D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[Virgil]

Virgil, maybe it is just establishing the thought of generations, as you say; but I thought there might be more significance to it, actually...but not sure what it is. Elizabeth did not seem in favor of the father marrying. Could he also represent the blood philosophy and the working man - sort of salt of the earth type guy who drives the train that delivers the coal? Would he be aligned to her husband in a sense?

Perhaps he does reflect the opposite of Elizabeth, although it's not really fleshed out. The train is associated with flames and the father has a beard (a Lawrentian signal for blood consciousness) and the father is getting married. I found what he says very interesting:

"I didn't expect you," said his daughter.

The engine-driver winced; then, reassuming his cheery, airy manner, he said:

"Oh, have you heard then? Well, and what do you think--?"

"I think it is soon enough," she replied.

At her brief censure the little man made an impatient gesture, and said coaxingly, yet with dangerous coldness:

"Well, what's a man to do? It's no sort of life for a man of my years, to sit at my own hearth like a stranger. And if I'm going to marry again it may as well be soon as late--what does it matter to anybody?"

"It's no sort of life for a man of my years, to sit at my own hearth like a stranger." Notice how he refers to hearth as a center of life.

I also did notice at the beginning how the little boy gets lost in the dark.

She was a till woman of imperious mien, handsome, with definite black eyebrows. Her smooth black hair was parted exactly. For a few moments she stood steadily watching the miners as they passed along the railway: then she turned towards the brook course. Her face was calm and set, her mouth was closed with disillusionment. After a moment she called:

"John!" There was no answer. She waited, and then said distinctly:

"Where are you?"

"Here!" replied a child's sulky voice from among the bushes. The woman looked piercingly through the dusk.

"Are you at that brook?" she asked sternly.

For answer the child showed himself before the raspberry-canes that rose like whips. He was a small, sturdy boy of five. He stood quite still, defiantly.

It seems people are in and out of the darkness throughout the story. And this is what I think: I believe Lawrence is suggesting that we come out of the darkness as infants (remember the children and the unborn child Elizabeth is carrying and even the fact that the story is built around three generations, like The Rainbow by the way) and we go into the dark to death. The dark is a sort of mystical place from which life formulates and returns.

[Janine]

Is that right? I can't remember that. I thought that the son was out playing in the dark and the mother brought him in.

Quark and Virgil, It is weird, I could have sworn I read about a scene where the kids went outside for about an hour to play and it was dark with a streetlamp glowing. Maybe it was in S&L, but I just scanned the first chapter, and seemed the children were put to bed at 7:00PM. Maybe it is later in the book, when they are older. I scanned the short story and do not see it either. Bizzare, maybe I am dreaming these scenes up while I sleep.

Perhaps he does reflect the opposite of Elizabeth, although it's not really fleshed out. The train is associated with flames and the father has a beard (a Lawrentian signal for blood consciousness) and the father is getting married. I found what he says very interesting:....

Virgil, I am glad you see my point. I knew there had to be more significance to that scene for Lawrence to include this meeting and the idea that he is a train conductor and connected with the coal industry. Yes, good point, the train would be associated with flames. Where did you find the reference to the beard being a Lawrentian signal for blood consciousness? From several of my books I understood Lawrence's own growing of the beard to be something he did during his first serious attack of his illness. He seemed to have the idea it kept him from colds because it kept his face warm and his neck as well - that is why it was so long. I just read where it was untrimmed because Lawrence had some kind of hang-up about strange barber shops and he traveled so much he just did not bother going to them. Maybe he was a germ freak. He was kind of fastitious with his cleaning and his scrubbing of floors which we discussed in S&L. From old pictures, you would not gather so, but I think the beard and his thinning physical appearance, as he got older (due primarily to his illness), make him look a little shabby and unkept. From what I have read he did not appear so to his friends. He always seemed to wear suits. I even have a photo of him baking bread and he was wearing a suit. That was the fashion back then for men. I suppose it was a sign of respectability/authority.
Well, sorry to go off on that tangent and back to what you pointed out. The comparison of the train to fire and flames is a good one and to the hearth, as well. Also this man is acting on his instinct and wants closeness and intimacy - he says why wait? He wants to be married again and connected to a woman in the flesh. I think this is the significant point in adding this to the story. Also, often grown children will feel resentment, even jealousy, when a parent wishes to remarry or even to date. The grown child can feel threatened some how - thinking they will lose the parent's affections. This scene also reveals to us that Elizabeth's mother is dead and gone from their lives. I think I read this was based, only in part on Lawrence's mother's family, and in that case the father (L's grandfather) did remarry, I believe - another fact I need to look up and confirm. I had started to read the "Cambridge Early Years" biography and I believe I read it in there. That book is very detailed about family history. I need to get my facts right and my sources quoted as they are written....sorry about that. Be patient and I can find it, maybe along with that scene with the children playing outside by the lamp-post.

