D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[islandclimber]

I don't take exception to how she treats her husband.. not in the slightest.. I don't like him at all either.. He deserves it and asks for it... and allows it... and I feel somewhat sorry for her, in that she appears to be passionate about very little in relaity, and appears to be quite miserable underneath it all, quite confused and lost...

but I still dislike her.. she is an entirely superfluous person, I don't know if that opinion will ever change for me regarding this story... I feel sorry for her, but at the same time, find her useless and quite easy to dislike...


oohhh... I love flowers.. but mostly wildflowers... I'm not all that into the idea of gardening flowers, I think we should help them proliferate more as wildflowers... gardens can be nice though... and I love all the interesting and sometimes silly names of flowers... they add to the beauty and uniqueness of each one...

[Virgil]

Ok, I've reread the story quite carefully and I want to jump in. I want to outline the structure of the story and then focus in on the symbol of the two blue birds, because that i think is the key to the story. But I find it interesting how Lawrence builds to that and then the climax.

I see the structure of the story as dividing into five parts. The divisions may be arbitrary, but it helps me see how it progresses.

The first part is almost all exposition. From the beginning Lawrence recaps the relationship between husband and wife, how they could not live together, how she has "gallant affairs," how he works long hours dictating to his secretary, how the relationship with the secretary is platonic, and how he supports his wife. We get the impression of a very "modern," chic marriage.

The second part we have the wife disaffected and asks for the first time, "What's to be done?" Notice how this question keeps cropping up. But here she is asking about herself, and the answer is to head south for the winter to her gallant affairs. She's off like a bird and returns in the spring.

The third part she returns to find matters grown worse.

What was to be done? Matters, instead of improving, had grown worse. The little secretary had brought her mother and sister into the establishment. The mother was a sort of cook-housekeeper, the sister was a sort of upper maid--she did the fine laundry, and looked after 'his' clothes, and valeted him beautifully. It was really an excellent arrangement. The old mother was a splendid plain cook, the sister was all that could be desired as a valet de chambre, a fine laundress, an upper parlour-maid, and a table-waiter. And all economical to a degree. They knew his affairs by heart. His secretary flew to town when a creditor became dangerous, and she always smoothed over the financial crisis.

What exactly is the wife's problem? It seems that the husband is too comfortable. We get a dialogue between husband and wife over his comfort and his work:

"Don't you think the family manage very well?" he asked her tentatively.

"Awfully well! Almost romantically well!" she replied. "But I suppose you're perfectly happy?"

"I'm perfectly comfortable," he replied.

"I can see you are," she replied. "Amazingly so! I never knew such comfort! Are you sure it isn't bad for you?"

She eyed him stealthily. He looked very well, and extremely handsome, in his histrionic way. He was shockingly well-dressed and valeted. And he had that air of easy aplomb and good humour which is so becoming to a man, and which he only acquires when he is c**k of his own little walk, made much of by his own hens.

She focuses on the discrepency between beiing happy and being comfortable. Obviously her greater value rests on happiness. We get some more bird analogy of him being a c**k with hens. And the wife concludes that she must do something:

"Nothing to aggravate him!" What a position for a man! Fostered by women who would let nothing 'aggravate' him. If anything would aggravate his wounded vanity, this would!

So thought the wife. But what was to be done about it?

And she wonders about what the secretary gets out of the relationship:

"What on earth she gets out of it," thought the wife, "I don't know. She's simply worn to the bone, for a very poor salary, and he's never kissed her, and never will, if I know anything about him."

Part IV consists of what I call cognitive development, meaning we see the wife working out the issues in her mind. First she wonders what she herself wants of her husband:

What on earth did she want then? She was his wife. What on earth did she want of him?

She certainly didn't want to take him down in shorthand, and type out again all those words. And she didn't really want him to kiss her; she knew him too well. Yes, she knew him too well. If you know a man too well, you don't want him to kiss you.

What then? What did she want? Why had she such an extraordinary hang-over about him? Just because she was his wife? Why did she rather 'enjoy' other men--and she was relentless about enjoyment--without ever taking them seriously? And why must she take him so damn seriously, when she never really 'enjoyed' him?

Then she wonders what the secretary and her family (mother and sister) get out their adorning the husband:

She came back once more, and there she was, in her own house, a sort of super-guest, even to him. And the secretarial family devoting their lives to him.

Devoting their lives to him! But actually! Three women pouring out their lives for him day and night! And what did they get in return? Not one kiss! Very little money, because they knew all about his debts, and had made it their life business to get them paid off! No expectations! Twelve hours' work a day! Comparative isolation, for he saw nobody!

Her mind gravitates to how his work has been damaged by these adorning women:

But it was bad for him. No doubt about it. His work was getting diffuse and poor in quality--and what wonder! His whole tone was going down--becoming commoner. Of course it was bad for him.

And finally this fourth section culminates in her decision to save him:

Being his wife, she felt she ought to do something to save him. But how could she? That perfectly devoted, marvellous secretarial family, how could she make an attack on them? Yet she'd love to sweep them into oblivion. Of course they were bad for him: ruining his work, ruining his reputation as a writer, ruining his life. Ruining him with their slavish service.

Of course she ought to make an onslaught on them! But how could she? Such devotion! And what had she herself to offer in their place? Certainly not slavish devotion to him, nor to his flow of words! Certainly not!

and

Something more drastic, or perhaps more gentle. She wavered between the two. And wavering, she first did nothing, came to no decision, dragged vacantly on from day to day, waiting for sufficient energy to take her departure once more.

The fifth and final section is completely narrative, reaching the story's climax at a confrontation between wife and secretary. The wife steps outside into the spring day. Blooming flowers are described. She finds the husband outside dictating to the secretary. Two blue birds fly at the feet of the writer and secretary and engage into a bird fight. A dialogue between the three ensues, and the wife ultimately turns to the secretary to say, "Why don't you make him think about you?" This shocks everyone to silence. She asks him about his work and how it's declined. They have tea, and the women, the secretary now indignant, tries to be silent but the wife baits her into a fight. The wife has hit upon what is to be done, strike at the secretary:

"How'd the work go--all right?" asked the wife, as they drank tea, and the two women looked at each other's blue dresses.

"Oh!" he said. "As well as you can expect. It was a piece of pure flummery. But it's what they want. Awful rot, wasn't it, Miss Wrexall?"

Miss Wrexall moved uneasily on her chair.

"It interested me," she said, "though not so much as the novel."

"The novel? Which novel?" said the wife. "Is there another new one?"

Miss Wrexall looked at him. Not for words would she give away any of his literary activities.

"Oh, I was just sketching out an idea to Miss Wrexall," he said.

"Tell us about it!" said the wife. "Miss Wrexall, you tell us what it's about."

She turned on her chair, and fixed the little secretary.

"I'm afraid"--Miss Wrexall squirmed--"I haven't got it very clearly myself, yet."

"Oh, go along! Tell us what you have got then!"

Miss Wrexall sat dumb and very vexed. She felt she was being baited. She looked at the blue pleatings of her skirt.

"I'm afraid I can't," she said.

"Why are you afraid you can't? You're so very competent. I'm sure you've got it all at your finger-ends. I expect you write a good deal of Mr. Gee's books for him, really. He gives you the hint, and you fill it all in. Isn't that how you do it?" She spoke ironically, and as if she were teasing a child. And then she glanced down at the fine pleatings of her own blue skirt, very fine and expensive.

"Of course you're not speaking seriously?" said Miss Wrexall, rising on her mettle.

"Of course I am! I've suspected for a long time--at least, for some time--that you write a good deal of Mr. Gee's books for him, from his hints."

It was said in a tone of raillery, but it was cruel.

And the secretary defends herself:

It was broken by Miss Wrexall, who was nervously twisting her fingers.

"You want to spoil what there is between me and him, I can see that," she said bitterly.

"My dear, but what is there between you and him?" asked the wife.

"I was happy working with him, working for him! I was happy working for him!" cried Miss Wrexall, tears of indignant anger and chagrin in her eyes.

and

"But he gives me everything, everything!" cried Miss Wrexall. "He gives me everything!"

"What do you mean by everything?" said the wife, turning on her sternly.

Miss Wrexall pulled up short. There was a snap in the air, and a change of currents.

"I mean nothing that you need begrudge me," said the little secretary rather haughtily. "I've never made myself cheap."

And finally the climax:

There was a blank pause.

"My God!" said the wife. "You don't call that being cheap? Why, I should say you got nothing out of him at all, you only give! And if you don't call that making yourself cheap--my God!"

"You see, we see things different," said the secretary.

"I should say we do!--thank God!" rejoined the wife.

"On whose behalf are you thanking God?" he asked sarcastically.

"Everybody's, I suppose! Yours, because you get everything for nothing, and Miss Wrexall's, because she seems to like it, and mine because I'm well out of it all."

"You needn't be out of it all," cried Miss Wrexall magnanimously, "if you didn't put yourself out of it all."

"Thank you, my dear, for your offer," said the wife, rising, "but I'm afraid no man can expect two blue birds of happiness to flutter round his feet, tearing out their little feathers!"

With which she walked away.

So everything through questions running through the mind of the wife builds to the confrontation. But what's that climax all about? As I see it, the two women fighting parallel the two birds fighting, and they (both dressed in blue) are fighting over the husband. But the parallel is also a contrast. The two blue birds are male, while the fighting humans are female. It's an inversion of nature. The women are fighting over a man, while presumably the birds are fighting over a female, or fighting in their normal natures. I think the story is a caustic satire on modern marriage and values. The people are not natural, but lead a sterile life. The wife's gallant affairs (men are supposed to be polygamous, not women), the husband's not having any passion, not even writing a novel but an essay on novels, and the secretary working herself passionless to the bone for someone. The birds serve as a contrasting image, ironically being referred to as tits:

And as she was being blest, appeared another blue bird--that is, another blue-tit--and began to wrestle with the first blue-tit. A couple of blue birds of happiness, having a fight over it! Well, I'm blest!

She was more or less out of sight of the human preoccupied pair. But 'he' was disturbed by the fighting blue birds, whose little feathers began to float loose.

"Get out!" he said to them mildly, waving a dark-yellow handkerchief at them. "Fight your little fight, and settle your private affairs elsewhere, my dear little gentlemen."

The bird's gender is emphasized here, and the fighting tits are going to be the wife and the secretary.

[Janine]

Ok, I've reread the story quite carefully and I want to jump in. I want to outline the structure of the story and then focus in on the symbol of the two blue birds, because that i think is the key to the story. But I find it interesting how Lawrence builds to that and then the climax.

I see the structure of the story as dividing into five parts. The divisions may be arbitrary, but it helps me see how it progresses.

The first part is almost all exposition. From the beginning Lawrence recaps the relationship between husband and wife, how they could not live together, how she has "gallant affairs," how he works long hours dictating to his secretary, how the relationship with the secretary is platonic, and how he supports his wife. We get the impression of a very "modern," chic marriage.

The second part we have the wife disaffected and asks for the first time, "What's to be done?" Notice how this question keeps cropping up. But here she is asking about herself, and the answer is to head south for the winter to her gallant affairs. She's off like a bird and returns in the spring.

The third part she returns to find matters grown worse.

What exactly is the wife's problem? It seems that the husband is too comfortable. We get a dialogue between husband and wife over his comfort and his work:

She focuses on the discrepency between beiing happy and being comfortable. Obviously her greater value rests on happiness. We get some more bird analogy of him being a c**k with hens. And the wife concludes that she must do something:

And she wonders about what the secretary gets out of the relationship:


Part IV consists of what I call cognitive development, meaning we see the wife working out the issues in her mind. First she wonders what she herself wants of her husband:

Then she wonders what the secretary and her family (mother and sister) get out their adorning the husband:

Her mind gravitates to how his work has been damaged by these adorning women:

And finally this fourth section culminates in her decision to save him:

and


The fifth and final section is completely narrative, reaching the story's climax at a confrontation between wife and secretary. The wife steps outside into the spring day. Blooming flowers are described. She finds the husband outside dictating to the secretary. Two blue birds fly at the feet of the writer and secretary and engage into a bird fight. A dialogue between the three ensues, and the wife ultimately turns to the secretary to say, "Why don't you make him think about you?" This shocks everyone to silence. She asks him about his work and how it's declined. They have tea, and the women, the secretary now indignant, tries to be silent but the wife baits her into a fight. The wife has hit upon what is to be done, strike at the secretary:

And the secretary defends herself:

and

And finally the climax:


So everything through questions running through the mind of the wife builds to the confrontation. But what's that climax all about? As I see it, the two women fighting parallel the two birds fighting, and they (both dressed in blue) are fighting over the husband. But the parallel is also a contrast. The two blue birds are male, while the fighting humans are female. It's an inversion of nature. The women are fighting over a man, while presumably the birds are fighting over a female, or fighting in their normal natures. I think the story is a caustic satire on modern marriage and values. The people are not natural, but lead a sterile life. The wife's gallant affairs (men are supposed to be polygamous, not women), the husband's not having any passion, not even writing a novel but an essay on novels, and the secretary working herself passionless to the bone for someone. The birds serve as a contrasting image, ironically being referred to as tits:

The bird's gender is emphasized here, and the fighting tits are going to be the wife and the secretary.

Great post, Virgil - this is really excellent! I knew you would be able to break it down and outline the story effectively and it would reveal much, seen finaly as a whole; you did a way better job than I could. I guess it is your organised 'engineering' mind.
I thought the bluebirds actually symbolised the husband and wife at odds, but you are quite right this does symbolise the cat fight between the two woman. It is interesting how the genders are reversed. I think this is true also, with the husband and wife standards. Quite right that usually it is the husband who is out having the affairs and not the wife.

I think you hit the mark when, you said "I think the story is a caustic satire on modern marriage and values." I had been thinking the very same thing, but had not gotten around to finding a way to word that idea. This is very true and I think that Lawrence would have viewed the 'modern marriage' in this way. He may have complied with Frieda's idea of sexual freedom, but from my biographical reading, I don't think he ever truly liked it or thought it 'worked' in favor of their marriage. I can imagine that when he got wind of the story from Faith Mackenzie, of she and her husband's open relationship, Lawrence just flew with it and quickly wrote this in a satiric tone.

I think the story is quite good, don't you? I felt the writing was quite and quite witty. I like the fact, that it is a little different, than others of Lawrence's, that we have read.

[Virgil]

Great post, Virgil - this is really excellent! I knew you would be able to break it down and outline the story effectively and it would reveal much, seen finaly as a whole; you did a way better job than I could. I guess it is your organised 'engineering' mind.
I thought the bluebirds actually symbolised the husband and wife at odds, but you are quite right this does symbolise the cat fight between the two woman. It is interesting how the genders are reversed. I think this is true also, with the husband and wife standards. Quite right that usually it is the husband who is out having the affairs and not the wife.

I think you hit the mark when, you said "I think the story is a caustic satire on modern marriage and values." I had been thinking the very same thing, but had not gotten around to finding a way to word that idea. This is very true and I think that Lawrence would have viewed the 'modern marriage' in this way. He may have complied with Frieda's idea of sexual freedom, but from my biographical reading, I don't think he ever truly liked it or thought it 'worked' in favor of their marriage. I can imagine that when he got wind of the story from Faith Mackenzie, of she and her husband's open relationship, Lawrence just flew with it and quickly wrote this in a satiric tone.

I think the story is quite good, don't you? I felt the writing was quite and quite witty. I like the fact, that it is a little different, than others of Lawrence's, that we have read.

Thanks Janine. It is a good story. I wouldn't consider it a great story, but a good story.

Oh I was reading some of Lawrence's letters last night, and Dorothy Brett was working as a typist for him while in New Mexico. So there is no question on who he modeled the characters from real life. An interesting thing happened afterward when Lawrence had returned to Europe. He claimed or was under the assumption that Brett had sold his manuscripts while he was away. He wrote some nasty things about her to some of his other friends. As it turned out she didn't, but had sold ones that he had given her directly as a present.

[Janine]

Thanks Janine. It is a good story. I wouldn't consider it a great story, but a good story.

Oh I was reading some of Lawrence's letters last night, and Dorothy Brett was working as a typist for him while in New Mexico. So there is no question on who he modeled the characters from real life. An interesting thing happened afterward when Lawrence had returned to Europe. He claimed or was under the assumption that Brett had sold his manuscripts while he was away. He wrote some nasty things about her to some of his other friends. As it turned out she didn't, but had sold ones that he had given her directly as a present.

Virgil, yes, a good story, but not as deeply woven or as complex as others. It is well-written, I think in a way that normally is not characteristic of his body of work. In one book I referenced, it was mentioned that the story was a mere 'sketch' - by the author or the publisher or L, not sure now.

Glad you read some of those letters. That's right it was the Mexico years when Brett became a real problem. I knew she did his typing and I had mentioned that awhile back, in one of my posts. That did definitely make her fit the profile of the secretary character. Giving away the stories would furture make her undesirable to both Frieda and Lawrence. I don't think Frieda ever liked her tagging along with them. I can picture those two going at it like the two bluebirds!

It is so interesting to read those letters, once I get started I can hardly put the book down....but then again, I am a 'Lawrence geek' as you labeled me. In one of the general chat posts, Pensive said "she would like to meet me to see my Lawrence 'fanship'..." I thought that was really funny and creative.

[islandclimber]

Wow Virgil.... Epic post!!! and excellent post I might add!

I quite like where you talk of the people not being natural, sterile, somewhat lifeless...

I wonder if the idea that modern women were supposed to have affairs and sexual freedom/liberation (the so called open relationship) came out of the idea that men had been having mistresses for centuries, so with the new feminist movement, women should do so as well... It seems almost like a reactionary thing, to state that it was impossible for a modern woman not to have gallant affairs... as though after men doing it forever, now that we can, we have to also... but the funny thing is she alludes to the possibility she just might be upset if her husband was sleeping with the secretary... although at another point she almost states he should be, for all that she does for him... as well... in being a modern woman, as she calls herself, than the argument that the man should support her, and pay for her, and all her trips and affairs, well that kind of falls apart, it is feminism one way, but then strict traditional values the other way..

it is like saying, well I am a modern woman and therefore have equal rights to go and sleep around, but I should not have to work, or support myself, or contribute in any way, shape, or form... that seems somewhat hypocritical on her part... or so I find... I don't know though, whether this modern woman stuff she mentions has anything to do with the feminism of that period, but if it does, in her case it is absurd...

[Virgil]

Wow Virgil.... Epic post!!! and excellent post I might add!

I quite like where you talk of the people not being natural, sterile, somewhat lifeless...

Thanks climber.

I wonder if the idea that modern women were supposed to have affairs and sexual freedom/liberation (the so called open relationship) came out of the idea that men had been having mistresses for centuries, so with the new feminist movement, women should do so as well... It seems almost like a reactionary thing, to state that it was impossible for a modern woman not to have gallant affairs...

You may not know climber, but Lawrence was strongly anti-feminist. Lawrence's ideal state of life was that of primitive cultures, and part of primitive life is for Lawrence male domination. Lawrence felt (and he wasn't the only one after WWI) that modern life had gone wrong, and he traces it to modernity and he has the analogue of a falling from Eden. In many respects lawrence takes Romanticism to its conclusion. So any story where a woman is extremely powerful, your antenae should go up and suspect satire and cynicism.

as though after men doing it forever, now that we can, we have to also... but the funny thing is she alludes to the possibility she just might be upset if her husband was sleeping with the secretary... although at another point she almost states he should be, for all that she does for him... as well... in being a modern woman, as she calls herself, than the argument that the man should support her, and pay for her, and all her trips and affairs, well that kind of falls apart, it is feminism one way, but then strict traditional values the other way..

One other thing you shoud know. Through the late 1950s throught he 1970s and even into the early 1980s, Lawrence was the equivilent of James Joyce as the top British writer of the 20th century. They were neck and neck. But once the feminists started taking over the Academe, Lawrence got pushed lower and lower until today he's fairly substantially downgraded. They hate him. And I can see why. Story after story, whether the point is anti-feminist one or not he always seems to zing the women in the story. I don't agree with Lawrence on most ideas, and not on this, but I just think he is a great writer, and he should be the equal of Joyce.

it is like saying, well I am a modern woman and therefore have equal rights to go and sleep around, but I should not have to work, or support myself, or contribute in any way, shape, or form... that seems somewhat hypocritical on her part... or so I find... I don't know though, whether this modern woman stuff she mentions has anything to do with the feminism of that period, but if it does, in her case it is absurd...

It's hard to really understand another era fully. Even one that was less than a century ago. There may have been a sort of proto-feminism around, but I don't know how fully developed the concept of a working woman was. Perhaps if some is an expert they can correct me. And even if it was developed in intellectual circles, how much did it filter down to the general public. And then again Lawrence's wife didn't work a iota in her life. And she was a very strong woman and personality.

[islandclimber]

No, I did not know that about Lawrence.. I was kind of getting that picture from several stories I read... but that is interesting.. Thank you Virgil...

I took a class on feminism several years ago at University but I don't recall alot of it... the same goes for most of what I took in school..

And I don't agree with Lawrence on his ideas regarding feminism and male domination either... but the wife in this story, is a bit ridiculous, though I assume Lawrence purposely made her so with cynicism and irony and no small trace of what appears to be sarcasm...

the idea that a modern woman has to have gallant affairs, while at the same time still relying on her husband entirely, for means to do so... well that seems absurd to me... it appears as though one side of feminism is showing up, in regards to woman having just as much of a right as men to have affairs, but nothing of the rest isn't there alongside it... she wants to bite the good part of the apple and leave the bruised parts alone... But then again I may be wrong, this is all just my opinion...

[Janine]

You may not know climber, but Lawrence was strongly anti-feminist. Lawrence's ideal state of life was that of primitive cultures, and part of primitive life is for Lawrence male domination. Lawrence felt (and he wasn't the only one after WWI) that modern life had gone wrong, and he traces it to modernity and he has the analogue of a falling from Eden. In many respects lawrence takes Romanticism to its conclusion. So any story where a woman is extremely powerful, your antenae should go up and suspect satire and cynicism.

I don't entirely agree with you on these points, Virgil, I think there is much there to be debated and Lawrence can't be called antifeminist. I have never fully agreed with you on this point. I don't think Lawrence should be labeled and I think it is true the feminist did do that to him. He did feel modern life went wrong, due to all the industrial encrouchment on the land, etc. But to my knowledge, after reading so much about him biographically, I don't believe he ever actually settled the whole idea in his head or what could be done to change the world. How did he take Romanticism to it's conclusion? I am confused on this point. Can you elaborate on that statement?

Mostly all of Lawrence's stories do present a strong woman; I know you said 'powerful' and that may be interpretted differently. This all would have to be debated, and I don't have much time tonight to get into all of that. I do see powerplays evident in his work between the sexes, but in many of his major works I see more of a sense of equality, being established between the two - male and female characters. What about Birkin and Gurdrn in "Women in Love" - what happened to the idea of the two stars in perfect balance?
In my opinion, Lawrence delved deeply into a woman's psyche and it was the very extreme feminists who condemned him unfairly, many years ago. Things and attitudes have changed some from then. I don't see Lawrence now being swept under the carpet. I see more interest in ever. If you just go onto Amazon and check the amount of Lawrence books you will see what I mean. I have actually tried to get the one published after his death and some of the earlier more rare books and the prices are extraodinary! How can this reflect a lack of interest in his work?

One other thing you shoud know. Through the late 1950s throught he 1970s and even into the early 1980s, Lawrence was the equivilent of James Joyce as the top British writer of the 20th century. They were neck and neck. But once the feminists started taking over the Academe, Lawrence got pushed lower and lower until today he's fairly substantially downgraded. They hate him. And I can see why. Story after story, whether the point is anti-feminist one or not he always seems to zing the women in the story. I don't agree with Lawrence on most ideas, and not on this, but I just think he is a great writer, and he should be the equal of Joyce.

"But once the feminists started taking over the Academe, Lawrence got pushed lower and lower until today he's fairly substantially downgraded". I think this is the wrong impression to impart to everyone; I don't think it true at all. In fact, I know more women who love Lawrence's work than men; so how do you account for that fact? These are all modern thinking open-minded women with good intelligence. As I said above, there is much interest today in Lawrence on the net. They just had an extensive online exhibit dedicated to L and his life, produced by Cambridge; they also came out with 3 new biographies, through Cambridge. I can't even afford to buy the third edition, which I would die for. This one is so popular, that it has become so expensive and is virtually impossible to find. This biography only came out a few years ago. So he is unpopular to this day? I don't think so.

It's hard to really understand another era fully. Even one that was less than a century ago. There may have been a sort of proto-feminism around, but I don't know how fully developed the concept of a working woman was. Perhaps if some is an expert they can correct me. And even if it was developed in intellectual circles, how much did it filter down to the general public. And then again Lawrence's wife didn't work a iota in her life. And she was a very strong woman and personality.

This is true about understanding another era. It is not true that Frieda never did any work in her life. If you read the biographies, she worked hard on the ranch they occuppied in New Mexico, and she aided Lawrence many times with his manuscripts, even his typing (although she was a poor typist). She did the cooking and the housekeeping; Lawrence also did these duties and cleaning, as well. It was a shared thing, with them both.
Frieda does not fit the profile of the woman (this wife) in the story. She was not pampered by Lawrence, such as this woman was, by her husband. To the contrary, that is a false impression of Frieda. She was a very able and strong-willed German woman and very independent, not just in her thinking but in her 'doing'.
To my knowledge, it was not until late in their marriage that she strayed in any consistency, and this could be contributed to the fact, that indeed Lawrence did become impotent from his chronic illness of TB, not to mention certain mood swings and ways the disease manifested itself. In someways, Frieda was justified in finding a lover, since she was only human and in need of something Lawrence could no longer provide for her, not just physical but also emotionally speaking.

[Quark]

So everything through questions running through the mind of the wife builds to the confrontation. But what's that climax all about? As I see it, the two women fighting parallel the two birds fighting, and they (both dressed in blue) are fighting over the husband. But the parallel is also a contrast. The two blue birds are male, while the fighting humans are female. It's an inversion of nature. The women are fighting over a man, while presumably the birds are fighting over a female, or fighting in their normal natures. I think the story is a caustic satire on modern marriage and values. The people are not natural, but lead a sterile life. The wife's gallant affairs (men are supposed to be polygamous, not women), the husband's not having any passion, not even writing a novel but an essay on novels, and the secretary working herself passionless to the bone for someone. The birds serve as a contrasting image, ironically being referred to as tits:

The bird's gender is emphasized here, and the fighting tits are going to be the wife and the secretary.

I thought the bluebirds actually symbolised the husband and wife at odds, but you are quite right this does symbolise the cat fight between the two woman. It is interesting how the genders are reversed. I think this is true also, with the husband and wife standards. Quite right that usually it is the husband who is out having the affairs and not the wife.

Those are good explanations. There are a few conflicts in the story, and the warring bluebirds remind us of all of them to a certain extent. Lawrence particularly points to the wife-secretary fight in the next scene--which I thought was a little heavy-handed on his part. The women coming out in dresses and then commenting on the blue color is a pretty clear signal. Alternatively, though, the bluebirds might represent the conflict within the wife between her husband and her lovers abroad. The birds are referred to as blue birds of happiness, and could possibly portray the wife's happiness in her affairs and the happiness in marriage. She can enjoys neither of these joys, however. Whenever she contemplates life at home she becomes bored, but when she's abroad there's that unpleasant "grain in her eye" sensation. She finds that her multiple relationships creates turmoil like the blue birds fighting.

Janine, I'll have to get to your newest post--which you got in while I was typing--tomorrow. Although, I don't know how much I want to argue about Lawrence and gender.

[Dark Muse]

I found it interesting that a point was made, of declaring the bird was in fact not truly a bluebird, but rather a blue tit, which is just a bird, that happens to be blue, but is of a different breed and species then an actual bluebird. I noticed this when I first read the story.

But what did startle her was a blue bird dashing near the feet of the absorbed shorthand-scribbling little secretary. At least it was a blue-tit, blue with gray and some yellow. But to the wife if seemed blue, that juicy spring day.

Than it points it out again:

And as she was being blest, appeared another blue bird-that is, another blue-tit-and began the wrestle with the first blue-tit.

It seems almost as if this is showing that their own happiness is really only just a facade and not a true real happiness. As the two birds appear, they are not genuine bluebirds of happiness that "bless" them, as the woman puts it.

But they merely have the appearance of being blue birds. So in a sense they are false bluebirds of happiness.

I did not get a chance to read everyone's posts yet, as I was working on this one earlier, but I had to go before it was finished, and I just got home.

[Virgil]

... but the wife in this story, is a bit ridiculous, though I assume Lawrence purposely made her so with cynicism and irony and no small trace of what appears to be sarcasm...

the idea that a modern woman has to have gallant affairs, while at the same time still relying on her husband entirely, for means to do so... well that seems absurd to me...

Well, that does show Lawrence's view on the feminism. He does tend to put women in the worst possible light.

