D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[Dark Muse]

Winifred must have been Lawrence's "moon," while Connie was his, what? Sun? Flame? I'm not familiar enough with his symbolism to know.

Yes, that is how I felt about Connie, that she represented the light, becasue in a way though we do not know anything about her, she seemed to be innocent one in all of this.

While Winne, was connected and associated with the moon, and clearly she was not so innocent. She knew what she was doing and was aware of the situation.

[Dark Muse]

However, unlike DM, I do feel Coutts felt truly guilty about his encounter, and yes, I agree with you, the ending is much like an exorcism.

I abolutely loved the irony of the ending. It was like the whole witch burning thing. I did find that both quite clever as well as amusing.

And I think that also in someways, it refelcts as Coutts being the truly guilty party. Though Winni should not have been flirting with a man she knew was engaged, in some reguards she could be seen as a victim of Coutts as well. Though she is not as unknowing as Connie is.

For in the end it is ulimately Coutts who gets punnished. He is the one who is burned by the fire, while Winne, is left unharmed by the incident.

[Janine]

Originally Posted by Quark
It's another situation in which Coutts promises a woman to join her, but then breaks away.

Quote by Antiquarian

Yes, great observation. Of course, Winifred is not really a witch, but she's bewitched poor Coutts and he feels miserable about it. He liked and respected the lovely German woman, just as he loves and respects Connie, but Winifred's pull on him is too great. Especially since that moon is full. (I'm being facetious now. I know the moon was out, but was it full?)

I thought that was an interesting observation and comparison, as well. I had not thought of the significance of that moment, before. She would reflect the leaving of Connie behind and her upset state. This is interesting about the trains playing prominently in this story, because Lawrence asked Louie Burrows to marry him, while they were riding on a train. Acording to the account, his proposal was not too romantic. He simply blurted out something about the fact that 'they should (or might) marry'. I don't think there was too much passion between he and Louie (Louise); quite honestly. In this story, the counterpart to Louie would be Connie, who we only perceive by her name and few scant remarks.

Quotes by Dark Muse

What can I say, for me betrayal and infidelity is the one unforgivable sin.

Ok, if you were engaged and you found out in your heart that you really were unsure and might still love your former lover, what would you do? Remember too, that engagements in the early part of the century were a lot different than today. For one today's trend is to live together first, and in the 1900's this was not the case. Often intimacy with a 'nice' girl did not happen until after marriage. It was a far different time and attitudes were different back then. Young men were often quite frustrated, because women did not allow physical contact (sex), until those marriage vowels were taken.

And the way I see it, the engagement period is not the period of deciding if you are or are not with the right person, that is what dating is for, presumably once you propose you have decided you want to be with that person.

That is true of today; however, in either time periods, people are allowed an 'out' if they truly decide the marriage is not for them or right for the couple. I knew someone recently who called off her wedding. It was not an easy decision to make, but I told her it was her life and she had to please herself and not do what everyone else expected her to do. As it turned out, it is for the better. I don't think that is betrayal, to decide not to marry, after one is engaged. My neighbor and his girl friend broke off an engagement, of about 5 years, and married other people. Better to decide before the wedding, than afterward.

And I did not say his engagement had to be a binding contract. I said he should either be faithful to her, or tell her that he made a mistake and that he cannot marry her. Just not go sneaking around behind her back.

Give him time; I believe he was going to tell her had he seen Winifred and realised he still loved her. He only went there as a social visit and it turned into more than that, but then the fire stopped him and brought him to his senses. Now, Dark Muse, do you think honestly, he will end up marrying Connie after he leaves this scene? When talking to Laura, in the beginning, to me, he seems very unsure of his marriage-to-be. I don't believe any date had been set or any firm decision had been made.

I really do not think that is unreasonable.

Well, once again, Dark Muse...we disagree... what can I say?

I think he is being biased in the fact that he is presenting an argument to himself in a way that will make him feel less guilty about what he is doing.