It seems people are in and out of the darkness throughout the story. And this is what I think: I believe Lawrence is suggesting that we come out of the darkness as infants (remember the children and the unborn child Elizabeth is carrying and even the fact that the story is built around three generations, like The Rainbow by the way) and we go into the dark to death. The dark is a sort of mystical place from which life formulates and returns.

I think your theory is perfectly feasible and valid. I really like it. Yes, there is so many instances in this story of light and dark playing against each other. It even brings to mind to me the chysanthemum that Elizabeth had carefully concealed in her (darkened pocket/a personal space) which lights up with the lamp and shows through to the girl child. Isn't that image highly significant? Perhaps this one single detail and gesture suggests a looking deeper into what Elizabeth is concealing about her marriage. It is just a thought, but it just came to me as an answer to the way Lawrence really highlighted that scene and named the story as he has. The lines that Elizabeth blurts out to the children, concerning chysanthemums in three stages of life and decay, is really brilliant and encompasses these three stages, perhaps those you are referring to - the three generations, in effect, but also three events in different stages of their marriage.

"It was chrysanthemums when I married him, and chrysanthemums when you were born, and the first time they ever brought him home drunk, he'd got brown chrysanthemums in his button-hole."

Could this represent hope of marriage and love, birth of the children and then disillusionment and dispair and their separateness/alienation? The last chysanthemum is withered and 'brown', reflecting the state of their marriage at this point. Also, it is a bitter statement of disgust and criticism, that she displays/reveals to her children in the last reference. In a sense she puts the man down in front of the children repeatedly throughout the story. Elizabeth Bates is a very bitter and hard-edged woman by this stage in her life and marriage. She does not seem all that loving or connected, even to her children...what do you think?

[Virgil]

Virgil, I am glad you see my point. I knew there had to be more significance to that scene for Lawrence to include this meeting and the idea that he is a train conductor and connected with the coal industry. Yes, good point, the train would be associated with flames. Where did you find the reference to the beard being a Lawrentian signal for blood consciousness?

The more I think about it the more convinced I am that your point is correct. The beard significance runs through many of Lawrence's works, mostly his later works The most prominant from what I remember is in the short novel St. Mawr. Don't know if you've ever read that. Also didn't Mellors in Lady Chatterly's Lover have a beard? I can't quite remember. But trust me, it's a signifier in later Lawrence work. Of course this story is an early work, so it could be a coincidence. But I think not.

From several of my books I understood Lawrence's own growing of the beard to be something he did during his first serious attack of his illness. He seemed to have the idea it kept him from colds because it kept his face warm and his neck as well - that is why it was so long. I just read where it was untrimmed because Lawrence had some kind of hang-up about strange barber shops and he traveled so much he just did not bother going to them. Maybe he was a germ freak. He was kind of fastitious with his cleaning and his scrubbing of floors which we discussed in S&L. From old pictures, you would not gather so, but I think the beard and his thinning physical appearance, as he got older (due primarily to his illness), make him look a little shabby and unkept. From what I have read he did not appear so to his friends. He always seemed to wear suits. I even have a photo of him baking bread and he was wearing a suit. That was the fashion back then for men. I suppose it was a sign of respectability/authority.

Very interesting. Thanks for filling me in on some of the subtle biographical details.

Well, sorry to go off on that tangent and back to what you pointed out. The comparison of the train to fire and flames is a good one and to the hearth, as well. Also this man is acting on his instinct and wants closeness and intimacy - he says why wait? He wants to be married again and connected to a woman in the flesh. I think this is the significant point in adding this to the story. Also, often grown children will feel resentment, even jealousy, when a parent wishes to remarry or even to date. The grown child can feel threatened some how - thinking they will lose the parent's affections. This scene also reveals to us that Elizabeth's mother is dead and gone from their lives.

Yes, you are definitely correct about this. I like the way Lawrence uses this natural reaction a daughter might have to isolate her into the world of reason. It works perfectly in the narrative.

I think your theory is perfectly feasible and valid. I really like it. Yes, there is so many instances in this story of light and dark playing against each other. It even brings to mind to me the chysanthemum that Elizabeth had carefully concealed in her (darkened pocket/a personal space) which lights up with the lamp and shows through to the girl child. Isn't that image highly significant? Perhaps this one single detail and gesture suggests a looking deeper into what Elizabeth is concealing about her marriage. It is just a thought, but it just came to me as an answer to the way Lawrence really highlighted that scene and named the story as he has. The lines that Elizabeth blurts out to the children, concerning chysanthemums in three stages of life and decay, is really brilliant and encompasses these three stages, perhaps those you are referring to - the three generations, in effect, but also three events in different stages of their marriage.

and

Could this represent hope of marriage and love, birth of the children and then disillusionment and dispair and their separateness/alienation? The last chysanthemum is withered and 'brown', reflecting the state of their marriage at this point. Also, it is a bitter statement of disgust and criticism, that she displays/reveals to her children in the last reference. In a sense she puts the man down in front of the children repeatedly throughout the story. Elizabeth Bates is a very bitter and hard-edged woman by this stage in her life and marriage. She does not seem all that loving or connected, even to her children...what do you think?

You know, given this new dimension to the story (darkness as symbolic for the mystical place of pre-life and post-life) I think the chrysanthemums take on even greater symbolic weight. They are flowers which need the short day and longer nights to stimulate bloom, and so they come from and touch this mystical unknown. And remember flowers are Lawrence's ideal for perfect life.

Wow, this story is very rich. When I first read it I thought this is just a slice of life realism. I take that back. It is not. Even in this story we see the spiritual/mystic element of Lawrence's ideas. You know I just recently read another article by a recent critic slamming Lawrence. She found him shallow. I just don't get it. She may not like his ideas; she may not agree with his ideas. But to say he's shallow is rediculous. (Who today agrees with Shakespeare on the devine rights of kings?) She does admit he's a gifted writer. The previous generation of critics perhaps over valued Lawrence. The current generation definitely undervalues him. Anyway.

[Janine]

The more I think about it the more convinced I am that your point is correct. The beard significance runs through many of Lawrence's works, mostly his later works The most prominant from what I remember is in the short novel St. Mawr. Don't know if you've ever read that. Also didn't Mellors in Lady Chatterly's Lover have a beard? I can't quite remember. But trust me, it's a signifier in later Lawrence work. Of course this story is an early work, so it could be a coincidence. But I think not.

(look it is manolia's waver - she uses him all the time! )
Hi Virgil,
Yes, I do believe it turned into more significance, as you say, in the later works. I think this beard thing was a very personal symbol to Lawrence, eventually. For one thing, I also read, where to protest war, one sported a long beard. Odd that his own father also had this long, never trimmed beard, going back in Lawrence's childhood. You would think Lawrence would have shunned that style as 'old-fashioned', especially if his father wore one. But then again, Lawrence did remain sort of 'old-fashioned' in some of his ways and beliefs, even stodgy at time.

Very interesting. Thanks for filling me in on some of the subtle biographical details.

Hey, I have enough research books by now, I should be able to come up with stuff like this. You are very welcome!

Yes, you are definitely correct about this. I like the way Lawrence uses this natural reaction a daughter might have to isolate her into the world of reason. It works perfectly in the narrative.

I was thinking about a friend, when I read this part of the book; that is why it stood out so to me. My friend's father began to date and her mother has been dead for years. When she writes to me, I can always see this feeling she has of being 'threatened' by the father's new relationship with this woman. Somedays she likes her and others the woman is definitely 'on the rack'. My friend is a very nice person herself and smart, but I think it is the natural instinct of the daughter to be protective with the father, especially if he is 'up there' in years, as hers is. I also, see this sometimes - just really a hint of it in my own son. He thinks me old, I know... Everyone over 40 is to him - hey wait till he gets there, right? So if some man comes around or calls me he is curious and protective to know all about this person. Both came to my mind when reading this part of the book. It also does not even have to be with sibblings. I saw this happen with someone else when her brother died and then his wife began to date. The person was highly critical. Life does go on and so people should follow their hearts and inclinations, provided they are upstanding and worthwhile pursuits.

