D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[Virgil]

So, does everyone think that Coutts just sought out the old girlfriend for sex? Seriously, is that all they had going for them? I am just curious to know what you all think. Was there more attraction between them than the physical?

Now that I've read it a second time, I'm going to have to fined some way to understand this story. To be frank, I'm a little confused. To answer Janine's question, he had the opportunity for sex, but actually runs away. He doesn't take it up or follow through, dependng on who is doing the seducing. If he is trying to seduce Winifred, then he doesn't follow through. If Winifred is trying to seduce him, which I'm now leaning to as a reading, then he doesn't take it up. I think the inerpretation of the story rests on who is seducing whom. What are your feelings on this?

[Dark Muse]

Now that I've read it a second time, I'm going to have to fined some way to understand this story. To be frank, I'm a little confused. To answer Janine's question, he had the opportunity for sex, but actually runs away. He doesn't take it up or follow through, dependng on who is doing the seducing. If he is trying to seduce Winifred, then he doesn't follow through. If Winifred is trying to seduce him, which I'm now leaning to as a reading, then he doesn't take it up. I think the inerpretation of the story rests on who is seducing whom. What are your feelings on this?

Personally I think Winni is the one that really puts an end to thier meeting together, becasue it says that he realized all she wanted from him was that kiss, and that is when he starts the fire and than flees the scene

That is true, DM.

Oh, I see both sides and feel so stuck in the middle! LOL

I think we should discuss some of the symbolism and imagery now. Janine, you're our leader, what do you say?

Yes I agree, I think on the Coutts issue we should all just agree to disagree, we all have our opinons about him, I am in favor of exploring other asepcts of the story now

[Virgil]

That is true, DM.

Oh, I see both sides and feel so stuck in the middle! LOL

I think we should discuss some of the symbolism and imagery now. Janine, you're our leader, what do you say?

Before we get to symbolism and imagery, can we start by understanding the structure? It's not complicated, but it is interesting.

I divide the story into four parts. The first part is the gathering at Laura's house of the various guests, culminating with the music scene. The second part is the journey home, where Coutts and Wini split off from the German Lady and walk home. