D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[Janine]

Well it's not overly sublime, but it is quite clever. I'm not sure where I'd put it on my list of favorite Lawrence stories--somewhere in the middle, I think. The discussion of the story has sure been active. I struggle to keep up. Janine wrote a post on the last page that I had scroll down for thirty seconds just to get the bottom of it. Tonight I'll make an effort in earnest (no half effort) to write a comprehensive reply that will blow everyone away.

Quark, It is not that long! So where is the response - this 'brilliant bit of writing' you conjured up, that will blow everyone away? Oh, now I see, it is in the works and will be posted tonight. I will tune-in later. Can't wait to read it.

Virgil, I have read the story at least 3 times so far. I think I will, no doubt, read it again. I keep trying to figure out, just what to say about it. I was hoping you would arrive soon....rescue me. It is quite unlike other stories by Lawrence, but I quite enjoyed it, even better on additional readings. I found it humorous at times and clever, too although there is definitely an underlying seriousness to it. I like the last line but still not sure what to make of it. We have been trying to work slowly up to the ending so don't fly too far ahead, if you can. Or if you think it benificial to do so, I think everyone has read the story by now. It is up to you.

Later, I will try and post some more of the next part of the story to discuss and I will underline important parts and phrases. It is still early in the month and we can go slowly. Although, I am starting to see this story more in-line of a sketch and simply something Lawrence observed and wrote a witty story about. I don't know if it has terribly deep meanings, as his other stories impart. One critic I read, mentioned this story as a 'sketch' and no more. What would be your opinion on that, Virgil? Answer that, maybe after you review the posts and re-read the story. Glad you are back in the thread.

[Dark Muse]

Here is where, I actually agree with both of you, and I don't see that you are in opposition against each other on these points, about the wife's surety and confidence. I feel the wife is sure of herself in some situations, true...but then in others, she alows her vulnerable side to come through. I think the first hint of this is, the annoying grain of irritation in her eye. This 'forshadows' what will follow, when she returns home. Afterall, she is only human and she does have flaws and weaknesses, as we all do. Ok, so to the servants she might appear to be very much her own lady and lord her confidence over them and they respond to it accordingly, she is the lady of the estate! But then then in a conversation with her husband, she is somewhat miffed as to just what he means, calling him enigmatic. When the element, being the third party, enters the picture this throws the wife way off kilter; I refer to the secretary (and even her family) First off, it is representative as a sort of triangle, even though the secetary is not sleeping with her husband, or anything of the nature; however there does exist a sort of 'intimacy' between them, that the wife cannot penetrate. Think of how the secretary writes down every word he says, and how this gives the wife the impression that the girl understands his deeper side, far better than the wife could ever begin to...that 'enigmatic' side. I think in this way, the wife does begin to feel inferior, to the secretary. She also feels inferior, in the fact, that the secretary can provide to her husband wtih undivided attention/focus, while the wife knows perfectly well, she is totally incapable of such devotion. 'Devotion' here is a big factor and the wife is not devoted to her husband. She moves and acts on equal terms with him, almost as a sparring partner and not a love partner. Their wills are often matched and this is a big theme very often Lawrence stories - the theme of the 'will' of one person, against the other. By being caddy and critical, towards the secretary, and her devotion to the husband, the wife is indirectly attacking her husband, not the secretary. The secretary's existence is quite insignificant except, to say she is also a woman and so the wills are matched and their is this element of jealous that probably would not exist if the secretary were a male. But the true foe of the wife, at this point, is the husband and she is fighting him, the only way she knows how, and that is indirectly, yet through a means where it will undermine his sensitivities. The secretary is a way to exert her will against him.

Yes I agree that the wife is confident in some reguards. She does seem to be a very proud woman, but I like your "thrid-wheel" analogy, when she comes back into the house, becasue the scercatray and her family have estrablished thier own little world there with her husband.

Could anything be more impossible! They had the house spotless and running like a dream; how could an incompetent extravagant wife dare to interfere, when she saw their amazing and almost inspired economy. But they rant the place on simply nothing!

The wife does not feel as if she truly belongs within her husbands home. She suddenly feels like an outsider. The world in the house is not truly "her world" anymore, it has been overtaken, so here she is not sure of herself, and she is threatened by the efficiency and devotion of the secretary and her family to her husband. She does not really feel like she belongs there.

I agree that her attacks against the secretary are not really out of any direct feelings she has toward the secretary, but is indeed meant to strike against her husband, whom is the real issue for the wife. As she states somewhere else, that he could not bear it to be mocked for his work, and the secretary was such a intricate part of his work, that it was the best way she had at striking against him.

I don't know about all of you but here I began to question their marriage and realtionship. Ok, so what was meant by then being awfully kind and he the soul of generosity and tender esteem? I didn't know if this was true or just a facade of how they appeared to be in their relationship. It does seem one is true - that he was generous with her.

I was a bit stuck by these lines and found them a bit curious myself, as "generous" seems to be just the opposite of how she later own begins to portray her husband, though it might be true he continued to pay her way for her vacations, throughout the story, the wife is constantly criticizing her husband for being so selfish, in not actually doing anything for the secretary for all that she does for him, and in how little he pays them for their work. But more or less seems to take them for granted.

It seems in someway's, she is almost trying to struggle to understand just how they could be happy in such a situation because she knew she could never be content living the way the secretary and her family does. Though in someway's, I wonder if she does not think that they are indeed more noble than she is for she always seems to speak of them with a certain sarcasm and goads the secretary in someway's for not having the same standards, that she herself has. Though I think this might come from her own insecurities.

So now, the wife seems to be turning that idea around, in her own mind to mean her husband will be the one who is crystalized in the end or spoiled totally for her excesses and alternate lifestyle and for her his flavour would then be spoiled? Is that what she is saying or interpreting her husband as meaning? She seems to be redirecting the blame towards herself and her actions, by saying she might be 'the brine and the vale of tears' that brings about that result in her husband, not in herself. Is she thinking her actions will end up causing his demise? This last part is confusing to me and I am not sure what to make of it entirely. Any ideas, anyone?

Yes I found that whole part quite confussing as well, and could not make anything from it.

[Virgil]

Virgil, I have read the story at least 3 times so far. I think I will, no doubt, read it again. I keep trying to figure out, just what to say about it. I was hoping you would arrive soon....rescue me. It is quite unlike other stories by Lawrence, but I quite enjoyed it, even better on additional readings. I found it humorous at times and clever, too although there is definitely an underlying seriousness to it. I like the last line but still not sure what to make of it. We have been trying to work slowly up to the ending so don't fly too far ahead, if you can. Or if you think it benificial to do so, I think everyone has read the story by now. It is up to you.

I think (and let me emphasize only think) I understand the heart of the story. But let me reread it to make sure.

[Janine]

I think (and let me emphasize only think) I understand the heart of the story. But let me reread it to make sure.

Virgil, Great, I will be anxious to know what you think the 'heart' of the story is. Take your time. I need a break; going now to catch up on my emails....

[Virgil]

SPOILERS
So you don't see this as against the grain for Lawrence? This story was definitely much different from last story. That isn't to say that plot was different. That was almost the same: marriage interrupted by an interloper (Bertie, Wexall) which eventually leads to reconciliation. What differs dramatically (well, besides the tone) is the resolution. This story seems to skip over where the reconciliation scene was in the last story. When she sees the bluebirds in the garden I thought here we go again. We're going to have this connection scene in the midst of nature. But, read further, and no there's no such scene here. Instead, it moves into the last conversation in which the one bluebird sarcastically derides the other and drives her off. This caught me a little by surprise. It did seem like an odd departure from what I had come to expect.



Sorry to jump ahead. The ending was just the first thing that came to mind.



Where is our other Lawrence guru anyway?



"The Two Bluebirds" does have a sort of Chekhov-like sparseness of detail.

The Lawrence guru is here. Just trying to catch up.

I can understand why you feel this goes against the Lawrence grain Quark. This is a very satiric story, and I don't thnk we covered a Lawrence satiric story yet. He does get satiric at times (I'm thinking of novellas The Fox and St. Mawr), and when he gets satiric he can be very biting. And I think the characters here are portrayed in a caustic tone.

Still haven't reread so I'm still not jumping in.

[Quark]

Yes I agree that the wife is confident in some reguards. She does seem to be a very proud woman, but I like your "thrid-wheel" analogy, when she comes back into the house, becasue the scercatray and her family have estrablished thier own little world there with her husband.

Yeah, she feels very alien in her own home because her self-enforced distance. She finds she has almost no effect on her husband's life. Everything in the story heightens this feeling of distance. Even Cameron's (isn't that the husband's name?) manner feels cold and distant. He speaks almost cryptically and has an ironic--or as L puts it "hamletish"--demeanor about him. On top of the elusiveness of Cameron is the wife's own detachment. She's constantly characterized as being out of touch--with her husband's work, with the seasons, and even with her own feelings. Everything contributes to this sense of distance.

I don't know about all of you but here I began to question their marriage and realtionship. Ok, so what was meant by then being awfully kind and he the soul of generosity and tender esteem? I didn't know if this was true or just a facade of how they appeared to be in their relationship.

The generosity of the husband is genuine. He shows it in a number of places by allowing her to have her affairs, trying to make her welcome at home, and even by keeping up his end of the conversation when she interrupts him at work. The wife, though, is looking for something more than just generosity.

Think of how the secretary writes down every word he says, and how this gives the wife the impression that the girl understands his deeper side, far better than the wife could ever begin to...that 'enigmatic' side. I think in this way, the wife does begin to feel inferior, to the secretary. She also feels inferior, in the fact, that the secretary can provide to her husband wtih undivided attention/focus, while the wife knows perfectly well, she is totally incapable of such devotion. 'Devotion' here is a big factor and the wife is not devoted to her husband. She moves and acts on equal terms with him, almost as a sparring partner and not a love partner.

The wife does feel displaced by the secretary. This creates that irritation she feels when away. She knows that she's being replaced.

The jealousy is not really for the secretary, who is actually no one to anyone, but of the man and his attention to the secretary. In my opinion the true battlefield exists only between the husband and the wife and the 'will' of each set against each other.

You could define it as a battle between husband and wife. The wife is trying to get the attention of the husband, but the husband is busy insulating himself to the entreaties of the wife. He buries himself in work and the fawning praise of his servants while the wife is wanting his sincere affection. They don't hate each other, though, nor do they fight their battle with hostility. Their civility isn't just a facade. The husband really is generous and the wife does not really care to do household chores, but the unfortunate emotional aftermath of their arrangement leads them into confrontation.

I can understand why you feel this goes against the Lawrence grain Quark. This is a very satiric story, and I don't thnk we covered a Lawrence satiric story yet. He does get satiric at times (I'm thinking of novellas The Fox and St. Mawr), and when he gets satiric he can be very biting. And I think the characters here are portrayed in a caustic tone.

Oh it's very clear that Lawrence doesn't approve of the couple in this story. In certain lines you can see his contempt burst onto the surface. When he describes the wife as a warewolf, you know that character can't be good in the eyes of the narrator. After that he just piles on, too. He makes her pretentious and an admitted parasite. It's not a flattering portrait. The husband fares a little better in the narrator's eyes, but that's only by virtue of being less talked about.

[Virgil]

Acutally, in one of my classess, we are going to be discussing Lawrence, and the first day Tuesday we watched a video about his life, and it talked a lot about his relationship to Fredia within the movie.

Oh, that is so great! DM, I wish I could attend you class. Now I am truly jealous; I want to see that video...do you know what it was called? Yes, Frieda was a huge part of Lawrence's life and I think, a definite influence on his writing, past a certain time. Will you be reading some Lawrence works - book, stories, etc? You must keep me informed as you go along. I hope this class does not make you more Lawrence informed than me ...just kidding with you. You might be 'setting me straight', on things I post about his background/concepts/life.

I'm jealous tooo!! I would love to be in a class where we do Lawrence. Yes, please keep us abreast. Perhaps we should have done a story you are covering. Then you would really get a good grade.

[Janine]

I'm jealous tooo!! I would love to be in a class where we do Lawrence. Yes, please keep us abreast. Perhaps we should have done a story you are covering. Then you would really get a good grade.

Virgil, you always get an A+ in my book!

[Janine]

The Lawrence guru is here. Just trying to catch up.

I can understand why you feel this goes against the Lawrence grain Quark. This is a very satiric story, and I don't thnk we covered a Lawrence satiric story yet. He does get satiric at times (I'm thinking of novellas The Fox and St. Mawr), and when he gets satiric he can be very biting. And I think the characters here are portrayed in a caustic tone.

Still haven't reread so I'm still not jumping in.

I am freaking out now. I just typed so much and research: revealing quotes from letters, books; and I lost it all! Apparently, my book hit the esc key. I can't believe it. I will have to rethink my whole post and retype it. I came up with such good research too on this time period in L's life. I hope I can recall what I had written. Does anyone know how you can retrieve it? Is that even possible?
If I can't I will have to do this later. It is getting too late now....


I learned my lesson and will write this offline this time. Too easy to lose things on here, when typing. Well, back to the old drawing board. I hope I can recall what I had written.

[Janine]

My poor fingers are so tired of typing all this, and also it was not too easy find these references.... so please, please read it. I think this throws a lot of light on the story.

Originally Posted by Virgil
The Lawrence guru is here. Just trying to catch up.

I can understand why you feel this goes against the Lawrence grain Quark. This is a very satiric story, and I don't thnk we covered a Lawrence satiric story yet. He does get satiric at times (I'm thinking of novellas The Fox and St. Mawr), and when he gets satiric he can be very biting. And I think the characters here are portrayed in a caustic tone.

Hi Lawrence guru!

Virgil, that is a very good word for the story – ‘satiric’. Yes, this is the ‘style’ of ‘form’, in which Lawrence wrote this story, and some others from that same time period. The tone certainly is biting and very caustic at times. You and I know how Lawrence could fling comments or insults at his public or publishers and they were quite scathing, in addition to being rather amusing and witty, as well.

It truly helps to see just what was going on in Lawrence’s personal life around this time period. I found this in the introduction ‘Chronology’ in my “Women in Love” book:

1925 Finishes The Plumed Serpent, falls ill and almost dies of typhoid and pneumonia in February; in March diagnosed as suffering from *tuberculosis. Recuperates at Kiowa Ranch, writes David (1926) and compiles Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine (1925). He and Frieda return to settle in Spotorno, Italy; DHL writes first version of *Sun (1926); *Frieda meets Angelo Ravagli.

Then in 1926:

1926 Writes The Virgin and the Gypsy (1930); *serious quarrel with Frieda during visit from DHL’s sister Ada. DHL visits Brewsters and *Brett; has affair with Brett. Reconciled, DHL and Frieda move to Villa Mirenda, near Florence, in May and visit England (his last visit) in late summer. On return to Italy in October he writes first version of Lady Chatterly’s Lover (1944); starts second version in November.

*Up until this time, Lawrence refused to believe he had TB, this doctor in Mexico diagnosed the disease and recommended a warm climate with sun (see excerpt below), or he will surely die. Up until and even after this Lawrence would only refer to his illness as his ‘broncials’. In actuality, TB, was a death sentence for Lawrence and he pretty much knew it.

*Sun - The following story ‘Sun’ also explores the idea of a wife retreating, without her husband to a warmer climate. Obviously, Lawrence was expressing the idea that ‘sun’ would heal and restore life, as was recommended in his own case.

*Frieda meets Ravagli, whom she marries after Lawrence is deceased (Lawrence dies in 1930). She meets him while Lawrence is still recuperating from nearly dying. It was believed, she did indeed have on ongoing affair with Ravagli at this time, and leading up to Lawrence’ death. Lawrence knew about it, resented it, most likely, but could not control his headstrong,’modern thinking’ wife; therefore, he was resigned to the fact, she had her little laisons. No doubt, this ‘resentment’ and ‘bitterness’ resurfaces in the work he did during this period. The themes certainly do come forth and Lawrence is hardly condoning ‘affairs outside of marriage’, as is so apparent in this story – ‘Two Bluebirds’ with his cutting satire.

*serious quarrel with Frieda – one can only conjecture what that quarrel was about. I will try and look up that time, and see if I can dig up any sound reason for the quarrel. It states in the passage, that they did 'reconcil' and then move to Italy. Shortly after his last trip to England, he wrote “Lady Chatterly’s Lover”, which seems to me to follow in his same train of thought, but more developed in the novel. Most importantly to note, during this time period, Lawrence was in great distress and his relationship with his wife was on very shaky ground. It was a very tumultuous time in Lawrence’s life. Very shortly before all this his father died, as well. Several so called friends he either split with or they split with him. Add onto this the diagnosis of TB and it was a good receipe for all kinds of resentments and complex feelings.

*Dorothy Brett – The Lawrence’s met her in New Mexico, at the L's ranch; good friend of the Lawrence’s, she even traveled to Mexico, among other locations, with the couple. I have read several accounts to whether she and Lawrence actually did have an affair. At this time, following this bad illness and near death, I believe Lawrence was suffering impotence, so even if they spend a night together in a hotel room, it was not much of an affair. The whole thing is somewhat doubtful, but then later, Lawrence does mention in a letter to Brett that Frieda claimed she would never speak to Brett again. There could be other reasons for that but from what I read I believe that Frieda did become quite jealous of Brett and her attention to Lawrence. Brett even typed for Lawrence, which caused more animosity in Frieda's eyes. Quite a soap opera, isn't it?


‘Two Blue Birds’ was written in Florence and send to Nancy Pearn May 13, 1926:

I send you a story, ‘Two Blue Birds’ – probably to be another tribulation to you.[Huxley 658]

I just found this very interesting letter concerning Brett – keep in mind this letter was written around the same time Lawrence wrote this story. A few letters before this one, I read another, in which Lawrence professes he will no longer talk to his old friend, Murray because of some critical things Murray said about Lawrence publically. The letter that Brett forwarded to L make him sick and his words were bitter and scathing…”make me sick in the pit of my stomach: the cold, cold insect-like ugliness of it. – I shall avoid meeting Murray.” (January 1925)

This is an excerpt from a letter to Brett a little later:

To Hon, Dorothy Brett, 11 April 1925

You are, you know, a born separator. Even without knowing that you do it, you set people against one another. It is instinctive with you. If you are friendsly with one, you make that one unfriendly to the others: no matter who it is. It’s just a natural process with you. – But it usually turns everyone into an enemy, at last…………………Among three people, always two against one.

Then a little later in the same letter:

A life in common is an illusion, when the instinct is always to divide, to separate individuals and set them one against the other. And this seems to be the ruling instinct, unacknowledged. Unite with the one, against the other. And it’s no good.

Wow, that last part seems to me to be the theme of “Two Bluebirds”, in Lawrence’s own words! This is truly revealing to me.