I don't. I think the story is being expressed with the inner feelings, as they are happening to him. I think the writing is very sincere and truthful, even to admitting any feelings of 'guilt'. In fact, a whole range of emotions are expressed from elation (beauty of the night), to a presentiment, to confusion, to emotional struggle, to passion and withdrawal, to quilt and dispair, perhaps awakening. I think as Quark already stated we can't judge this as a black or white issue - nothing about this story is black and white and clearcut to me.

He has something to gain from making his relationship with Connie seem like a dull one, because that will make him less responsible for causing her pain if he feels his actions are justified.

I think in actuality it was dull. How would you know otherwise? I don't think he is conniving in this respect at all. Geez, you really want to see this poor guy as a total jerk. What good does it do to categorize him thus and place him into a stereotyped mold. He is only human with human weaknesses and failing and decisions that might not always be correct but he is gropping to find his way, his true path.

I have to go now, but I will read the rest of the posts and respond when I am able.

OK, great, DM...glad you posted so much and don't take our differences of opinion too seriously. We are just debating and trying to come to some understanding, of why the Coutt acts as he does. He is the main character and therefore, to me, the focus is on him and his internal feelings and dialogue; even though it is written in a third person format....it still feels like he is is the one expressing it.

[Dark Muse]

Ok, if you were engaged and you found out in your heart that you really were unsure and might still love your former lover, what would you do? Remember too, that engagements in the early part of the century were a lot different than today. For one today's trend is to live together first, and in the 1900's this was not the case. Often intimacy with a 'nice' girl did not happen until after marriage. It was a far different time and attitudes were different back then. Young men were often quite frustrated, because women did not allow physical contact (sex), until those marriage vowels were taken.

Well I would not go behind the back of the person I was engaged with and visit my old lover to have an affair with them, while I knew that my fiancee was at home waiting for me.

And I think the only reason he did not "go all the way" with Winni was becasue he saw that she did not truly want that from him. He grew angry when he realized she wanted a kiss and no more.

That is true of today; however, in either time periods, people are allowed an 'out' if they truly decide the marriage is not for them or right for the couple. I knew someone recently who called off her wedding. It was not an easy decision to make, but I told her it was her life and she had to please herself and not do what everyone else expected her to do. As it turned out, it is for the better. I don't think that is betrayal, to decide not to marry, after one is engaged. My neighbor and his girl friend broke off an engagement, of about 5 years, and married other people. Better to decide before the wedding, than afterward.

It is not beytryal if you are open and honest with your fiancee about your feelings and what you really want. But it is betryal to me, if you go behind your back, and do something you know will hurt them, while you are still currnetly engaged to them.

Give him time; I believe he was going to tell her had he seen Winifred and realised he still loved her. He only went there as a social visit and it turned into more than that, but then the fire stopped him and brought him to his senses. Now, Dark Muse, do you think honestly, he will end up marrying Connie after he leaves this scene? When talking to Laura, in the beginning, to me, he seems very unsure of his marriage-to-be. I don't believe any date had been set or any firm decision had been made

I do not think that is entirely true. The fire started when he kicked the lamp over out of his anger, what really stopped was seeing that Winni really did not wnat that from him.

The hurt became great it brought him out of the reeling stage to distinct concsouness. She clipped her lips, drew them away, leaving him her throat. Already she had had enough. He opened his eyes as he bent with his mouth on her neck, and was strartled; there stood the objects of the room, stark; there close below his eyes, were the half-sunk lashes of the woman, swooening on her unatural ebb of passion. He saw her thus, knew that she wanted no more of him than that kiss. And the heavy form of this woman hung upon him. His whole body ached like a swollen vien, with heavy intensity, while his heart grew dead with misery and despiar. This woman gave him anguish and a cutting-short like death; to the other he was fale. As he shivered with surring he opened his eyes again and caught sight of the pure ivory lamp. His heart flashed with rage.

I think in actuality it was dull. How would you know otherwise? I don't think he is conniving in this respect at all. Geez, you really want to see this poor guy as a total jerk. What good does it do to categorize him thus and place him into a stereotyped mold. He is only human with human weaknesses and failing and decisions that might not always be correct but he is gropping to find his way, his true path.

What can I say, I am not that forgiving. He is knowingly and willingly doing something wrong, the whole time he is doing it, he cliams he feels guilty about it, but does not let that acutally stop him from his actions.