You know, given this new dimension to the story (darkness as symbolic for the mystical place of pre-life and post-life) I think the chrysanthemums take on even greater symbolic weight. They are flowers which need the short day and longer nights to stimulate bloom, and so they come from and touch this mystical unknown. And remember flowers are Lawrence's ideal for perfect life.

I think the flowers definitely do, too. It is the title for the story so I feel it has great weight and significance. Lawrence did not choose roses or daisies or lilies, he chose chrysanthemums - as you pointed out a fall/autumn flower and one needing little light to bloom. Also they are the last hurrah in autumn and nice weather. Then winter comes on and all is darkness and cold and indiciative/representative of sleep and death. So the chrysanthemum is the perfect flower to choose for this particular story. It is highly symbolic. It signals the coming of winter and the death or sleep/domancy of many flowers and plants and trees and grasses, crops, etc.

Wow, this story is very rich. When I first read it I thought this is just a slice of life realism. I take that back. It is not. Even in this story we see the spiritual/mystic element of Lawrence's ideas. You know I just recently read another article by a recent critic slamming Lawrence. She found him shallow. I just don't get it. She may not like his ideas; she may not agree with his ideas. But to say he's shallow is rediculous. (Who today agrees with Shakespeare on the devine rights of kings?) She does admit he's a gifted writer. The previous generation of critics perhaps over valued Lawrence. The current generation definitely undervalues him. Anyway.

Very rich indeed! I don't think there is such a thing in all of Lawrence's works that one could call pure realism or shallow - those critics really infuriate me. Have they actually read Lawrence and looked beneath the surface? Perhaps she is a hardened realist or feminist. I don't know how she could possible say this. I have a friend who read "Sons and Lovers" and gave it only 2 stars out of 5 on another site. I gave her a thrashing (in a humorous way). She does tend to be a hard marker in book ratings but I said "how could you possibly give it only 2 stars?" She laughed and so did I. I don't think she really read it or understood it. But the critics are not changing I don't think in this time. That critic must have been an isolated case. Mostly lately I have heard all positives about Lawrence's work. People are taking the time to understand it better and he is getting more recognition now in England than ever before. Cambridge put out that whole set of biographies and I can tell you they are detailed and marvelous. When I search on Amazon there are always new books on Lawrence cropping up. I don't see that his popularity is waning at all. It all depends on where you look. The Nottingham Univeristy and Cambridge both have online displays/exhibits that are totally facinating.

As far as Shakespeare is concerned - no one much believes that now - Divine Right of Kings - but now people are placing works more realistically into the social/historical time frame they were written in. This has broadened perspectives and made people more tolerant of ideas that existed in our histories. This is happening widely in the film media, since there is a great interest and popularity presently of book adaptations and period pieces. It is good because people view history in a new light - they can see the time frame and the way people lived then and why they thought/acted as they did. Often this is due to social conditions of the time. Even with Lawrence we have to know some biography and some history of the time to place his work into proper perspective. His ideas and themes may exceed that time boundry and become 'universal' in these ideas and themes, but their origins were born in the early part of the 20th century. This, in the long run, is a very significant fact.

[Quark]

I could see how some readers might construe this story as shallow. I've read some critics who believe there is a moral to the story--that Lawrence was teaching a lesson through the thoughts of Mrs. Bates. Of course, it's complete nonsense to argue that. If any of those critics try to define what the argument of the story is, they would falter and get quiet because the words at the end of the story are so vague. Besides, it's hard to know which thoughts Mrs. Bates is actually having and which are the conclusions of the author. And, to make things more complicated, the speech is utter in such an impassioned state that we can't decide how much is really sincere and not overstatement. While it's true that Lawrence uses most of the beginning of this story to give foreshadowing and context for the end, that doesn't mean that the ending necessarily contains a moral. I would say that the story is artificial, yes, but not shallow or instructional.

[Virgil]

Good post Quark.

[Janine]

Yes, Quark it was a good post and it made me think. In fact, I am still thinking about what you wrote. I read it now several times. It is hard to tell how much is coming from L and how much is truly the character's own thoughts.
I just read that this story has always been acclaimed as one of L's best but this is disputed by some. I still think there is much in the story that is brilliant and shows pure genius.
Are you saying in your last line "I would say that the story is artificial, yes, but not shallow or instructional." - that the story is not at all 'realistic'? Can you define the word 'artificial', as you use it in this context/statement?

Virgil here is the chronology. Odour of Chysanthemums was started in 1911 and completed (after all revisions) in 1914; "Sons and Lovers" was started in 1911 and copyrighted in 1913. This proves that the two were written in the same time frame..interesing, isn't it?

[Virgil]

Virgil here is the chronology. Odour of Chysanthemums was started in 1911 and completed (after all revisions) in 1914; "Sons and Lovers" was started in 1911 and copyrighted in 1913. This proves that the two were written in the same time frame..interesing, isn't it?

Oh thank you very much. That book is very useful.

[Janine]

I found this story date in my book, by Michael Black, and then looked up the publisher's date of "Sons and Lovers" in the front of my novel, then further researched it in my book entitled:
"Sons and Lovers" ~ Casebook Series ~ D.H.Lawrence ~ A Selection of Critical Essays Edited by Gamini Salgado

This is a fine and very helpful book. I wanted to mention it, since you might be able to secure it at your library. I first found it there in mine and I liked it so much I bought it (used) from Amazon. It is probably out of print, by now, but is quite an aid to studying the book, S&L.


Virgil, Glad I could be of assistence in the dating of the two works. What do you think of it being written around the same time as S&L?

[Virgil]

I found this story date in my book, by Michael Black, and then looked up the publisher's date of "Sons and Lovers" in the front of my novel, then further researched it in my book entitled:
"Sons and Lovers" ~ Casebook Series ~ D.H.Lawrence ~ A Selection of Critical Essays Edited by Gamini Salgado

This is a fine and very helpful book. I wanted to mention it, since you might be able to secure it at your library. I first found it there in mine and I liked it so much I bought it (used) from Amazon. It is probably out of print, by now, but is quite an aid to studying the book, S&L.


Virgil, Glad I could be of assistence in the dating of the two works. What do you think of it being written around the same time as S&L?

Well, they are similar in style. But there are differences. Mrs. Morel in S&L defeats her husband. She comes across as the one who's justice is on her side. But in OofCh, Elizabeth in a way is defeated by her husband. It turns out that Walter has some sort of justice on his side in this relationship.

[Pensive]

Yes, Quark it was a good post and it made me think. In fact, I am still thinking about what you wrote. I read it now several times. It is hard to tell how much is coming from L and how much is truly the character's own thoughts.
I just read that this story has always been acclaimed as one of L's best but this is disputed by some. I still think there is much in the story that is brilliant and shows pure genius.

I haven't read all Lawrence's short stories but out of those which I have read (only three, I would have to say, embarrassed ), I have liked it the best. The 'chrysanthemums' reference and the discription is very good!

Are you saying in your last line "I would say that the story is artificial, yes, but not shallow or instructional." - that the story is not at all 'realistic'? Can you define the word 'artificial', as you use it in this context/statement?

If Quark is referring to the chrysanthemums being present everywhere which turns out to be a significant event in their life, I think I agree with him (?) that it's not realistic but that can't be taken as a negative point because this reference has been meant to be symbolic.

Virgil here is the chronology. Odour of Chysanthemums was started in 1911 and completed (after all revisions) in 1914; "Sons and Lovers" was started in 1911 and copyrighted in 1913. This proves that the two were written in the same time frame..interesing, isn't it?

That's an interesting piece of information you have provided us, Janine.

[Quark]

Are you saying in your last line "I would say that the story is artificial, yes, but not shallow or instructional." - that the story is not at all 'realistic'? Can you define the word 'artificial', as you use it in this context/statement?

I meant that the plot, setting, descriptions, and symbols are all setup for the final realization at the end. I find that kind of story telling kind of artificial. Compare this story with "The Lady with the Dog" by Chekhov, for example. In Chekhov's story, the action picks up in the middle of the story and ends in the middle. Instead of manipulating every literary device imaginable to drive the story to a single conclusion, Chekhov creates many different points. Plus, he makes his points in a much more casual and realistic way. In "The Odour of Chrysanthemums", Lawrence gives us his main idea in an impassioned moment of intense clarity which I doubt many of us have had.

Yet, I don't think the Lawrence story is a poor story. I just thought it was artificial.

[Janine]

I meant that the plot, setting, descriptions, and symbols are all setup for the final realization at the end. I find that kind of story telling kind of artificial. Compare this story with "The Lady with the Dog" by Chekhov, for example. In Chekhov's story, the action picks up in the middle of the story and ends in the middle. Instead of manipulating every literary device imaginable to drive the story to a single conclusion, Chekhov creates many different points. Plus, he makes his points in a much more casual and realistic way. In "The Odour of Chrysanthemums", Lawrence gives us his main idea in an impassioned moment of intense clarity which I doubt many of us have had.

Yet, I don't think the Lawrence story is a poor story. I just thought it was artificial.

Hi Quark, This might be true comparing these two stories, but in 'Rothchild's Fiddle', I felt the story had some manipulation, especially the ending. 'Lady and the Dog' might appear to be realistic, but is it really? I could see somethings that were not so, in my total assessment. I agree that pointing out the chrysantemums in various ways was a device or manipulation to create symbolism. I even think the bathing scene is somewhat devised to symbolise or evoke feeling of religion or ceremony. Some people might feel this 'impassioned' sense, when starring 'death' blantantly in the face, as Elizabeth is doing. Shock can bring on revelations, such as the one she seems to be having. In a sense it is like a funeral, where one works through grief and all seems totally 'unreal' or more 'real' for a time - such as during wakes. This intense experience, of bathing the body and readying it for the funeral, seems to be realistic to me. Haven't you ever felt 'otherworldly' in situations like that, as though you were not really there at the scene, or viewing it from a whole new and strange perspective? When I see a body with no life in it, I feel as Elizabeth did. It is not an everyday experience unless you deal with this everyday, being an undertaker.

Pensive, glad liked this story best - I think it is a fine one. Glad we did it this month.

Virgil and Pensive, glad you found that information of help.

Virgil, I agree with this "Well, they are similar in style. But there are differences. Mrs. Morel in S&L defeats her husband. She comes across as the one who's justice is on her side. But in OofCh, Elizabeth in a way is defeated by her husband. It turns out that Walter has some sort of justice on his side in this relationship." I realised they were quite different stories with different themes.

Here is some more of the commentary from the Michael Black book. I hope I did not post this earlier.

The hardness and bitterness of Elizabeth Bates, the central woman of the tale, is well led up to by this initial description. The story concerns the domestic situation of the Bates family and the strained and awkward relationship of the man and wife, although the husband never comes before us until he is dead, killed in a mining accident. The situation is simple enough, and the mining accident a stereotype of a thousand similar stories of mining villages, but Lawrence invests the situation with a deep and moving significance. In the first part of the tale the tension and harshness of the household is well built up as the rest of the family wait for the husband to return from work, but it is assumed that he has once more gone straight from work to the public house; in the second part the tone changes, with the ten¬sion switching to a different key as the husband's continued absence becomes more ominous. Eventually he is brought home dead, and the fact of his death throws into another perspective the lives of the man's wife and mother. The tone is perfectly caught, for the miner's death is not sentimentalised over; rather, the wife, Elizabeth, is made aware of the transitoriness of life and her own past error in allowing the ordinariness and mundaneness of her lot to stifle her feelings and demean her character. Now he is dead she realises with tragic immediacy the fact that he was different from her and different from her conception of him:

"Life with its smoky burning gone from him, had left him apart, and utterly alien to her. And she knew what a stranger he was to her. In her womb was ice of fear, because of this separate stranger with whom she had been living as one flesh. Was this what it all meant-utter, intact separateness, obscured by heat of living? In dread she turned her face away .... For as she looked at the dead man, her mind, cold and detached, said clearly: 'Who am I? What have I been doing? I have been fighting a husband who did not exist. He existed all the time. What wrong have I done? What was that I have been living with? There lies the reality, this man.' And her soul died in her for fear: she knew that she had never seen him, he had never seen her, they had met in the dark and had fought in the dark, not knowing whom they met nor whom they fought. And now she saw, and turned silent in seeing. For she had been wrong." pp. 300-I

