Once unburdened of her responsibilty to that side of herself, she can go on to enjoy all the pleasures she wants without shame or guilt. She does love Whiston--passionately even at times--but the reason she needs him is because of the mental displacement she uses him for. Whiston, on the other hand, uses Elsie for egotistical reasons. He desires Elsie because her beauty can give him more confidence in himself. Lawrence mentions how marriage solidifies Whiston's personality, and helps Whiston focus on the things outside himself. He wants Elsie to satisfy his own self-image. Naturally, this makes him very possessive. In fact, he turns dangerously possessive and hits Elsie--even threatening to murder. He loves Elsie, but he needs her to belong to him alone for that sake of his fragile personality. Despite all of this, though, they do love each other strongly. The opening of the short story shows them very affectionate and loving together, but as the story progresses we see that their radically divergent personal problems drive them apart.

[Janine]

I think by "ironical" Lawrence was trying to say that Adams was pretending not to understand why she was leaving her job. Also, it is Adams that L refers to when he says he didn't fight with her. Adams, rather than openly confront Elsie about their romantic interest in each other, decides to fake ignorance of their relationship.

Quark, am I glad to see you! Finally someone comes to my rescue. I was afraid I would be accused of 'blocking', doing all the posts alone; also it is nice to discuss this with someone else. Thanks for reading the story and posting.

I agree now with what you wrote so far here - it just seemed to be a little vague to me. That is interesting - so, you think that Adams fakes ignorance of their relationship; I can see how that could be; that makes sense to me now.

Elsie and Whiston both love each other, but there are psychological complication which make their marriage troublesome. Downing brought up the childishness of Elsie, and I think that's a good way to describe how she handles her relationships. She looking for pleasure--both physical and psychological. She likes her marriage to Whiston because it frees her of any compunctions she might suffer after her enjoyments. She says that she's given herself over to Whiston, but in what way? She still keeps secrets from him, and she has her own life outside of him. So what part of her life has she given over Whiston? Elsie pushes onto Whiston her permanent social consciousness--or as she puts it: her everyday life. Once unburdened of her responsibilty to that side of herself, she can go on to enjoy all the pleasures she wants without shame or guilt. She does love Whiston--passionately even at times--but the reason she needs him is because of the mental displacement she uses him for. Whiston, on the other hand, uses Elsie for egotistical reasons. He desires Elsie because her beauty can give him more confidence in himself. Lawrence mentions how marriage solidifies Whiston's personality, and helps Whiston focus on the things outside himself. He wants Elsie to satisfy his own self-image. Naturally, this makes him very possessive. In fact, he turns dangerously possessive and hits Elsie--even threatening to murder. He loves Elsie, but he needs her to belong to him alone for that sake of his fragile personality. Despite all of this, though, they do love each other strongly. The opening of the short story shows them very affectionate and loving together, but as the story progresses we see that their radically divergent personal problems drive them apart.

Yes, I definitely think there are complications in their marriage that surface as the story goes along, and I am not entirely sure they will ever be resolved. I too think the two people are so radically different. Lawrence believed in working through these complications, but I did wonder if that would be the case in this story or would the couple go on for years this way -with Elsie playing these selfish little games behind Teddy's back. I don't feel the ending is resolved by this one act of violence.
Another thing prominent in Lawrence's work is this sense of sudden violence surfacing with one of the characters - usually the one being put down or abused mentally or physically. If you read back to 'Prussian Officer' this sort of thing builds up and culminates in one sudden violent act directed to the person who has been inflicting pain on the antagonist. I read briefly some words on this story - that this story advances the idea of working out problems in a marriage or relationship. I don't of course agree with
Lawrence's idea of striking Elsie, but I can see being human, Whiston snapped and could take no more of her game playing and nonscense. I think it is interesting the way you see the couple supporting each other in certain ways - first that Elsie is free in the marriage to continue with her secrets and feel safe and not have to feel quilty, second how Elsie solidifies Whiston and makes him able to pursue his ambitions outside the marriage. I don't know if it is such a negative thing as you indicated for Whiston, but you are right in assuming that they both are 'selfish' in certain ways only thinking of their own needs. They both need ego support I think.

But as you pointed out the love does exist between them, even though the relationship is a difficult one to work out at this point in their marriage. Remember, they have not been married long, so they are still learning to cope with each other and to adjust to married life. I feel that after reading many biographies on Lawrence and Frieda's life together, that he being somewhat a newly married man at the time he wrote this story, he took from his own experiences to some degree. He and Frieda his wife were quite different in many ways. Again one cannot say it mimics the author's life, but some factors do play into that equation in the story and the understanding of how women and men function together in married life. I think he has captured the complications that arise when two people try to make a go of it and especially when the marriage is a fairly new one with much uncharted territory yet to discover about each other and much to work out or iron out the differences and tensions.

As before to copy what you once said in 'Lighthouse' I hope this makes some sense and is not a big ball of fuzz (I like that!) floating around in my head. Tell me what you think. We can move onto the next part of the story; hoping to finish up soon.

[Pensive]

But as you pointed out the love does exist between them, even though the relationship is a difficult one to work out at this point in their marriage. Remember, they have not been married long, so they are still learning to cope with each other and to adjust to married life. I feel that after reading many biographies on Lawrence and Frieda's life together, that he being somewhat a newly married man at the time he wrote this story, he took from his own experiences to some degree. He and Frieda his wife were quite different in many ways. Again one cannot say it mimics the author's life, but some factors do play into that equation in the story and the understanding of how women and men function together in married life. I think he has captured the complications that arise when two people try to make a go of it and especially when the marriage is a fairly new one with much uncharted territory yet to discover about each other and much to work out or iron out the differences and tensions.

I agree with you here, Janine. Love does exist between them both and they care for each other. Both have their pros and cons for which they have to suffer and make-up as well.

[Janine]

Pensive, good to see you back. Good to know you have been reading the posts. I was feeling quite lonely in here, lately. I was determined to complete this story though, so we can go onto a new one. I hate having things just hanging, unfinished. Thanks to you and Quark I have some feedback on what I wrote. Glad you stopped by.

I feel that Lawrence intended the story to convey the love in this marriage, but in realistic terms and to show that 'the course of true love never ran smoothly', especially in marriages....there are always many things to work out between two people with separate personalities. I don't think they necessarily worked it out the best way at the end, but it was a start perhaps in Whiston showing Elsie that he would no longer put up with her frivilous ways. Marriage takes work and I wish that Virgil were here now since I am sure he would have a few things to say about that; he usually does.

[Quark]

That was a fast response, Janine. The Lawrence nerve in your brain must be very sensitive. You say:

I don't feel the ending is resolved by this one act of violence.
Another thing prominent in Lawrence's work is this sense of sudden violence surfacing with one of the characters - usually the one being put down or abused mentally or physically. If you read back to 'Prussian Officer' this sort of thing builds up and culminates in one sudden violent act directed to the person who has been inflicting pain on the antagonist. I read briefly some words on this story - that this story advances the idea of working out problems in a marriage or relationship. I don't of course agree with
Lawrence's idea of striking Elsie, but I can see being human, Whiston snapped and could take no more of her game playing and nonscense.