I do not think we should just let people off the hook on the simple basis, well becasue they are human they cannot help themselves form doing things that are wrong, so it should than be ok for them to do those things.

glad you posted so much and don't take our differences of opinion too seriously. We are just debating and trying to come to some understanding, of why the Coutt acts as he does. He is the main character and therefore, to me, the focus is on him and his internal feelings and dialogue; even though it is written in a third person format....it still feels like he is is the one expressing it.

Hehe yes I know. And well I know I have to be the difficult one. Or maybe just the mean one

[Janine]

Janine, I'm inclined to cut Coutts some slack here, because he's very young, and he does feel guilty, and we truly don't know his relationship with Connie. We never meet her and get to know her.

Yes, that is a good way to put it, Antiquarian - 'to cut him some slack'. Ok, he did wrong by going back, but then you could not just pick up a phone and say 'by the way, how have you been' in those days. It was common to go and see people. I think Winifred kind of lured him in, too or am I reading that wrong? I need to re-examine the text, and exactly what transpired between them, on the way to the train and after. Of course, as soon as the train pulled away, with the other woman abroad, leaving Coutts and Wini alone, then the situation was bound to spiral out of control. Fortunately, the fire stopped it, but seconds before this, didn't Coutts begin to come to the realisation and to withdraw from his actions? Maybe Connie and guilt and reality were calling him back. He was like someone under a 'spell' and then suddenly he began to break the spell, himself. Then the lamp was kicked over and that finished it. The blaze totally brought him back to reality.

I don't dislike Coutts, not entirely, however, I do feel as DM that being engaged entails certain commitments and one of those commitments is to stay away from other women (or men, if one is a woman).

Cut oneself off from people entirely, just because they are women or men? What if you have a good friend, who is a woman? Lawrence had many good friends who were women and no doubt some of them would have gone for him if he had shown interest. I just don't know. He had this whole group of friends along with Winifred and he went there to listen to them play instruments often in the past (in Lawrence's real life this was true as well and this family were truly close friends). Should he have to totally cut himself off from them, even after he was married?

Right now, I don't feel he went down to Croydon in all innocence. I think he went hoping to encounter Winifred again, perhaps even to have a sexual liaison with her.

I think when he makes the sudden detour or delay to stay in this area he does it consciously. I don't think he has fully thought out his intentions or expectations though, not yet. He may have entertained the possibility of a sexual liaison, but how did he know it would even be feasible or possible. In the end, it was not and partly due to his own decision to depart.

However, unlike DM, I do feel Coutts felt truly guilty about his encounter, and yes, I agree with you, the ending is much like an exorcism.

I think the quilt and the reality of Connie pulled him back into the real world, as I said. He was 'swept-up' into her influence (withcraft) the moment he saw Winifred again, as in a dream. This was the whole idea of the story - that she had bewitched him and taken him momentary back to the past - a past that would not work for them, then or now. With the kiss, he snapped out of the dream - funny, it is sort of like the awakening of a sleeping princess, but instead the prince awakens and flees. This is another sort of irony at the end of the story, don't you think?

I abolutely loved the irony of the ending. It was like the whole witch burning thing. I did find that both quite clever as well as amusing.

So did I. I thought you might like that, Dark Muse. It was so very 'witchy'! It was a very clever ending and him rushing from the house with burned hands was a great touch. "Hey, you play with fire, you get burnt."


[quote]And I think that also in someways, it refelcts as Coutts being the truly guilty party. Though Winni should not have been flirting with a man she knew was engaged, in some reguards she could be seen as a victim of Coutts as well. Though she is not as unknowing as Connie is.[quote]

No, I think she shared in the guilt. I think it was pretty equal that way. Unlike Winifred though Coutts stopped and separated himself from her and left at the end, calling himself a 'clumsy fool'. I think that 'clumsy fool' implied way more than kicking over the lamp and starting a blaze.

For in the end it is ulimately Coutts who gets punnished. He is the one who is burned by the fire, while Winne, is left unharmed by the incident.

Like I said, 'you play with fire and you get burnt.' So I wonder how he will explain those burned hands to Connie? hummm......will she suspect...we must tune in next week to find out...hummmm....