Note: Lawrence died in 1930, so this story was written about 4 yrs earlier, but in a very bad period for Lawrence; besides continually fighting his health (there were many ups and downs with that) and being in a weakened state, he had experienced so much personal woe and rejection by now, he was quite fed-up. Until nearly his last days, he kept writing, but these later writings, definitely reflect a mood and an 'edge', that Lawrence did not previously reveal so intensely. They also reflect a sort of attitude of 'resignment' at times. It is an interesting mixture.

[Virgil]

Fabulous post Janine! I loved it. Of course we Lawrence geeks are into all that. Now do you think that the secretary, Miss Wrexall (Lawrence comes awfully close to calling her Miss Wrecks-all ) was modeled on Dorothy Brett? It's possible, even likely.

Now you say:

*Dorothy Brett – The Lawrence’s met her in New Mexico, at the L's ranch; good friend of the Lawrence’s, she even traveled to Mexico, among other locations, with the couple. I have read several accounts to whether she and Lawrence actually did have an affair. At this time, following this bad illness and near death, I believe Lawrence was suffering impotence, so even if they spend a night together in a hotel room, it was not much of an affair. The whole thing is somewhat doubtful, but then later, Lawrence does mention in a letter to Brett that Frieda claimed she would never speak to Brett again. There could be other reasons for that but from what I read I believe that Frieda did become quite jealous of Brett and her attention to Lawrence. Brett even typed for Lawrence, which caused more animosity in Frieda's eyes. Quite a soap opera, isn't it?

‘Two Blue Birds’ was written in Florence and send to Nancy Pearn May 13, 1926:

I just found this very interesting letter concerning Brett – keep in mind this letter was written around the same time Lawrence wrote this story. A few letters before this one, I read another, in which Lawrence professes he will no longer talk to his old friend, Murray because of some critical things Murray said about Lawrence publically. The letter that Brett forwarded to L make him sick and his words were bitter and scathing…”make me sick in the pit of my stomach: the cold, cold insect-like ugliness of it. – I shall avoid meeting Murray.” (January 1925)

This is an excerpt from a letter to Brett a little later:

To Hon, Dorothy Brett, 11 April 1925

You are, you know, a born separator. Even without knowing that you do it, you set people against one another. It is instinctive with you. If you are friendsly with one, you make that one unfriendly to the others: no matter who it is. It’s just a natural process with you. – But it usually turns everyone into an enemy, at last…………………Among three people, always two against one.

Then a little later in the same letter:

If I'm remembering correctly both Lawrence and Frieda began to hate Brett. But they always allowed her to hang around. I'm not sure why. There was another woman at the Taos ranch that formed the group, a Mable Dodge Lujan. Here's a picture of the the three of them, taken in the 1940s, well after Lawrence's death:


Dorothy Brett figures in several of Lawrence's later short stories. Most notably "The Princess" which I hope we will cover some day.

[Dark Muse]

Fabulous post Janine! I loved it. Of course we Lawrence geeks are into all that. Now do you think that the secretary, Miss Wrexall (Lawrence comes awfully close to calling her Miss Wrecks-all ) was modeled on Dorothy Brett? It's possible, even likely.

They talked about Dorothy in my class, in the video we watched, and the idea of the secretary did come into my mind at the time. I was going to mention something about it sooner, but you know me, at the time I could not remember what the woman's name was right off the top of my head.

Thanks for the great post Janine and I can definitely relate to how it is to loose a post you just got done typing all out. It is so frustrating and irritating.

[Virgil]

They talked about Dorothy in my class, in the video we watched, and the idea of the secretary did come into my mind at the time. I was going to mention something about it sooner, but you know me, at the time I could not remember what the woman's name was right off the top of my head.

Thanks for the great post Janine and I can definitely relate to how it is to loose a post you just got done typing all out. It is so frustrating and irritating.

That must be some class DM if they are getting into Lawrence's friends. Now I really wish I was in that class.