The passage is interesting, not only in that it shows Lawrence's own awareness of the fact of death, but also in its effect in the story as a whole. The 'ice of fear' in her 'womb' (a word so annoying to some readers of Lawrence, not always without cause) here is effectually used to cast the reader's mind back to a previous scene where the contrast of life and death, and the meanness of the woman in her 'death-in-life', is well shown when, as she reaches up to light the lamp, her daughter remarks at the chrysanthemums which she had earlier placed in her apron-band. The parallel between her wearing the flowers and her pregnancy is symbolic oflife:

"As she reached up, her figure displayed itself just rounding with maternity.
'Oh, mother- l' exclaimed the girl.
'What?' said the woman, suspended in the act of putting the lamp-glass over the flame. The copper reflector shone handsomely on her, as she stood with uplifted arm, turning to face her daughter.
'You've got a flower in your apron!' said the child, in a little rapture at this unusual event.
'Goodness me l' exclaimed the woman, relieved. 'One would have thought the house was afire.' she replaced the glass and waited a moment before turning up the wick. A pale shadow was seen floating vaguely on the floor.
'Let me smell!' said the child, still rapturously, coming forward and putting her face to her mother's waist.
'Go along, silly l' said the mother, turning up the lamp. The light revealed their suspense so that the woman found it almost unbearable. Annie was still bending at her waist. Irritably, the mother took the flowers out from her apron-band.
'Oh, mother-don't take them out!' Annie cried, catching her hand and trying to replace the sprig.
'Such nonsense!' said the mother, turning away."

The symbolism of the scene is wonderfully suggestive of the child's delight in life and the mother's dismissal of it, and it is remarkable that the symbolism Lawrence is employing here to parallel the flowers and the woman's pregnancy is typical of the symbolism of many English folk songs, such as 'The Seeds of Love'; Lawrence may well have been writing consciously or unconsciously in a folk-convention at this point. (It is not out of place to remind ourselves that Lawrence is one of the first writers in English of truly working-class origins.) However, Lawrence is not perfect in his handling of this scene, for although it is beautifully formed as it is quoted above, its effect is slightly spoilt by the way in which one aspect of its significance is hammered home in the next few lines, in which the woman's conscious antipathy to the flowers is shown:
" 'It was chrysanthemums when I married him, and chrysanthe¬mums when you were born, and the first time they ever brought him home drunk, he'd got brown chrysanthemums in his button¬hole.' p. 289
The story as a whole, however, is near-faultless, and is one of the best possible introductions to Lawrence's work."

[Virgil]

From Michael Black:

The passage is interesting, not only in that it shows Lawrence's own awareness of the fact of death, but also in its effect in the story as a whole. The 'ice of fear' in her 'womb' (a word so annoying to some readers of Lawrence, not always without cause) here is effectually used to cast the reader's mind back to a previous scene where the contrast of life and death, and the meanness of the woman in her 'death-in-life', is well shown when, as she reaches up to light the lamp, her daughter remarks at the chrysanthemums which she had earlier placed in her apron-band. The parallel between her wearing the flowers and her pregnancy is symbolic oflife

Not sure what to make of the phrase 'ice of fear' in her 'womb'. It was startling when I read it. I'm not eally sure what Michael Black is saying there.

[Janine]

From Michael Black:

Not sure what to make of the phrase 'ice of fear' in her 'womb'. It was startling when I read it. I'm not eally sure what Michael Black is saying there.

Virgil, I found that phrase curious myself. I did not know what to make of it since later Lawrence refers to life as a flame or column of fire. I think I will have to read that part again in Black's commentary and try to understand, also, what he is getting at.

Hmmm...I just looked at that part again and I think one has to look at Elizabeth's complete thought:

In her womb was ice of fear, because of this separate stranger with whom she had been living as one flesh. Was this what it all meant-utter, intact separateness, obscured by heat of living? In dread she turned her face away.