[islandclimber]

Just stopping in for a second before I head out again... but I am going to be the black sheep here...

I love Coutts and Winifred as well.. I sympathize with them both entirely.. well I wouldn't even call it sympathize for I do not especially see there actions as wrong... Maybe hedonistic.. but I suppose it depends upon your outlook of what is right and wrong...

I find to be two still quite young people in all the glory and power and sexuality that their age comes with... they are just doing what would please them, what makes them happy... and why shouldn't they.. and why shouldn't Coutts, love Connie and at the same time love another... No one here really had a problem with the gallant affairs of the woman in the last story... is that only because her husband knew and was okay with it???

but still, if Coutts wants to go on passionately with Winifred, while marrying Connie, then why shouldn't he? if that is what makes him happy, and if Connie is happy with him, and if Winifred is okay with this setup.. I say do what makes you happy, and if others have a problem with that, well, then they just don't have to be a part of your life... Connie can leave him if she finds out...

In this story though, I think Coutts is very unsure of himself and what exactly it is that he wants.. he really has no idea... he is very conflicted... as mentioned in earlier posts.. Does he love the sun or the moon.. and maybe a combination... and he returns to his former lover just to see... I love the strength of character of Winifred, I find she is a powerful woman, strong, and knows what she wants... whether she is always certain around Coutts, well that is part of loving and hating at the same time, which they both have feel for one another, but she has such character...

I love her sarcasm on Coutts engagement, and her thought that it is a monstrosity that he could marry for almost no apparent reason other than something to do it seems... and then their discussion on her fog of symbols, and candles in that fog.. the images elicited by this story are so abstract and so wonderful... and then the statement saying she would never buy scentless flowers just as she would never love a man only for being handsome.. I love this comparison, a scentless flower to a shallow man... though I do have to say I love some scentless flowers, they have such a mystery to them at times... and as later in the story she lifts her hands towards him like small white orchids.. and orchids are usually scentless.. such amazing imagery though...

and then how she is cruel to the ordinary, commonplace part of him... but I think he is cruel to the ordinary part of her.. they both seem to want to escape the ordinary, and love the extraordinary that the other has to offer but hate the ordinary, petty side that comes along...

in the end though, Coutts is not strong enough, in mind, in personality, in character, to be with Winifred... I think that is all he needed to realize.. he is not the type that can just enjoy life in whatever way pleases them, day by day, hour by hour, even second by second.. he has faint glimmers of that in him, but he can not be a true free spirited hedonist himself... whereas it appears she can...

I could go on forever.. I really do love this story.. even if I despised everything else Lawrence wrote, which of course I don't, but if I did, I would still be a Lawrence fan just for this one story...

[Virgil]

Quote by Antiquarian:
I should follow that practice, Virgil. I often comment on things before I've thought them through, then have to make new comments correcting myself.

Hey, Antiquarian, I think we all do that; we are only human and sometimes our minds rush ahead of us.

Well, apparently I'm not human. I didn't do that. It seems like everyone has rushed ahead. What happened to starting on Monday?

[Virgil]

I am beginning to think we should have an opinion poll at the top of each story, so we can vote on how we view the charcters such as 'Hate, Like, Undecided, Love.' Hey, you two, this is not the 'Love, Hate' thread.

We should have had a poll at the top of each story. That's a great idea. That would have been cool. But we would have to have a different thread for each story.

I would have to direly disagree with Dark Muse, that this is a poorly written work. I think a lot of critics would just cringe, if they heard that. This story was one of Lawrence's most popular and acclaimed ones

This may not be the most complex of stories, but it is definetely not poorly written. Some passages are wonderful. And the climatic scene is incredible.

Antiquarian, the moon image is not easily explained but I think Virgil can explain that better than I can. I did just recently read commentary that the moon to Lawrence represented a coldness and a whiteness and perhaps death. Remember, at this time Lawrence was going through a dire period in his life, having just lost his mother and also lost the woman he was close to...don't think he had relationships with all the women at one time. No, to the contrary; in fact Lawrence very much believed in being married to one woman for life. Of course, in his youth he was struggling to find the right woman, and going through what most of us go through as youths. Therefore it looks like he was a real womanizer but in truth he was not to my eyes.

Anyway, back to the moon, he may have seen the moon in cold terms and the morning star as a favorable omen. So when the moon is mentioned "He says the moon has set, and the evening star," he answered, "Both were out as I came down." The only thing I can make from this, is that the two combined made him hasten to her house or pursue her....he would see the star as the omen saying it was permissable or would be something he should pursue. Because in the next line she says

This indicates that she understood what he was implying. Now I hope we can further understand just what that meant as well. I think that Virgil will have a thing of two to say about the moon. There was a chapter in "Women in Love" that was named "Moony". I will would excerpt some of those passage except it might be a spoiler for you to read the novel. Maybe I will go look the commentary up in the thread that deals with that chapter and the one dealing with 'the morning star'...both would be good resources to examine in relation to this story.

I was thinking of the Women In Love scene too. The sun is an easy symbol for Lawrence: Life, male power. The moon is less clear. It's a source of mystery, the source of femine power.

[Dark Muse]

Yes, that is a good way to put it, Antiquarian - 'to cut him some slack'. Ok, he did wrong by going back, but then you could not just pick up a phone and say 'by the way, how have you been' in those days. It was common to go and see people. I think Winifred kind of lured him in, too or am I reading that wrong? I need to re-examine the text, and exactly what transpired between them, on the way to the train and after. Of course, as soon as the train pulled away, with the other woman abroad, leaving Coutts and Wini alone, then the situation was bound to spiral out of control.

I did not get the impression that Winni lured him there. Though perhaps she had timed her being there to intentinally meet him. The impression I got, he did not know Winni was going to be there untill Laura told him that she was coming.

Fortunately, the fire stopped it, but seconds before this, didn't Coutts begin to come to the realisation and to withdraw from his actions? Maybe Connie and guilt and reality were calling him back. He was like someone under a 'spell' and then suddenly he began to break the spell, himself. Then the lamp was kicked over and that finished it. The blaze totally brought him back to reality.

I mentioned this in one of my other posts, but the reason why he stops is because, he sees Winni does not want any more from him.

I will not repost the entire quote again but it says:

He saw her thus, knew that she wanted no more of him than that kiss.

That is when he grows angry and kicks over the lamp

Cut oneself off from people entirely, just because they are women or men? What if you have a good friend, who is a woman? Lawrence had many good friends who were women and no doubt some of them would have gone for him if he had shown interest. I just don't know. He had this whole group of friends along with Winifred and he went there to listen to them play instruments often in the past (in Lawrence's real life this was true as well and this family were truly close friends). Should he have to totally cut himself off from them, even after he was married?

I do not think he has to cut himself off from his friends, but I think he should have included Connie in with this friends, or at the very least, let her know that he is going to be visiting friends. And you should not be going to the house with old flings if you are engaged.

I think when he makes the sudden detour or delay to stay in this area he does it consciously. I don't think he has fully thought out his intentions or expectations though, not yet. He may have entertained the possibility of a sexual liaison, but how did he know it would even be feasible or possible. In the end, it was not and partly due to his own decision to depart.

But the whole time he makes the little detour, he is trying to justify doing so to himself.

At the begining he says:

"I may just as well" he said to himself. "Stay the night here, where I am used to the place, as go to London. I can't get to Connie's forlorn spot to-night, and I'm tired to death, so why shouldn't I do what is easiest?"

This does not sound to me like a man who is totally innocent, but rather a man trying to convince himself that he is not doing something he should not be doing.

I think the quilt and the reality of Connie pulled him back into the real world, as I said. He was 'swept-up' into her influence (withcraft) the moment he saw Winifred again, as in a dream. This was the whole idea of the story - that she had bewitched him and taken him momentary back to the past - a past that would not work for them, then or now. With the kiss, he snapped out of the dream - funny, it is sort of like the awakening of a sleeping princess, but instead the prince awakens and flees. This is another sort of irony at the end of the story, don't you think?

That is an interesting way to look at it. And yes I did get that feeling of the bewtichment. I do like the idea of the dream. And the fair tale aspect of it.