No, I don't think that Whiston striking her has ended their problems. At the end of the party in the second chapter we have an ending very similar to this one, but this fight between the two them continues into the next chapter. Whiston may have relieved some of his pent up rage. He definitely had a "So foul a sky clears not without storm" attitude for most of the story. This really doesn't address the reason for Elsie's flirting. All he does is intimidate her into telling him her secret; it doesn't remove the reason she was keeping secrets.

I don't know if it is such a negative thing as you indicated for Whiston

I wasn't trying to pass judgment on Whiston and call this feeling he has positive and that negative--at least not that simplistically. I'm just showing that the story might be more complicated than a cheating wife tormenting her husband (which is how Whiston interprets Lawrence's story). I like how Pensive put it:

Love does exist between them both and they care for each other. Both have their pros and cons for which they have to suffer and make-up as well.

Whiston also has some selfish impulses which cause some of the marital strife. He is somewhat possessive and overbearing, and not irrelevantly the narrator informs us, "He was so sure, so permanent, he had her so utterly in his power. It gave her a delightful, mischievous sense of liberty. Within his grasp, she could dart about excitingly". A main cause for Elsie's flirtatiousness is Whiston's control over her; not that Elsie's vanity has nothing to do with this. I'm just pointing out Whiston's own weaknesses which, along with Elsie's, lead to the violent episode at the conclusion.

Remember in the Chekhov thread we were talking about what caused Yakov to be despondent in "Rothschild's Violin". When Yakov says, "Why did people in general hinder each other from living? What losses were due to it!", I think this is part of what he's referring to. Two people love each other immensely, but an unfortunate psychological impulse drives Whiston to nearly kill Elsie.

As before to copy what you once said in 'Lighthouse' I hope this makes some sense and is not a big ball of fuzz (I like that!) floating around in my head. Tell me what you think. We can move onto the next part of the story; hoping to finish up soon.

Floating fuzz? I think you're starting to improvise. Go with it, though, not all messy balls of words are the same.

What is the next story? Anything good?

[Janine]

That was a fast response, Janine. The Lawrence nerve in your brain must be very sensitive.

So true, Quark,I do have a sensitive nerve in my brain now for Lawrence. After reading three full biographies (and working on a 4th) and mostly all his novels...working now on later novels I missed and reading, reading, reading always about the author/his works online and in commentary books, I think I can pretty much see how Lawrence thought and how he wrote although 'the more one learns sometimes the less one knows' - that is because you realise there is still so much that can still be learned. Lately, I have been discovering things I had not known about Lawrence and the degree of his depth of thought has become more evident to me. So I have become sensitive to his words/ideas.

No, I don't think that Whiston striking her has ended their problems. At the end of the party in the second chapter we have an ending very similar to this one, but this fight between the two them continues into the next chapter. Whiston may have relieved some of his pent up rage. He definitely had a "So foul a sky clears not without storm" attitude for most of the story. This really doesn't address the reason for Elsie's flirting. All he does is intimidate her into telling him her secret; it doesn't remove the reason she was keeping secrets.

I quite agree with all of this thinking. Yes, the violent moment at the end of the book is only one act in reaction to the problems that will probably still exist. It is not a solution by a long shot. He does intimidate her into the confession - she does not offer it up on her own, and they never air out the root of the problem.

I wasn't trying to pass judgment on Whiston and call this feeling he has positive and that negative--at least not that simplistically. I'm just showing that the story might be more complicated than a cheating wife tormenting her husband (which is how Whiston interprets Lawrence's story). I like how Pensive put it:

Nothing that Lawrence observed and wrote about concerning human beings is ever simplistic. The complexity makes it the more human and realistic. So it is true that one cannot say if Whiston is being negative or positive in his actions. The story is much more complicated than a cheating wife or one who entertains thoughts of cheating. The problem is more deeply rooted within their relationship. You bring out excellent points in that Whiston probably allows or enables Elsie to be like she is and then finally he lashes out when she continues with it instead of stopping it at the beginning, perhaps at the dance. His domineering way probably does encourage this behavior in Elsie. It is a complex thing that goes on between them and I hardly have the answers to how or why they act as they do, but they do.
I agree and I like how Pensive worded that, too.

Whiston also has some selfish impulses which cause some of the marital strife. He is somewhat possessive and overbearing, and not irrelevantly the narrator informs us, "He was so sure, so permanent, he had her so utterly in his power. It gave her a delightful, mischievous sense of liberty. Within his grasp, she could dart about excitingly". A main cause for Elsie's flirtatiousness is Whiston's control over her; not that Elsie's vanity has nothing to do with this. I'm just pointing out Whiston's own weaknesses which, along with Elsie's, lead to the violent episode at the conclusion.

Yes, agreed - they are both selfish and childish in their own ways. It is a sort of powerplay between them, don't you think? Each has his own style of lording power over the other. If Whiston's control does cause her to stray flirtiously it is also due to both this and her vanity or her vanity makes it easy for her to react in this way.

Remember in the Chekhov thread we were talking about what caused Yakov to be despondent in "Rothschild's Violin". When Yakov says, "Why did people in general hinder each other from living? What losses were due to it!", I think this is part of what he's referring to. Two people love each other immensely, but an unfortunate psychological impulse drives Whiston to nearly kill Elsie.

Well, that would make sense, since Lawrence believed strongly that psychological/subconscious factors controlled the way people reacted to different circumstances and to other people. The ending in this story is so reminiscent of one of the last scenes in 'Prussian Officer'. Have you read that story, Quark?; if not you should read it. It gives one a lot of insight into Lawrence and how he thought. Also, many of the posts by Virgil have been excellent and very insightful, and of course, I posted, as well, and others added some fine comments. It was a very good discussion.

Floating fuzz? I think you're starting to improvise. Go with it, though, not all messy balls of words are the same.

Well, I knew it was something like that you had said in the 'Lighthouse' discussion. I never can quote accurately...yes 'messy balls of words' more like it...

What is the next story? Anything good?

haha - they are all good! Well, anyway, I had someone email me saying she would be studying 4 L stories this fall for college - all 4 are good ones - so I thought I would read them and pick one. Haven't settled on one yet. For tomorrow let me post next part of this story - there is about 3 sections left and we can discuss it. I had it in a file offline split into sections to post. I will do so tomorrow - ok.

If you want me to, by Monday, I will choose the next short story and post it and I will make sure it is available online as well, so people can begin reading it now.

[grace86]

I quite agree with all of this thinking. Yes, the violent moment at the end of the book is only one act in reaction to the problems that will probably still exist. It is not a solution by a long shot. He does intimidate her into the confession - she does not offer it up on her own, and they never air out the root of the problem.

I do not think that the scene at the end of the book is the last of it at all. Elsie seemed like a woman who liked the attention, if it wasn't this one man with the stockings, it could likely be someone else. And her husband seems like he would be the one to take that kind of tension until it just breaks him and he is caused to harm her again...or possibly kill her. Kind of reminds me of Gerald in Women in Love

I might be up for another short story. I read the white stocking completely and loved it, my capabilities on commenting though were a little restricted. But the move is almost completed and I will have about a month before school starts. So let us know Janine!

[Janine]

I do not think that the scene at the end of the book is the last of it at all. Elsie seemed like a woman who liked the attention, if it wasn't this one man with the stockings, it could likely be someone else. And her husband seems like he would be the one to take that kind of tension until it just breaks him and he is caused to harm her again...or possibly kill her. Kind of reminds me of Gerald in Women in Love

I might be up for another short story. I read the white stocking completely and loved it, my capabilities on commenting though were a little restricted. But the move is almost completed and I will have about a month before school starts. So let us know Janine!

Hi Grace, Glad to see you resurface as Pensive did. We also have a new face here - Quark stopping by since I said I would be a part of his Chekov SS thread. It is interesting so far if anyone else cares to check it out, but I know we are all pretty limited in our time schedules. I know I am. I was trying to make August a bit of a rest period but I did want to finish up this story. Important thing is that you did read the story - glad you liked it so much, too. I will pick the next story by Monday. I have a few in mind.

I agree with you that the ending does remind me of the problems that existed between Gerald and Gudrun somewhat, but I think in this instance the married couple are wanting to be 'committed' to each other and marriage and they just do not know at this point how to be that or how to effectively live with each other; but like you, I do see problems down the road for the two of them. Actually, Lawrence, himself, did not have a particularly 'peaceful' marriage and there were random reports that he did hit Frieda, but unlike Elsie, Frieda I believe dished it right back to Lawrence. Lawrence always did want to be the boss and the king of his realm, but even though his wife humored him by moving about to various residents and countries, she did not put up with all his male domineering ways. I don't know how much of the reports are actually true about any domestic violence, but it was certainly not a quiet or sedate marriage, by a long shot. When I read my first biography about Lawrence, I was shocked to find this out, but the more I read of his work it now does not surprise me at all. Hey, the man was flawed as we all are in our own ways. But I certainly would never advocate violence in domestic matters; I don't think Lawrence is doing so either. He is merely acknowledging that it does exist, and also this confusion between the sexes.



Here's the next part of the story underlining keyword/phrases (continuing in this fashion, since I have been presenting it this way this time around):

Whiston came home tired and depressed. All day the male in him had been uneasy, and this had fatigued him. She was curiously against him, inclined, as she sometimes was nowadays, to make mock of him and jeer at him and cut him off. He did not understand this, and it angered him deeply.

She was uneasy before him.

She knew he was in a state of suppressed irritation. The veins stood out on the backs of his hands, his brow was drawn stiffly. Yet she could not help goading him.

If you note all the words underlined you can clearly see that he comes home in a foul humor and depressed and instead of trying to be supportive as a wife might try to be, Elsie only proceeds to 'make mock of him and jeer' and 'she could not help goading him', which seems to be the case recently as was stated. Their marriage now has lapsed into this stage and they are used to each other perhaps but do not regard each other nicely, at all. This attitude of Elsie's provokes him further and there is so much tension in these few paragraphs that you can see what something is boiling below the surface, that must eventually erupt into the violent act at the end.

"What did you do wi' that white stocking?" he asked, out of a gloomy silence, his voice strong and brutal.

"I put it in a drawer--why?" she replied flippantly.

"Why didn't you put it on the fire back?" he said harshly. "What are you hoarding it up for?"

"I'm not hoarding it up," she said. "I've got a pair."

He relapsed into gloomy silence. She, unable to move him, ran away upstairs, leaving him smoking by the fire. Again she tried on the earrings. Then another little inspiration came to her. She drew on the white stockings, both of them.

Wow, I did not realise until reading this just now that he is kind of asking for it by mere mention of the stocking. He brings it up out of the blue. There could be no thought of it but apparently he has harbored it in his mind as a grievance so it surfaces. He must know her by now, and how she would goad him and tease him now with the stocking. Why did he even bring up the subject? He is picking a fight with her and obviously he is provoking her, since she has been provoking his anger, up till this point.

Presently she came down in them. Her husband still sat immovable and glowering by the fire.

"Look!" she said. "They'll do beautifully."

And she picked up her skirts to her knees, and twisted round, looking at her pretty legs in the neat stockings.

He filled with unreasonable rage, and took the pipe from his mouth.

"Don't they look nice?" she said. "One from last year and one from this, they just do. Save you buying a pair."

And she looked over her shoulders at her pretty calves, and the dangling frills of her knickers.

"Put your skirts down and don't make a fool of yourself," he said.

"Why a fool of myself?" she asked.

And she began to dance slowly round the room, kicking up her feet half reckless, half jeering, in a ballet-dancer's fashion. Almost fearfully, yet in defiance, she kicked up her legs at him, singing as she did so. She resented him.

Funny, but she is making mock further by dancing and bringing to mind the whole dancing incident with Sam Adams that started the stocking incident and by doing so she is further provoking him, reallly pushing him now to his limit. She really knows how to get him riled up. She does it 'almost fearfully' but 'in defiance.' So she is asking for it in the end. Almost like she knows what will happen eventually but she can't stop herself from her actions.

"You little fool, ha' done with it," he said. "And you'll backfire them stockings, I'm telling you." He was angry. His face flushed dark, he kept his head bent.

She ceased to dance.

"I shan't," she said. "They'll come in very useful."

He lifted his head and watched her, with lighted, dangerous eyes.

"You'll put 'em on the fire back, I tell you," he said.

It was a war now. She bent forward, in a ballet-dancer's fashion, and put her tongue between her teeth.

So now to this pont it has become a real 'war' between them....a war of 'wills' so to speak. Sets up the idea of who will have the strongest will in the end.

"I shan't backfire them stockings," she sang, repeating his words, "I shan't, I shan't, I shan't."

And she danced round the room doing a high kick to the tune of her words.

There was a real biting indifference in her behaviour.

"We'll see whether you will or not," he said, "trollops! You'd like Sam Adams to know you was wearing 'em, wouldn't you? That's what would please you."

"Yes, I'd like him to see how nicely they fit me, he might give me some more then."

And she looked down at her pretty legs.

He knew somehow that she would like Sam Adams to see how pretty her legs looked in the white stockings. It made his anger go deep, almost to hatred.

"Yer nasty trolley," he cried. "Put yer petticoats down, and stop being so foul-minded."

"I'm not foul-minded," she said. "My legs are my own. And why shouldn't Sam Adams think they're nice?"

There was a pause. He watched her with eyes glittering to a point.

So now there is a lot of mud-slinging with nasty words to lash out at her - Whiston is really angered now almost to the point 'of hatred.' Interesting that she states to him 'My legs are my own.' She is saying, in essense I think, my body is my own and you have no right to it.

"Have you been havin' owt to do with him?" he asked.

"I've just spoken to him when I've seen him," she said. "He's not as bad as you would make out."

"Isn't he?" he cried, a certain wakefulness in his voice. "Them who has anything to do wi' him is too bad for me, I tell you."

"Why, what are you frightened of him for?" she mocked..

Interesting that he seems to come alive and be fully awakened at the statement she makes about Sam Adams being 'not as bad as you would make him out'. Now he also sees how serious it is that she actually did make contact with SA recently and she asked 'what are you frightened of him for?' which of course Whiston cannot clearly answer and she knows it, further adding fuel to the flames to his suspicions and jealousy and the war of will between them. It is as though these words are amunition.

She was rousing all his uncontrollable anger. He sat glowering. Every one of her sentences stirred him up like a red-hot iron. Soon it would be too much. And she was afraid herself; but she was neither conquered nor convinced.
A curious little grin of hate came on his face. He had a long score against her.

She knows she is pushing him to the boiling point, the big explosion and yet she continues in the same vane. As it states he had a 'long score against her'; this animosity has been building all this time, with many other little annoyances perhaps daily, but this one issue will be the 'straw that broke the camel's back', so to speak. It is the catalyst to cause the final action. His anger is 'red-hot iron' and in another statement 'molten' - extreme anger at this point.