I found it interesting that a point was made, of declaring the bird was in fact not truly a bluebird, but rather a blue tit, which is just a bird, that happens to be blue, but is of a different breed and species then an actual bluebird. I noticed this when I first read the story.

I'm not sure I understand the difference between a bluebird and a blue-tit. Is blue-tit a slang or an actual term? If there is a distinction between the two then Lawrence may be suggesting something as you point out D-M.

It seems almost as if this is showing that their own happiness is really only just a facade and not a true real happiness. As the two birds appear, they are not genuine bluebirds of happiness that "bless" them, as the woman puts it.

But they merely have the appearance of being blue birds. So in a sense they are false bluebirds of happiness.

I did not get a chance to read everyone's posts yet, as I was working on this one earlier, but I had to go before it was finished, and I just got home.

I didn't know what to make of the "bluebird of happiness" phrase that is actually repeated. Is there irony there? Actually there may be double irony there. Is the wife using it ironically, which is only on one level, but is Lawrence using it ironically also, which is on another level? (Am I making myself clear?) It may be complex and i'm not sure i understand it entirely.

[Virgil]

I don't entirely agree with you on these points, Virgil, I think there is much there to be debated and Lawrence can't be called antifeminist. I have never fully agreed with you on this point. I don't think Lawrence should be labeled and I think it is true the feminist did do that to him. He did feel modern life went wrong, due to all the industrial encrouchment on the land, etc. But to my knowledge, after reading so much about him biographically, I don't believe he ever actually settled the whole idea in his head or what could be done to change the world.

I know we disagree. I think it's mostly a function of you having concentrated your reading his earlier works, where he's more inclined to liberate women, and I've concentrated my reading on his later works, where he's not only inhibitng women, but making bold statements against feminism and women holding power. All you have to do is read Lady Chatterley's Lover. Connie's marriage to Clifford, where Clifford is paralyzed from the war is associated with modern sterility, and her affair with Mellors, a sort of backwoodsman is associated with happiness. Her relationship to Mellors is one of submission, not only just to him, but specifically to his penis.

How did he take Romanticism to it's conclusion? I am confused on this point. Can you elaborate on that statement?

Oh jeez, that is such a huge subject, I couldn't possibly answer it. If I had gone on to do my PhD I may have taken that up, if it has not already been done extensively. I'll get with you privately on that some time.

Mostly all of Lawrence's stories do present a strong woman; I know you said 'powerful' and that may be interpretted differently. This all would have to be debated, and I don't have much time tonight to get into all of that. I do see powerplays evident in his work between the sexes, but in many of his major works I see more of a sense of equality, being established between the two - male and female characters. What about Birkin and Gurdrn in "Women in Love" - what happened to the idea of the two stars in perfect balance?

The general view is that his earlier works advocate women's liberation (like in Sons and Lovers), his middle works advacate this balance concept (as you say in Women In Love), and his later works advocate female submission (The Plumed Serpent, Lady Chatterly). I'm not sure I agree with this general view any longer. Yes he settles on the balance symbolism in WIL but the overwhelming philosophy seems to come from Birkin, with Ursula occaisionally throwing in an idea. Even in his earlier works there is an undermining of female independence. Look at The Horse Dealer's Daughter and The Odor of the Chrysanthemums. Women's satisfaction rests not with their independence but as linked to men. Some of his ealier works reflect Lawrence's admiration and emulation of Thomas Hardy, who truely was a feminist. But I think Lawrence intellectually does not agree with Hardy, and while maybe starting with Hardy's ideas, moves beyond and away from them. I don't condem the feminists for pointing out Lawrence's ideas. I tend to agree, he is anti-feminist. I condem them for refusing to see the great writer despite his disagreement with them. Are they literary scholars first and feminists second, or are they feminists first and scholars second?

In my opinion, Lawrence delved deeply into a woman's psyche and it was the very extreme feminists who condemned him unfairly, many years ago. Things and attitudes have changed some from then. I don't see Lawrence now being swept under the carpet. I see more interest in ever. If you just go onto Amazon and check the amount of Lawrence books you will see what I mean. I have actually tried to get the one published after his death and some of the earlier more rare books and the prices are extraodinary! How can this reflect a lack of interest in his work?

Perhaps he's making a come back. I'm no longer in college so i don't know. These things go in cycles and I believe his writing in time will win out. He may never be the equivilent of Joyce any longer, but who knows? While I like and enjoy Joyce, i prefer Lawrence's work more. Even though my ideas may actually be closer to Joyce. Perhaps not. I disagree with Joyce on a lot of things too.

"But once the feminists started taking over the Academe, Lawrence got pushed lower and lower until today he's fairly substantially downgraded". I think this is the wrong impression to impart to everyone; I don't think it true at all. In fact, I know more women who love Lawrence's work than men; so how do you account for that fact? These are all modern thinking open-minded women with good intelligence. As I said above, there is much interest today in Lawrence on the net. They just had an extensive online exhibit dedicated to L and his life, produced by Cambridge; they also came out with 3 new biographies, through Cambridge. I can't even afford to buy the third edition, which I would die for. This one is so popular, that it has become so expensive and is virtually impossible to find. This biography only came out a few years ago. So he is unpopular to this day? I don't think so.

Maybe those women agree with Lawrence and agree they should be submissive to men. You know it's strange how Lawrence aleways had lots of women disciples. He does have this uncanny ability to get into a woman's psyche. Perhaps that's what really drives the feminists wild. He hits a nerve. But that just shows how great a writer he was. Joyce, Faulkner, Hemingway, and most of the other male writers all had real problems creating believable female characters. Lawrence just does it. He's just a great writer. Unpopular might be too strong a word. But if you go into a good college library you'll see tons of scholarly books written in the 1960s and 70s on L. It just died after that. The DH Lawrence Review, a great scholarly magazine, used to be published quarterly for many years. Then it went to annual, and now an occaisional edition comes out. Do a google search of DHL Review and you'll see some of the issues.