No, I think she shared in the guilt. I think it was pretty equal that way. Unlike Winifred though Coutts stopped and separated himself from her and left at the end, calling himself a 'clumsy fool'. I think that 'clumsy fool' implied way more than kicking over the lamp and starting a blaze.

I think Coutts holds more of the blame, becasue at any time he could have walked away from her. She did not force him into anything. And from that very first moment with the carriage, he could just as well gotton on the carraige with the German lady and been on his way, but becasue Winni stays to walk, he holds back to put himself in a place to be alone with her.

[Virgil]

Everything is told from his perspective; however, unlike Chekhov's "About Love", there isn't any irony that makes you doubt his story. And, all he tells us about the relationship is how it makes him feel. It's hard to see how he could be biased about his own subjective state.

I've only read this once at this point, but I agree that everything is told from his perpsective, and so we get may get swayed on the moral stance to Coutts's point of view, but I suspect that there is an irony going on and Lawrence is somewhat judgemental to Coutts. Although Lawrence is very frank sexually, he was puritanical in many respects.

Janine, I've come to see Coutts pulled in two directions. On the one hand, he wants a very proper life with a very proper wife like Connie. In that case, his lustful attraction to Winifred would make her a definite "taker of life." (Though, really, Coutts has to take responsibility for his own actions.)

On the other hand, I think Coutts finds a passion and intensity with Winifred that he can't share with Connie. So, in that sense, she's a "giver of life."

Coutts needs to make up his mind which is the more important to him and which he really needs in his life.

I think that's how I see Coutts too.

[Janine]

Just stopping in for a second before I head out again... but I am going to be the black sheep here...

Hi islandclimber, glad to see you back, since you love this story so much. I enjoyed reading your post very much. I agree with many things you bring up here, maybe not all and I anticipate you will be in direct opposition to some, your attitude of being permissive and accepting of an open relationship between the three people involved but that is ok. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and so you have stated yours. Of course Dark Muse is going to freak out when she sees it and maybe Antiquarian, too. We can all debate that part as well.

I love Coutts and Winifred as well.. I sympathize with them both entirely.. well I wouldn't even call it sympathize for I do not especially see there actions as wrong... Maybe hedonistic.. but I suppose it depends upon your outlook of what is right and wrong...

Directly addressing this issue I would imagine that men in this time slot were very much sexually frustrated and if they were not inclined to go to brothals (like James Joyce admittedly did), if they found a woman who was unihibited they often had sex with them because of simply being so restained. I don't think it was an easy time for men so I do sympathise with them. Also this was the time of woman's liberation as well and so I think with this woman, Winifred, she is a more modern thinking woman and is freer sexually than Connie would be. It was mentioned that Connie was a nice girl and back then that meant one thing. Now, if you read "Sons and Lovers" you will understand what I mean about this struggle and what Lawrence himself went through. Now going to see Winifred he probably did hope for this sexual encounter - it could be he only needed one passionate night with her and then he would depart forever. I think the way the story ends he stops consciously before it gets to that point. I can't really judge Coutts myself because I don't know how I would feel in his situaton. I imagine at his age I would feel pretty frustrated sexually. The woman the same and also I think with Winifred she is working to get him back. He does crave what she has - the physical side of loving and I don't think he gets this with his betrothed; of course; I am just surmising that, but I think the story implies this difference in the two women, through symbolism, comments, references, etc. Therefore I think their intentions are not ones to be judged. They are acting on instinct and the 'blood' attraction that Lawrence often speaks of. The pull of the moon is evident in the pull from Winifred but in the end this pull does prove to be the cold light of the moon. Winifred matches her will with Coutts when she draws away from him in their moments of passionate contact. She holds back and is like the cold light of the moon. Only the hot blaze of the oil lamp fire brings Coutts completely back into reality.

I find to be two still quite young people in all the glory and power and sexuality that their age comes with... they are just doing what would please them, what makes them happy... and why shouldn't they.. and why shouldn't Coutts, love Connie and at the same time love another... No one here really had a problem with the gallant affairs of the woman in the last story... is that only because her husband knew and was okay with it???

Well, that would be stretching it, in the early 1900's, and I do doubt that would work in the end at all. Someone would suspect and find out and jealousies would insue. There is one thing for certain, about this part of your post - Dark Muse will be livid and write something back to you, about these statements - just predicting, mind you. Well, Coutts might love two women and be undecided who he should marry or end up with, but he would not act on it, without adverse circumstances. I don't think the women, in this story, would be willing to go along with that idea.

Yes, well every story is different and the two in the other story had been married for a time, and were both bored with each other - quite a different scenerio there, islandclimber. Your rendition here sounds like the '1970's free love and sex, drugs and rock and roll' period - I was in college then!

but still, if Coutts wants to go on passionately with Winifred, while marrying Connie, then why shouldn't he? if that is what makes him happy, and if Connie is happy with him, and if Winifred is okay with this setup.. I say do what makes you happy, and if others have a problem with that, well, then they just don't have to be a part of your life... Connie can leave him if she finds out...

Really what I wrote above applies to this, also. In actuality Coutts (Lawrence) does break with his finance.

In this story though, I think Coutts is very unsure of himself and what exactly it is that he wants.. he really has no idea... he is very conflicted... as mentioned in earlier posts.. Does he love the sun or the moon.. and maybe a combination... and he returns to his former lover just to see... I love the strength of character of Winifred, I find she is a powerful woman, strong, and knows what she wants... whether she is always certain around Coutts, well that is part of loving and hating at the same time, which they both have feel for one another, but she has such character...

Very conflicted I believe....I think the moon represents the cold light and a sort of death of self. The sun is the healing light and the evening and morning star is usually the stars, Lawrence saw as his good omens. She is powerful and yet this is what drives him from her in the end. She is powerful like his Lawrence's mother and strong willed. Yes, the love-hate aspect is definitely a 'duality' that surfaces often in Lawrence's works, don't you think?

I love her sarcasm on Coutts engagement, and her thought that it is a monstrosity that he could marry for almost no apparent reason other than something to do it seems... and then their discussion on her fog of symbols, and candles in that fog.. the images elicited by this story are so abstract and so wonderful... and then the statement saying she would never buy scentless flowers just as she would never love a man only for being handsome.. I love this comparison, a scentless flower to a shallow man... though I do have to say I love some scentless flowers, they have such a mystery to them at times... and as later in the story she lifts her hands towards him like small white orchids.. and orchids are usually scentless.. such amazing imagery though...

Yes, I love the abstract images tooo like the scentless flowers and the candles - even the candles that Coutts lights in Winifred's house - the piano candles. I love the descriptive writing. It is so lovely and so beautiful describing the night and the skies at various times. The scentless flowers are mysterious in this story, as well. I do like that - "a scentless flower to a shallow man" - that is an interesting idea. I think he it indicates something to me; that Winifred does not view Coutts as a shallow person but someone with depth and complexity.

and then how she is cruel to the ordinary, commonplace part of him... but I think he is cruel to the ordinary part of her.. they both seem to want to escape the ordinary, and love the extraordinary that the other has to offer but hate the ordinary, petty side that comes along...

Maybe hate the ordinary everyday part of each. I can see your point here and your observation makes sense. They could not exist in the 'everyday' sense.

in the end though, Coutts is not strong enough, in mind, in personality, in character, to be with Winifred... I think that is all he needed to realize.. he is not the type that can just enjoy life in whatever way pleases them, day by day, hour by hour, even second by second.. he has faint glimmers of that in him, but he can not be a true free spirited hedonist himself... whereas it appears she can...

This part, you bring up some good points. Coutts is torn and he is very weak in his mind as to what it is he really wants in a woman at this point in his life. I think, truly, he would be bored with Connie and that would end up being a very dead and stagnant marriage. I don't know if Lawrence would advocate them being free spirited heonistic because in actuality Lawrence did not accept that sort of thinking and wanted to remain faithful to one person - his spouse - until he died. It did not exactly end up that way on his wife's part, but it is also been conjectured that he did have an affair or tried to have one towards the end of their marriage.
I think this idea of hedonism would be better described by Lawrence's idea of his blood philosophy which is some thing Virgil is much better explaining than I am. I just know it instinctively but he knows how to work it.