"What am I frightened of him for?" he repeated automatically. "What am I frightened of him for? Why, for you, you stray-running little *****."

She flushed. The insult went deep into her, right home.

"Well, if you're so dull--" she said, lowering her eyelids, and speaking coldly, haughtily.

"If I'm so dull I'll break your neck the first word you speak to him," he said, tense.

Now the insults are really flying, as they say 'hitting below the belt'. Things are getting really nasty.

"Pf!" she sneered. "Do you think I'm frightened of you?" She spoke coldly, detached.

She wasfrightened, for all that, white round the mouth.
His heart was getting hotter.
"You will be frightened of me, the next time you have anything to do with him," he said.
"Do you think you'd ever be told--ha!"

Three times the word 'frightened' is used in different contexts, and many times prior to this passage, emphasising the situation and the fear he is threatening Elsie with. There is fear in both Elsie (this passage) and fear in Whiston (fear of his own actions) as well in the following passage:

Her jeering scorn made him go white-hot, molten. He knew he was incoherent, scarcely responsible for what he might do. Slowly, unseeing, he rose and went out of doors, stifled, moved to kill her.
He stood leaning against the garden fence, unable either to see or hear. Below him, far off, fumed the lights of the town. He stood still, unconscious with a black storm of rage, his face lifted to the night.

By himself he is 'fuming' with anger - the town lights refect his mood. He is in a state of 'unconsciousness' now - does Lawrence feel that he is out of control at this point and 'unconsciously' will act in the final moments of the story? I know that Lawrence does believe in this uncontrollable 'unconscious' state in human beings. The word 'unconscious' is mentioned throughout the story; when Elsie is dancing with Sam Adams and now when Whiston is pushed to his limits' 'he is unconsciously in a 'black storm of rage.' In the following statement the word "unconscious' again appears. Lawrence's use of repetition is well known to us by now and he seems to be emphasising this idea - the idea of the 'unconscious will' of man.

Presently, still unconscious of what he was doing, he went indoors again. She stood, a small stubborn figure with tight-pressed lips and big, sullen, childish eyes, watching him, white with fear. He went heavily across the floor and dropped into his chair.

Now on returning he still 'unconsciously' sees her as 'stubborn, tight-pressed lips, big sullen, childish eyes, white with fear.'

His impression is a mixture of how he is perceiving her and yet he sees the childish way she is and that she is 'fearing' him. At this point she is revealing her weak/vulnerable part that he can use to throw her 'will' over.

There was a silence.

"You're not going to tell me everything I shall do, and everything I shan't," she broke out at last.

He lifted his head.
"I tell you this," he said, low and intense. "Have anything to do with Sam Adams, and I'll break your neck."

She laughed, shrill and false.

"How I hate your word 'break your neck'," she said, with a grimace of the mouth. "It sounds so common and beastly. Can't you say something else--"

There was a dead silence.

"And besides," she said, with a queer chirrup of mocking laughter, "what do you know about anything? He sent me an amethyst brooch and a pair of pearl ear-rings."
"He what?" said Whiston, in a suddenly normal voice. His eyes were fixed on her.
"Sent me a pair of pearl ear-rings, and an amethyst brooch," she repeated, mechanically, pale to the lips.
And her big, black, childish eyes watched him, fascinated, held in her spell.

She is really provoking him, now that he has lorded over her his male 'will', by telling him about the earrings and the brooch. She is aware of his threatening words and yet she insists on walking this thin line of danger. She is so defiant with her own will taking over - almost 'unconsiously' unable to stop the provoking she has been doing all along.

[Quark]

Hi Grace, Glad to see you resurface as Pensive did. We also have a new face here - Quark stopping by since I said I would be a part of his Chekov SS thread.

Actually, I was here once before. Many, many pages back I made my first post on this thread. I suppose I came back for nostalgic reasons--though I really can't thank you enough for helping me with the Chekhov discussion.

I do not think that the scene at the end of the book is the last of it at all. Elsie seemed like a woman who liked the attention, if it wasn't this one man with the stockings, it could likely be someone else. And her husband seems like he would be the one to take that kind of tension until it just breaks him and he is caused to harm her again...or possibly kill her. Kind of reminds me of Gerald in Women in Love

It seems like we're all in agreement that the ending isn't really a conclusion; but, do you think L meant it to be? Perhaps Janine you're in the best situation to answer this question. I know from reading Sons and Lovers that Lawrence did not feel any sympathy with the feminist movement, and might some of that antipathy towards women come out in this story. I'm not saying that Lawrence was a complete misogynist--I can think of writers much worse. But, he didn't seem to have much respect for women's freedom, and neither does Whiston in this story. Do you think Lawrence would have sided with Whiston and thought that violence was the proper remedy?

I agree with you that the ending does remind me of the problems that existed between Gerald and Gudrun somewhat, but I think in this instance the married couple are wanting to be 'committed' to each other and marriage and they just do not know at this point how to be that or how to effectively live with each other; but like you, I do see problems down the road for the two of them. Actually, Lawrence, himself, did not have a particularly 'peaceful' marriage and there were random reports that he did hit Frieda, but unlike Elsie, Frieda I believe dished it right back to Lawrence. Lawrence always did want to be the boss and the king of his realm, but even though his wife humored him by moving about to various residents and countries, she did not put up with all his male domineering ways. I don't know how much of the reports are actually true about any domestic violence, but it was certainly not a quiet or sedate marriage, by a long shot. When I read my first biography about Lawrence, I was shocked to find this out, but the more I read of his work it now does not surprise me at all. Hey, the man was flawed as we all are in our own ways. But I certainly would never advocate violence in domestic matters; I don't think Lawrence is doing so either. He is merely acknowledging that it does exist, and also this confusion between the sexes.

This is very true. They were very committed to each other, but at some point they cross a line where suddenly their behavior becomes dangerous. Where do you think that happens? And why? With Elsie it's a little easier to see since most of the story is centered on her and her changes are gradual. With Whiston, however, the progression is a little more hidden. In fact, I think it's a little hard to notice Whiston's shortcomings because the story frames everything he does as a reaction even though it isn't at all. His emotions are reactions, and those seem completely justified. His anger, for example, is very understandable. It reminded me of something from Thomas Mann's "Tonio Kroger" where the main character is in love. He tells us, "It hurts deeply to feel wonderful, playful, and mournful energies stirring inside you and yet to know that the people you long to be with are cheerfully inaccessible to those forces". This feeling is a bit of what Whiston is getting when Elsie is floating away from him and he can't do anything about it. I think we sympathize with this, but Whiston goes beyond this. He spins out of control into a possessive rage where he must subdue his wife--despite whether that would make her happy. Compare that attitude with Tonio Kroger who says, "But though he stood excluded, hopeless, and lonely...his heart was alive. It beat warmly and sadly...and in blissful self-denial". Whiston is not happy or even content in his relationship with Elsie. He flies into a fiery rage at his wife. This seems like it comes more from Whiston's selfish possessiveness than from his true adoration of his wife. Whiston doesn't seem to care whether he loves his wife; he seems more obsessed with being loved. As Thomas Mann says in "Tonio Kruger", "Happiness is not...being loved; that is only a nauseating satisfaction of the ego". I think that's what Whiston wants from his wife during their confrontations; and, he crosses that line between understandable grief to possessive rage when he starts trying to intimidate Elsie.

Elsie is a little bit easier to comprehend. Her story is more directly told. She crosses the line when she starts taunting her husband and flirting with Adams. Her vanity and need for excitement and freedom are her weaknesses.

[Janine]

Actually, I was here once before. Many, many pages back I made my first post on this thread. I suppose I came back for nostalgic reasons--though I really can't thank you enough for helping me with the Chekhov discussion.

Quark - alright; you are good! I did not even know if anyone would read my post today or tonight. Thanks so much for answering it, but honestly I feel so guilty about the Chekov discussion -- I can't seem to get the story re-read and I want to comment more, once I do. Can you just hang in there and wait till I re-read the story. I promise to comment on whether I think Yakov ever was truly happy and this requires my needing to review much of the story. I think now I do recall you popping in once or twice on this thread. Why did you not come back? I hope this time you can stay awhile.

It seems like we're all in agreement that the ending isn't really a conclusion; but, do you think L meant it to be? Perhaps Janine you're in the best situation to answer this question. I know from reading Sons and Lovers that Lawrence did not feel any sympathy with the feminist movement, and might some of that antipathy towards women come out in this story. I'm not saying that Lawrence was a complete misogynist--I can think of writers much worse. But, he didn't seem to have much respect for women's freedom, and neither does Whiston in this story. Do you think Lawrence would have sided with Whiston and thought that violence was the proper remedy?

To your first question I would have to say - No, I don't think that Lawrence meant the ending to be definitive or resolved in anyway. I feel that none of Lawrence's works end resolved totally. Sometimes there is a step towards that end or solution, but always there is left a question or a feeling of something yet to be resolved or even a subtle unease about the ending. I think intentionally Lawrence did this for several reasons and one is that real life is not resolved and does not have an ending to each incident or story. Remember that this short story is only a brief window into the lives of these two people and their marriage. We are not given all the information but must form oppinions and conjectures about their behavior and how they are acting in these particular scenes.

You know I am not quite clear or the one to ask about the feminist movement and Lawrence's attitudes toward the feminists. I think only that people took Lawrence wrong so many times. I know that Virgil has posted on this subject and aspect of Lawrence's writing and his ideas and now I forget exactly what he said. Perhaps I will ask him to answer this question for you. It is strange and curious if he was truly antifeminist since he had many a feminist friend. I always felt he had high regard for woman and their rights. Certain things he wrote did stimulate responses from the feminists and he was crucified for his comments. But Lawrence often changed those attitudes through life. His wife was an independent type woman. He definitely was not a complete misogynist. I think he really loved women but I do think because of his mother's suffocating ways he had a certain kind of twisted feeling for them and a lot of this is tied in with fear as well - fear or women. If you read his very first novel (pre-Sons and Lovers) 'The White Peacock' you will see the the book revolves very much around one woman who is very conniving and plays games very much like Elsie does. Also, the women in the book do seem to be something to be feared. It is hard to explain in one short post. He meets this keeper Annabele and he tells him about his wife. I will have to look up somethings about this subject and the examples from the book. I have a book I bought of commentary on L's Early Short Fiction and it mentions this idea of men having a fear of woman, therefore exercising a sort of power over them. I am not sure now I am explaining this very well - it is quite complex. In the novel "Women in Love" there is much going on with power plays between the sexes. In this book this fear of the woman and her power comes out clearly. In our recent discussions on WIL we talked about this aspect of Lawrence quite a bit. I will check the threads to see if I can find the one Virgil wrote addressing Lawrence's feminist attitudes.

I don't think that Lawrence, consciously, thought that violence was the answer but I don't know 100%. I do know that his later work such as the novel I am reading is filled with blantant violence and is actually very distasteful. I am only half way through but Virgil read it and said the violence gets worse. I never get the sense that Lawrence is advocating violence though. His mother and father fought verbally but domestic violence as is shown to occur in "Sons and Lovers" was exaggerated and not completely related to Lawrence's own home life. Many things effected Lawrence at an early age - his illness, his mother's overbearing and possessive ways, her death, his father and mother not getting along, the loss of his brother so suddenly. It was a very tumultuous upbringing for a man so very sensitive and talented. I for one believe that much of his childhood had to do with the way that talent and his ideas were shaped and developed.

This is very true. They were very committed to each other, but at some point they cross a line where suddenly their behavior becomes dangerous. Where do you think that happens? And why? With Elsie it's a little easier to see since most of the story is centered on her and her changes are gradual. With Whiston, however, the progression is a little more hidden. In fact, I think it's a little hard to notice Whiston's shortcomings because the story frames everything he does as a reaction even though it isn't at all. His emotions are reactions, and those seem completely justified. His anger, for example, is very understandable. It reminded me of something from Thomas Mann's "Tonio Kroger" where the main character is in love. He tells us, "It hurts deeply to feel wonderful, playful, and mournful energies stirring inside you and yet to know that the people you long to be with are cheerfully inaccessible to those forces". This feeling is a bit of what Whiston is getting when Elsie is floating away from him and he can't do anything about it. I think we sympathize with this, but Whiston goes beyond this. He spins out of control into a possessive rage where he must subdue his wife--despite whether that would make her happy. Compare that attitude with Tonio Kroger who says, "But though he stood excluded, hopeless, and lonely...his heart was alive. It beat warmly and sadly...and in blissful self-denial". Whiston is not happy or even content in his relationship with Elsie. He flies into a fiery rage at his wife. This seems like it comes more from Whiston's selfish possessiveness than from his true adoration of his wife. Whiston doesn't seem to care whether he loves his wife; he seems more obsessed with being loved. As Thomas Mann says in "Tonio Kruger", "Happiness is not...being loved; that is only a nauseating satisfaction of the ego". I think that's what Whiston wants from his wife during their confrontations; and, he crosses that line between understandable grief to possessive rage when he starts trying to intimidate Elsie.

To your first question - It is hard to say when they each cross the line into the danger zone. I do think it is gradual but I think the seeds of his antagonism were there from the beginning, before they were married. When the dance takes place they were not married were they? I got the impression the weren't. So Whiston knew full well what Elsie was like even then and Elsie knew what Whiston was like and how he reacted to her flirting with someone else. At that point he was only sulky and unhappy. It usually takes awhile before a man will reach this degree of a boiling point and I quite agree that he seems to have a lot of reason to get worked up and angry and remember if he is jealous, she is his wife. As far as the example you sited from Mann's work I can see a different attitude there on love. I don't necessarily think there is one right or wrong way. I think that if Elsie truly loved Whiston she would want to please him and not provoke him or she would want to support him when he is feeling low or depressed from his job, but instead she goads him and teases him and they both resort to nasty remarks. I don't think it unreasonable of Whiston to want to be loved. I think all people deserve to be loved and especially in a marriage. But I think that one partner cannot demand it of the other. I think in essense this is what Mann is saying, but I don't agree with this statement "Happiness is not...being loved; that is only a nauseating satisfaction of the ego". I think one 'can love and be loved' in return and feel complete and happy. I think if one is loved and then that person can't return it and does not love, as well - yes, this statement of Manns 'that it is only nauseating satisfaction of the ego' could be true, but one has to put it into a certain context. It does not really fit our story context in my opinion. This being a married and committed couple they should love one another and expect they will be loved in return.

Elsie is a little bit easier to comprehend. Her story is more directly told. She crosses the line when she starts taunting her husband and flirting with Adams. Her vanity and need for excitement and freedom are her weaknesses.

Yes, and the story really seems to center around Elsie, as many of Lawrence's works do center around the woman charater. She stands out more clearly since she is the colorful character in the story. Her aliveness and vivaciousness, compared to her husband's more layed-back quiet attitude tinged with brooding/hidden resentments is quite a contrast. The clash to come further emphasises the differences between them.

[Quark]

Quark - alright; you are good! I did not even know if anyone would read my post today or tonight. Thanks so much for answering it, but honestly I feel so guilty about the Chekov discussion -- I can't seem to get the story re-read and I want to comment more, once I do. Can you just hang in there and wait till I re-read the story. I promise to comment on whether I think Yakov ever was truly happy and this requires my needing to review much of the story. I think now I do recall you popping in once or twice on this thread. Why did you not come back? I hope this time you can stay awhile.

Oh, no, don't worry about the Chekhov thread. I'm just temporizing until some more of the dedicated Chekhov fans get to the discussion. I had some people in mind when I started it, but they went idle just a couple of days before and haven't come back. The questions you raised were good, though. I really had to rethink my reading of that story.

I do hope to hang around for the next Lawrence story--make it a good one. I think I'll point out some of the differences between Lawrence and Chekhov here soon once I give it some thought.

Back to the story:

To your first question I would have to say - No, I don't think that Lawrence meant the ending to be definitive or resolved in anyway.

Hmm, if the story isn't resolved at the end, what kind of ending do we have? Is it tragic? Are the characters locked in a cycle of togetherness followed by violence and submission?

You know I am not quite clear or the one to ask about the feminist movement and Lawrence's attitudes toward the feminists. I think only that people took Lawrence wrong so many times. I know that Virgil has posted on this subject and aspect of Lawrence's writing and his ideas and now I forget exactly what he said. Perhaps I will ask him to answer this question for you. It is strange and curious if he was truly antifeminist since he had many a feminist friend. I always felt he had high regard for woman and their rights. Certain things he wrote did stimulate responses from the feminists and he was crucified for his comments. But Lawrence often changed those attitudes through life. His wife was an independent type woman. He definitely was not a complete misogynist. I think he really loved women but I do think because of his mother's suffocating ways he had a certain kind of twisted feeling for them and a lot of this is tied in with fear as well - fear or women. If you read his very first novel (pre-Sons and Lovers) 'The White Peacock' you will see the the book revolves very much around one woman who is very conniving and plays games very much like Elsie does. Also, the women in the book do seem to be something to be feared. It is hard to explain in one short post. He meets this keeper Annabele and he tells him about his wife. I will have to look up somethings about this subject and the examples from the book. I have a book I bought of commentary on L's Early Short Fiction and it mentions this idea of men having a fear of woman, therefore exercising a sort of power over them. I am not sure now I am explaining this very well - it is quite complex. In the novel "Women in Love" there is much going on with power plays between the sexes. In this book this fear of the woman and her power comes out clearly. In our recent discussions on WIL we talked about this aspect of Lawrence quite a bit. I will check the threads to see if I can find the one Virgil wrote addressing Lawrence's feminist attitudes.

What lead me to think that Lawrence might mean the ending to be a change in their relationship is Lawrence's own feelings toward women. I know in Sons and Lovers his depiction of the suffragette is less than flattering. And, if we look at the story from that perspective, we might argue that Elsie needs a man to control her life. She obviously very fickle-minded and narcissistic, and she might look to a man to give her some stability and strength. Lawrence might be thinking of violence as a way to free Elsie from her flights of fancy. In this sense--I mean the misogynist sense--the ending might be uplifting and definitive.

I don't think that Lawrence, consciously, thought that violence was the answer but I don't know 100%. I do know that his later work such as the novel I am reading is filled with blantant violence and is actually very distasteful. I am only half way through but Virgil read it and said the violence gets worse. I never get the sense that Lawrence is advocating violence though. His mother and father fought verbally but domestic violence as is shown to occur in "Sons and Lovers" was exaggerated and not completely related to Lawrence's own home life. Many things effected Lawrence at an early age - his illness, his mother's overbearing and possessive ways, her death, his father and mother not getting along, the loss of his brother so suddenly. It was a very tumultuous upbringing for a man so very sensitive and talented. I for one believe that much of his childhood had to do with the way that talent and his ideas were shaped and developed.

No, I don't think that Lawrence was promoting spousal abuse directly. But, I think he may have been justifying it in the situation Whiston was in. And, he may have been arguing that it was beneficial to Elsie. Obviously, our twenty-first century sensibilities recoil from that--and rightfully so. We recognize that there are underlying problems to their marriage that can't be overcome through fear and intimidation, but that doesn't stop Lawrence from insinuating that Elsie needed a strong male in her life to snap her out of her fantasy life.

As far as the example you sited from Mann's work I can see a different attitude there on love. I don't necessarily think there is one right or wrong way.

That's exactly why I brought in an outside source. I think Lawrence had a particular definition of love and he framed the story to fit that. I wanted to show a different opinion because I thought the contrast might make Lawrence's opinions more visible. This happens especially well when we put him up against someone like Mann who is an intellectual opposite on this topic. You're right when you say "It doesn't fit the context", but that's the point.

Alright, that's enough about those ideas for a while. I don't want to get too tedious. I feel like we've been talking about my points the whole time, and I'm making the book bend too much to my reading. What are some of your questions? What sticks out about this story to you?

[Janine]

Oh, no, don't worry about the Chekhov thread. I'm just temporizing until some more of the dedicated Chekhov fans get to the discussion. I had some people in mind when I started it, but they went idle just a couple of days before and haven't come back. The questions you raised were good, though. I really had to rethink my reading of that story.

Hi Quark, I read your entry last night late, but I was watching my new DVD of Hamlet, so I refrained from answering; too tired by then to think anyway and my mind went into Shakespeare mode.
But I have good news! I re-read the Chekov story before I nodded off to sleep. I think now I have a clearer understanding of the story and will post something today, while it is still fresh in my mind. I know what you mean about interested parties going idle - same problem with all the threads. I really wonder sometimes how bad our attention span is these days - probably due to too much overload for everyone!

I do hope to hang around for the next Lawrence story--make it a good one. I think I'll point out some of the differences between Lawrence and Chekhov here soon once I give it some thought.

Good! Great - so happy to have another interested participant in the discussions. Originally another guy was going to join in but he had some problems with a tree falling on his house. I am hoping he eventually resurfaces, because he likes Lawrence. Anyway, we needed males to round things out. I assume you are a male? (so funny since people have been wrong before) I will email Virgil and ask him if he is doing the next story, too.

Hmm, if the story isn't resolved at the end, what kind of ending do we have? Is it tragic? Are the characters locked in a cycle of togetherness followed by violence and submission?