[Janine]

Fabulous post Janine! I loved it. Of course we Lawrence geeks are into all that. Now do you think that the secretary, Miss Wrexall (Lawrence comes awfully close to calling her Miss Wrecks-all ) was modeled on Dorothy Brett? It's possible, even likely.

Thanks so much, Virgil! I was really excited to find all this information. It just dawned on me to investigate just what was going on with Lawrence at the time. Other things also turned up and none that would make Lawrence very happy. It was an extremely difficult time for him.

Now you say:
If I'm remembering correctly both Lawrence and Frieda began to hate Brett. But they always allowed her to hang around. I'm not sure why. There was another woman at the Taos ranch that formed the group, a Mable Dodge Lujan. Here's a picture of the the three of them, taken in the 1940s, well after Lawrence's death:

Yes, that is the picture - the famous one of the three, after his death. DB is really appealing isn't she? That has to be the worst photo of Frieda that was ever taken, too. I actually hate that photo...but there they are reunited again. I guess they all made amends eventually. Frieda remarried, so she no longer felt threatened by either. It was Mable Dodge who invited them to New Mexico, to begin with; she is the one who gave them their ranch. She pictured prominently and colorfully in Lawrence's biographies and the New Mexico years. That was a strange time...sometimes good and sometimes not so good. They had a lot of falling out's, quarrels. Mabel lived with Tony, an Indian man, who she later married.

Yes, us Lawrence geeks would love this stuff; but still there is so much here that points to this one story - "Two Blue Birds", I think all this is quite significant, don't you?

Yep, Brett did seem to latch onto Lawrence, especially Lawrence, and trail along with he and Frieda. I don't think Frieda ever really liked that; eventually they did have a big clash. Also, Lawrence wrote Brett countless letters - they don't seem at all romantic, or as if they had anything going sexually, but they did seem to be good close friends, for a time. He confided much in her and she would fit the 'secretatary image' in this respect - she was unconditionally devoted to Lawrence, quite enamoured with the man, I believe, and would probably have done anything for him; much as the secretary in his story is depicted. Let me add she would have with very little in return from L. Interesting, isn't it? I definitely think Lawrence originally got the idea from Faith Mackenzie at the lunch with her, that has been well documented. However, you know how Lawrence altered things and characters, to suit himself and his stories. I think Dorothy Brett definitely plays into this equation and one could say she depicts his image for the rather meek, yet devoted secretary.
That is pretty funny - what you observed in the name - "Wrecks-all" - you are really keen, Virgil. I truly think Lawrence did do that on purpose. Phonetically the name could be said that way, right? Oh, that is just great!!! Leave it to Lawrence!

Dorothy Brett figures in several of Lawrence's later short stories. Most notably "The Princess" which I hope we will cover some day.

I have been wanting to read "The Princess"....yes, maybe we can do that one real soon. Now you have me interested. Do you know which other ones she figures in?

They talked about Dorothy in my class, in the video we watched, and the idea of the secretary did come into my mind at the time. I was going to mention something about it sooner, but you know me, at the time I could not remember what the woman's name was right off the top of my head.

That is totally interesting Dark Muse; glad I mentioned her today. Don't worry, I forget names too, if I don't write them down. You should have just thrown it out there and I could have tried to research, although this connection the secretary didn't come to me until I did this research today.

Thanks for the great post Janine and I can definitely relate to how it is to loose a post you just got done typing all out. It is so frustrating and irritating.

Glad it was so helpful. Thanks for reading it, DM.
Yes, I was dying; all that work and it went flying off somewhere in outer-space, not even cyber-space, where I may have been able to retrieve it.

[Dark Muse]

That is totally interesting Dark Muse; glad I mentioned her today. Don't worry, I forget names too, if I don't write them down. You should have just thrown it out there and I could have tried to research, although this connection the secretary didn't come to me until I did this research today.

I probably just thought of it, sense I had so recently read the story. Watching the film while the story was still fresh within my mind made it easy for me to begin to see the parallels between the two.

His life, and the events and characters of the story.