I could go on forever.. I really do love this story.. even if I despised everything else Lawrence wrote, which of course I don't, but if I did, I would still be a Lawrence fan just for this one story...

Yes, it is a very good story; I think so, too.

[Virgil]

What can I say, for me betrayal and infidelity is the one unforgivable sin.

Spoken like a true Italian-American. I still remember you're a relative of Crazy Joe Gallo. God ep the boyfriend that cheats on you.

And the way I see it, the engagement period is not the period of deciding if you are or are not with the right person, that is what dating is for, presumably once you propose you have decided you want to be with that person.

Yes. Lawrence could have easily written this story without mentioning Constance (that's a very particular name, something that Coutts does not adhere to) or without mentioning that Coutts is engaged. The very fact that he does sets up a moral stance. Now Lawrence does this to either undermine the morality or slant our opinion of Coutts. Islandclimber I think believes the former, while Dark Muse thinks the latter. I need to read the story once again before I consolidate my opinion.

[Dark Muse]

Spoken like a true Italian-American. I still remember you're a relative of Crazy Joe Gallo. God ep the boyfriend that cheats on you.

LOL

I cannot aruge with you there, and for once I am not aruging with anyone in this thread

[Janine]

"Connie can leave him if she finds out."

Well, you're admitting Coutts is being very deceitful, and being very deceitful is wrong.

He shouldn't do it because it's deceitful and it's wrong to be deceitful to one you love or are committed to. It's wrong to betray someone's trust. By his guilt and thoughts, we know, without a doubt, Connie would NOT be happy with it. And while Coutts and Connie are not yet married, Coutts has committed himself to her.

Honestly, I don't think anyone who defends his betrayal of Connie would feel the same way if someone they loved were betraying them, and then said, "Well, you can just leave."

The reason I can cut Coutts some slack is because he knows he's doing the wrong thing and he feels guilty and bad about it. If he had told Winifred, "Well, Connie can just leave if she doesn't like us having a little fun," I'd hate the guy more than DM does, and she seems to hate him quite a bit already.

Antiquarian, good post and your brought up some good points here. I don't agree with island about - 'she can just leave'...No, that is not too nice a thing. Nor, that they should just go about doing as the please, Winifred and Coutts, with no consequences. I agree that he is doing wrong - Coutts - and he does know it, as he is being tempted by miss 'witchy-woman' every step of the way...of course, I don't blame her, he went there and sent her the message (by his presence) that he wanted her to egg him on. I do think that Connie, most likely, is not the woman for Coutts and he knows it subconsiously or maybe even consciously - why else would he be so unsure of himself and take the detour to the other woman?

Yes, Dark Muse, undoubtably, is going to freak-out, when she reads island's post. That should be interesting.

Anyway, I have been desperately trying to get off this computer and watch a movie or something. I am so addicted now to this thread, and the movie thread is fun, too. This thread is hyper-active already and I just hate to miss anything. I think I am going to depart now and rest up on my sofa - my poor brain is aching. I will re-read that commentary tonight before I fall asleep - maybe that way it will sink into my brain.

[Virgil]

That is true of today; however, in either time periods, people are allowed an 'out' if they truly decide the marriage is not for them or right for the couple. I knew someone recently who called off her wedding. It was not an easy decision to make, but I told her it was her life and she had to please herself and not do what everyone else expected her to do. As it turned out, it is for the better. I don't think that is betrayal, to decide not to marry, after one is engaged. My neighbor and his girl friend broke off an engagement, of about 5 years, and married other people. Better to decide before the wedding, than afterward.

Except that Coutts is not in a quandry. He's not even ambivilant about Connie. He's sneakily seeking out this old girl friend. Where do we even get that he's unsure about Connie?

Give him time; I believe he was going to tell her had he seen Winifred and realised he still loved her. He only went there as a social visit and it turned into more than that, but then the fire stopped him and brought him to his senses.

Oh I don't think it was just a social visit. There is a passage where they discuss why do people do what they do. This was no accident. Frakly I think you're reading into the story there Janine. There is no evidence that he was going to tell Connie anything.