This is true about understanding another era. It is not true that Frieda never did any work in her life. If you read the biographies, she worked hard on the ranch they occuppied in New Mexico, and she aided Lawrence many times with his manuscripts, even his typing (although she was a poor typist). She did the cooking and the housekeeping; Lawrence also did these duties and cleaning, as well. It was a shared thing, with them both.
Frieda does not fit the profile of the woman (this wife) in the story. She was not pampered by Lawrence, such as this woman was, by her husband. To the contrary, that is a false impression of Frieda. She was a very able and strong-willed German woman and very independent, not just in her thinking but in her 'doing'.
To my knowledge, it was not until late in their marriage that she strayed in any consistency, and this could be contributed to the fact, that indeed Lawrence did become impotent from his chronic illness of TB, not to mention certain mood swings and ways the disease manifested itself. In someways, Frieda was justified in finding a lover, since she was only human and in need of something Lawrence could no longer provide for her, not just physical but also emotionally speaking.

You know the biography better than I do. I got the impression she was a little pampered. She was upper class, no? I know she was strong willed.

[Dark Muse]

I'm not sure I understand the difference between a bluebird and a blue-tit. Is blue-tit a slang or an actual term? If there is a distinction between the two then Lawrence may be suggesting something as you point out D-M.

A blue-tit is an acutal specicis of bird in the tit family

This is a blue-tit



While a bluebird, is a speicis of bird in the thrush family.

This is a bluebird

[Janine]

Dark Muse, thanks for providing the photos. The second bird if really pretty and so blue. I can't view the first on of the blue tit. I will try and look that up in my bird books today. I did find some photos online, but the problem is there are many different kinds of bluebirds, tits around the globe. The color seems to be related as to the location. I could not specifically find an English version of the blue bird or blue tit. I will try a search again.

Quotes by Dark Muse

I found it interesting that a point was made, of declaring the bird was in fact not truly a bluebird, but rather a blue tit, which is just a bird, that happens to be blue, but is of a different breed and species then an actual bluebird. I noticed this when I first read the story.

Quote:
But what did startle her was a blue bird dashing near the feet of the absorbed shorthand-scribbling little secretary. At least it was a blue-tit, blue with gray and some yellow. But to the wife if seemed blue, that juicy spring day.

Quote:
And as she was being blest, appeared another blue bird-that is, another blue-tit-and began the wrestle with the first blue-tit.

It seems almost as if this is showing that their own happiness is really only just a facade and not a true real happiness. As the two birds appear, they are not genuine bluebirds of happiness that "bless" them, as the woman puts it.

But they merely have the appearance of being blue birds. So in a sense they are false bluebirds of happiness.

Good points you brought up here and something for all of us to consider. I did think their marriage and happiness was a false one - this would be reflected perhaps in the bluebirds. This marriage definitely is not one of 'two bluebirds of happiness,' so I think, both from the wife's point of view and Lawrence's this is a duel obeservation or conclusion, as Virgil suggests specifically below. Here you suggest the idea of the happiness being false and I think that is truly reflected in the bluebirds symbolism.

Quote by Virgil

I know we disagree. I think it's mostly a function of you having concentrated your reading his earlier works, where he's more inclined to liberate women, and I've concentrated my reading on his later works, where he's not only inhibitng women, but making bold statements against feminism and women holding power. All you have to do is read Lady Chatterley's Lover. Connie's marriage to Clifford, where Clifford is paralyzed from the war is associated with modern sterility, and her affair with Mellors, a sort of backwoodsman is associated with happiness. Her relationship to Mellors is one of submission, not only just to him, but specifically to his penis.

Well, I have read some of the later work and I still do not totally get that impression. I can see why the feminists got offended. But most of them are extreme in their thinking. I don't think they considered many things. I don't necessary agree with you about "Sons and Lovers", either. I think the feminists would find much fault in that novel. I think Lawrence, even as a young man believed the man should be lord and master. If you read the very first novel "The White Peacock" you would be shocked at the one character - Anabelle and his attitudes toward women. The seeds of this idea of man being supperior to woman goes waaaay back. I think as time passed actually Lawrence modified some of these more extreme ideas, but I could be wrong. I have read nearly all his books but some I don't recall as well now. He is only just presenting and working out his idea of the two lovers being two perfectly balanced stars in harmony. I think later he speaks more extensively about this concept in "The Plumed Serpent". I don't know if the ending of that novel really accomplishes that or if the woman, Kate, truely becomes subservient to her new husband. In "Kangaroo" you see Lawrence stuggling with his 10 yr old marriage - a kind of war of the wills goes on and finally he ends with a kind of realisation that he can't really have it his way. It is all a big question in my mind. What I took offensively in your last post was you surety that #1 Lawrence was an anti-feminist and #2. his popularity was not diminished. I just don't buy either as complete truths. I think that Lawrence was much more complex than that and one can not apply a label his work or to the man. I believe for years Lawrence's work was greatly overlooked and it was misunderstood. I will try to find critical references to these exact statements and post them. I was just trying to defend my poor Lawrence, who I have spend countless hours to understand, and feel that in his own time was grossly misunderstood and mistreated.

Oh jeez, that is such a huge subject, I couldn't possibly answer it. If I had gone on to do my PhD I may have taken that up, if it has not already been done extensively. I'll get with you privately on that some time.

Fair enough. Yes, that might take a long time to explain to me. Again though I felt you were labeling and generalizing.

The general view is that his earlier works advocate women's liberation (like in Sons and Lovers), his middle works advacate this balance concept (as you say in Women In Love), and his later works advocate female submission (The Plumed Serpent, Lady Chatterly). I'm not sure I agree with this general view any longer.

What sources do you have for this way of splitting his work and categorizing it. I don't truly agree with this at all. One just cannot make these cut and dry divisions in his work. They all overlap. It is not a black and white issue but one more of subtle shades of gray. If you know the source material let me know it. I have never read this in the books I researched.