What kind of ending do we have?...well, I would say....a typical Lawrence ending....one that makes one think far beyond the ending of the story. As I said before, this story in particular is a brief window into the lives of these two people and their marital problems. I don't think the ending is conclusive or can be. I don't think they will be locked into this cycle but who knows? It may end up being their pattern and they may stay together inspite of the friction and personality differences. Some people hate stories that leave one hanging like this. Is it a tragedy? I don't think it is. I honestly don't think Lawrence wrote tragedies; Hardy wrote tragedies and I think somehow Chekov's story is a sort of tragedy. In fact, Lawrence wrote a very interesting critical essay on Hardy and he was quite opposed to his ending in "Jude the Obscure"; he sites solid arguments/reasons why he feels this way. I don't think that Lawrence liked the completely tragic elements in Hardy's work, although he did appreciate his work in many respects. What I can gather from my reading of that essay (Study of Thomas Hardy) is that he felt in Tess, there was some form of hope in the ending but in Jude there was not and it was the more tragic of the two.

I did wonder if Lawrence wrote a critical essay on Chekov and I was trying to find that, but so far I have not even dug up any comments on the author. When I read Lawrence's 'Collected Letters', I may come up with some comments. He extensively wrote about Dostoievsky and his "The Grand Inquisitor". I don't think this essay was very favorable or in agreement towards all of Dostoievsky's ideas. He seemed to mention that he liked the book "The Idiot" better. Lawrence's essay on D is quite long and I have it scanned, but I have not read the entire essay yet, and I did not read the novel "The Brother's Karamazov". I read some Tolsoy and some Turenyev and a few other Russian authors, but not extensively. I think often, Lawrence said he did not care for the 'hopelessness' of the Russian authors, which might tell you something.
You must admit that the tone of the Chekov story is quite sad and dismal, throughout. I think this to be a huge difference between Chekov and Lawrence - Lawrence has more fluctuations in his story's tone, generally (highs and lows), whereas Chekov's work seems to me to be more tonally even, and in the case of 'Rothchild's Violin' that tone is tragic and sad and hopeless. It might just be the tone of this one story and others may be more uplifting. I don't know, but one other story I read by Chekov, seemed to have this same tragic note and tone throughout. As we advance in that thread, I will better be able to judge this and make a more accurate assessment. I think that I definitely need to read more of Chekov. I will comment more extensively in the Chekov thread.

What lead me to think that Lawrence might mean the ending to be a change in their relationship is Lawrence's own feelings toward women. I know in Sons and Lovers his depiction of the suffragette is less than flattering. And, if we look at the story from that perspective, we might argue that Elsie needs a man to control her life. She obviously very fickle-minded and narcissistic, and she might look to a man to give her some stability and strength. Lawrence might be thinking of violence as a way to free Elsie from her flights of fancy. In this sense--I mean the misogynist sense--the ending might be uplifting and definitive.

"Sons and Lovers" - being one of Lawrence's first published works, and basically autobiographical...also a young work, so that his ideas were not fully formed. If you have read "The Rainbow" or "Women in Love", you would see that Lawrence is changing and developing in his ideas. He is struggling through his attitudes and trying to come up with solutions. Often he knows what is wrong with the world, but he does not come up effectively with what will replace the old ways. This is something he struggled with his entire life - a kind of quest for L. Many of the things Lawrence said about women, later were reversed or worked out differently. I would not call him a 'misogynist' at all, oh far from it. In fact most of Lawrence's friends were actually independent women - so explain that.
Lawrence has been criticised for saying many things and some were just plain taken the wrong way or taken out of context with much misunderstanding.

Once again, I don't feel that this ending is uplifting or definitive, and I don't think it is because I live in this century and find the domestic violence repulsive and unacceptable. I found the violent act in 'Prussian Officer' the same, but it would be as something one could envision in new fiction, from this century. I think this theme of violence coming to the surface is universal. It is just there; it happens. Even today there is much spousal abuse and violence in marriages. It is sad to say. It may be that Lawrence (who I believe wrote this in his early years) did believe hitting Elsie would be the only way to get her under control. However as the narrator is he necessarily condoning the action? Even if he was I don't think this attitude would have prevailed throughout his life, but I could be wrong. I will try to look into my commentary books on the early fiction and see if they mention this story. I believe they do, and if so I am sure they address this whole idea and I can get some further thoughts on just what Lawrence is trying to say at the end of this story. He may have written this in the beginning of his own marriage and the beginning was somewhat tumuluous with he and his wife working through their differences. I believe this story does reflect some of that struggle of the first years of marriage, but how much; I don't know yet.

No, I don't think that Lawrence was promoting spousal abuse directly. But, I think he may have been justifying it in the situation Whiston was in. And, he may have been arguing that it was beneficial to Elsie. Obviously, our twenty-first century sensibilities recoil from that--and rightfully so. We recognize that there are underlying problems to their marriage that can't be overcome through fear and intimidation, but that doesn't stop Lawrence from insinuating that Elsie needed a strong male in her life to snap her out of her fantasy life.

Ok, I just answered this above. Another thought just came to me to add. Lawrence in "Women in Love" shows two of his main characters - Gerald and Gundrun - locked in a kind of war of their 'wills'. Both having strong wills, this culminates in a definitive clash of "wills', much like the ending in this story. I don't want to spoil that book for you, should you decide to read it, but I can say that not always does the man win out. As Lawrence developed many of his stories show very strong willed woman. His mother herself was strong willed; probably Lawrence was rebelling against her in "Sons and Lovers" and this attitude differs greatly from his attitudes that were to follow. Lawrence, himself, wrote to a publisher that he would never write the same way he had written in "Sons and Lovers" again.

That's exactly why I brought in an outside source. I think Lawrence had a particular definition of love and he framed the story to fit that. I wanted to show a different opinion because I thought the contrast might make Lawrence's opinions more visible. This happens especially well when we put him up against someone like Mann who is an intellectual opposite on this topic. You're right when you say "It doesn't fit the context", but that's the point.

Well, Lawrence did have a definite definition of love or of relationships. He really did not call it romantic love. He believed in a 'blood philosophy' concerning the relationship between people. This opens a whole mess of topics and Virgil is the best person to explain this. Some of his posts, here in this thread, do address this idea. Virgil did his thesis on Lawrence's 'Transfiguration' idea. You see, Lawrence had different ideas on the union between men and women. I will see what I can come up with to explain this to you better.

Alright, that's enough about those ideas for a while. I don't want to get too tedious. I feel like we've been talking about my points the whole time, and I'm making the book bend too much to my reading. What are some of your questions? What sticks out about this story to you?

I will have to think if I have any questions. I don't presently but maybe by the end of the story I will. Hope all that I wrote here is at least interesting if not informative or curious and something you can think further about. Feel free to question all you want - not tedious at all - this is what discussion should be composed of - questions and (at least attempts at) answers!
Good post, Quark!

[Janine]

Quark and everybody, If you are satisfied with my last post I will post last part of the story, so we can finish up today or tomorrow. If you want to comment on my last post - feel free - anybody.

He seemed to thrust his face and his eyes forward at her, as he rose slowly and came to her. She watched transfixed in terror. Her throat made a small sound, as she tried to scream.

Then, quick as lightning, the back of his hand struck her with a crash across the mouth, and she was flung back blinded against the wall. The shock shook a queer sound out of her. And then she saw him still coming on, his eyes holding her, his fist drawn back, advancing slowly. At any instant the blow might crash into her.

Finally there is the eruption of the anger that has been building up inside of Whiston for several years now. This is the definitive moment that he exerts his male will and dominance over Elsie. And if you notice, she knows what is about to happen when she sees his look. She knows now that she has pushed him to his limit.