Yes he settles on the balance symbolism in WIL but the overwhelming philosophy seems to come from Birkin, with Ursula occaisionally throwing in an idea. Even in his earlier works there is an undermining of female independence. Look at The Horse Dealer's Daughter and The Odor of the Chrysanthemums. Women's satisfaction rests not with their independence but as linked to men.

Oh boy, Virgil, now you are asking for it! hahaha ....hope you are laughing, too. First off, in THDD, it did not seem to me that the woman was submitting anything to the man in the story. If anything the man seemed to be the meek one and rather shy; actually they both were. Also they seem to meet on equal ground here, but at first he saves her from her own suicide (drowning)....how is this story about submission, an undermining of female independence? Yes, true in that time in life and history, the woman has few options, without the support of men (financial), at first her brothers....this same thing applies to the woman in 'Odour of Chrsanthemums.' Both point back to Hardy's work in that this was usually the case for woman. I don't think Lawrence is saying it is good for the woman to be put down or trapped in loveless marriages or bad situations financially. If anything I see him identifying more with the woman and sympathising with her plight of being trapped in a situation, which offers no realistic alternatives and little hope. The woman in OOC has two children to think of...she is especially trapped. Yes, she feels sworn to her husband...but I think she realises just how it truly was and how they were not happy, as she dresses his dead body for his funneral. I just saw Lawrence's play on DVD "The Widowing of Mrs. Holroyd" and in this play is presented a young man she very much likes and is consoled in, who offers to take her away from her rotten life and situation. The play is very much like the story OOC. The concentration is on the wife and how sad/tragic it is for her and how she is trapped, even when she might find an option to escape her brutish drunken husband. I don't see anti-feminism in this play, more the plight of women and how Lawrence totally sympathised with them.

Some of his ealier works reflect Lawrence's admiration and emulation of Thomas Hardy, who truely was a feminist. But I think Lawrence intellectually does not agree with Hardy, and while maybe starting with Hardy's ideas, moves beyond and away from them. I don't condem the feminists for pointing out Lawrence's ideas. I tend to agree, he is anti-feminist. I condem them for refusing to see the great writer despite his disagreement with them. Are they literary scholars first and feminists second, or are they feminists first and scholars second?

SPOILER if you have not read "Jude the Obscure" or "Lady Chatterly's Lover".

This is a curious thing, what you say about Hardy. I read Lawrence's essay on Hardy and L' biggest problem with the story of "Jude, the Obscure" was that Sue ultimately returns to her husband and becomes subjected to his will, even though she has lived with Jude in a common law marriage. I can't figure out how Hardy was so unfeminist when in Jude his last novel he accepts this as a truth. Or is it that, by showing this tragedy, Hardy is actually being feminist. If you think of Jude the outcome is nearly opposite to LCL in concept. I don't think either that Connie is subjecting herself to Mellors. I think she was subjecting herself to her husband, who became impotent after his injury in the war and rejected her emotionally and physically. I see Mellors and Connie meeting more in the vain of the two balanced stars. I don't see subjection there, unless in the very begining of the story, but then it is Connie who seeks out Mellors and not Mellors who goes after Connie. The awakining that Connie experiences with the gamekeeper is more liberating in the end for her. The old life she leaves is the restricting one.

Perhaps he's making a come back. I'm no longer in college so i don't know. These things go in cycles and I believe his writing in time will win out. He may never be the equivilent of Joyce any longer, but who knows? While I like and enjoy Joyce, i prefer Lawrence's work more. Even though my ideas may actually be closer to Joyce. Perhaps not. I disagree with Joyce on a lot of things too.

He is on Lit Net!!! Of course I am here and pushing it; but look - we have some more advocates now. I have Litnetters bugging me as to when we read the next L novel. There is that online group dedicated to L, and that Cambridge biography series and online display. I think if you ran an L search today on Amazon for books you would be pleasantly surprised at all the fans out there. Read some of the commentary. We are not alone, by far knowing what a genius Lawrence was. His work very much still lives on.

Maybe those women agree with Lawrence and agree they should be submissive to men.

The ones I speak of are not that type at all. In fact that type of submissive woman does not seem to like Lawrence's work at all. That is strange or curious, don't you think? I think you are seeing this all from a man's point of view and missing the big picture. Most woman who I have found interested in Lawrence read some and adore the man; they can overlook some of his worst faults. Afterall he was just a man! We woman become tough and tollerant!

You know it's strange how Lawrence aleways had lots of women disciples. He does have this uncanny ability to get into a woman's psyche. Perhaps that's what really drives the feminists wild. He hits a nerve.

That could be it. Yes, he does hit a nerve and he gets right inside a woman's head. I think the feminists would feel he invaded their privacy. In some ways, they feel he undermines their sense of security perhaps. My secure and independent friends see Lawrence differently. They don't feel threatened by him.

But that just shows how great a writer he was. Joyce, Faulkner, Hemingway, and most of the other male writers all had real problems creating believable female characters. Lawrence just does it. He's just a great writer. Unpopular might be too strong a word. But if you go into a good college library you'll see tons of scholarly books written in the 1960s and 70s on L. It just died after that. The DH Lawrence Review, a great scholarly magazine, used to be published quarterly for many years. Then it went to annual, and now an occaisional edition comes out. Do a google search of DHL Review and you'll see some of the issues.

I far prefer Lawrence's work over Joyce. I just can't get into some of Joyce's work that requires tons of time to figure out. I like a simplier approach. Joyce is too complex for my feeble little brain. Lawrence is complex but understandable. I can better relate to his work than to Joyce's. I do feel Lawrence was and still living on in his words, is a great author.
The 60's and 70's??? That is now ancient history, Virgil! The whole sexual revolution was going on. 'Times, they are a 'changin'. It is now 2008 and I think that people are finally discovering and appreciating, what Lawrence wrote, way back before the 1970's and 80's, and that it means something important today. There usually is a shift for all authors; which is a good thing.
You know the biography better than I do. I got the impression she was a little pampered. She was upper class, no? I know she was strong willed.[/QUOTE]