Mad with terror, she raised her hands with a queer clawing movement to cover her eyes and her temples, opening her mouth in a dumb shriek. There was no sound. But the sight of her slowly arrested him. He hung before her, looking at her fixedly, as she stood crouched against the wall with open, bleeding mouth, and wide-staring eyes, and two hands clawing over her temples. And his lust to see her bleed, to break her and destroy her, rose from an old source against her. It carried him. He wanted satisfaction.

Now, by her reactions of terror, this arested his actions temporarily, so that he can only hang before her 'fixedly'. Those last three lines are very characteristic of Lawrence's writing - especially "rose from an old source" - the male 'will' is being exerted towards the female quite explicitely in this line. Also, very prominent in Lawrence's work is this idea of this 'lust' or 'blood lust'. In "Women in Love" this same kind of clashing of wills occurs with Gurdrun and Gerald with a definite building up to a point of 'blood lust' or passionate action against the opposing character. So do you think when he says "He wanted satisfaction" he means he is satisfied seeing her bleed before him and in terror? Or just the satisfaction that he has finally subdued her?

But he had seen her standing there, a piteous, horrified thing, and he turned his face aside in shame and nausea. He went and sat heavily in his chair, and a curious ease, almost like sleep, came over his brain.

Almost immediately after his harsh action, he is feeling 'shame and nausea', for her standing there, 'a piteous, horrified thing.' But then he 'heavily' sits down and a 'curious ease almost like sleep comes over his brain.' So does his sense of relief unconsciously cause him to lapse into this state of 'curious ease'? Does he feel any quilt for his extreme actions?

She walked away from the wall towards the fire, dizzy, white to the lips, mechanically wiping her small, bleeding mouth. He sat motionless. Then, gradually, her breath began to hiss, she shook, and was sobbing silently, in grief for herself. Without looking, he saw. It made his mad desire to destroy her come back.

Instead of evoking pity with her tears and sobbing, she seems to further provoke him and he feels 'his mad desire to destroy her' come back. Pretty stong words 'mad desire to destroy her' - does he say this because he is so worked up he wants to whipe her out completely and not deal with the situation anymore?

At length he lifted his head. His eyes were glowing again, fixed on her.

"And what did he give them you for?" he asked, in a steady, unyielding voice.

Her crying dried up in a second. She also was tense.

"They came as valentines," she replied, still not subjugated, even if beaten.

"When, today?"

"The pearl ear-rings today--the amethyst brooch last year."

"You've had it a year?"

"Yes."

I wonder if those are 'crocodile' tears since 'her crying dried up in a second'...interesting. Now she is just 'tense.' Elsie seems to be able to turn it on and off at will.

Now all the questioning takes place - probably this questioning should have occurred long ago by Whiston - he should have confronted Elsie concerning her flirting with SA and others. It seems the violent act had to happen before he could get through to her enough (get her full attention) in order to directly ask her about the gifts and her attention to Sam Adams.

She felt that now nothing would prevent him if he rose to kill her. She could not prevent him any more. She was yielded up to him. They both trembled in the balance, unconscious.

Wow, these three lines really show her 'will' is broken (maybe only temporarily) and she must now submit to her husband. The last line is quite curious in that the both 'trembled in the balance'. Is Lawrence saying now that the marriage will be balanced or is this a tedious position to be in? I am not sure what I think of the line. Perhaps the marriage is like a 'teeter totter', precariously balanced, for the time being.

"What have you had to do with him?" he asked, in a barren voice.

"I've not had anything to do with him," she quavered.

"You just kept 'em because they were jewellery?" he said.

A weariness came over him. What was the worth of speaking any more of it?

He did not care any more. He was dreary and sick.

So even though he has exerted his will in a very prominent way, he is now feeling 'what is the use?' and also as though he 'longer cares' feeling 'dreary' and 'sick.' It is quite a roller coaster ride at this point, and has been so far in the snatches of their married life we have been privy to.

She began to cry again, but he took no notice. She kept wiping her mouth on her handkerchief. He could see it, the blood-mark. It made him only more sick and tired of the responsibility of it, the violence, the shame.

So at this point I think Elsie is looking for sympathy and she is getting him into a confused state of guilt and 'shame'. So now he begins to calm down, to some extent. From these passages, I don't think he feels particularly proud of what he has done, but in desperation, he has lashed out at his wife and is confused a little by his actions and her reactions. At this point they are on shaky ground and they probably wonder what will happen next. Tensions are high.

When she began to move about again, he raised his head once more from his dead, motionless position.

"Where are the things?" he said.

"They are upstairs," she quavered. She knew the passion had gone down in him.

"Bring them down," he said.

"I won't," she wept, with rage. "You're not going to bully me and hit me like that on the mouth."

And she sobbed again. He looked at her in contempt and compassion and in rising anger.

It seems to me that using her tears of rage and then she again trying to exert her own will, by the statement 'You're not going to bully me and hit me....", she is being brashly defiant. She knows that he just hit her, and could easily hit her again or even kill her. Interesting mix of emotions - he now looks at her in 'contempt and compassion', but after it says he has a 'rising anger.'

"Where are they?" he said.

"They're in the little drawer under the looking-glass," she sobbed.

He went slowly upstairs, struck a match, and found the trinkets. He brought them downstairs in his hand.

"These?" he said, looking at them as they lay in his palm.

She looked at them without answering. She was not interested in them any more.

He looked at the little jewels. They were pretty.

"It's none of their fault," he said to himself.

I wonder if the two lines I underlined could be representative/symbolic of Elsie being pretty and his saying 'it's none of their fault'; does he subconsciously think it is not really Elsie's fault, because she is pretty and vivicious and has the power to attract. Just a thought, might be way off base. Interesting that he does not destroy the gems/presents in the fire, as angry as he is, but rationally boxes them up and mails them promptly back to Sam Adams, which of course would be more rational and more of a statement to SA.

And he searched round slowly, persistently, for a box. He tied the things up and addressed them to Sam Adams. Then he went out in his slippers to post the little package.

When he came back she was still sitting crying.

"You'd better go to bed," he said.

She paid no attention. He sat by the fire. She still cried.


"I'm sleeping down here," he said. "Go you to bed."

In a few moments she lifted her tear-stained, swollen face and looked at him with eyes all forlorn and pathetic. A great flash of anguish went over his body. He went over, slowly, and very gently took her in his hands. She let herself be taken. Then as she lay against his shoulder, she sobbed aloud:

"I never meant--"

"My love--my little love--" he cried, in anguish of spirit, holding her in his arms.

THE END.

I think the end is a cool down period for both of them. He goes out for a time to post the package and so when he comes back he has cooled off and there is a melt-down between them. She is softer now, too, sitting crying by herself. So first, subtly, he states he is going to withdraw his closeness and himself from her for the night, by sleeping downstairs separating them physically and emotionally. This seems to be the deciding factor for Elsie since she gives him a 'forlorn and pathetic' look - at this point it works with a 'flash of anquish' going over his body, so that he caves in and goes to her tenderly. When he does do this she also gives in and abandons her strong 'will' saying "I never meant--" - not quite an appology but close enough for now I suppose. At least it is a gesture. The last line is working towards a sort of healing and understanding between them, I believe, but they probably are far from a permanent solution to their differences.

Yeah - THE END!

I revised some of this and also I found some good comments on the story in a commentary book I own. I will post those later and also announce the next short story.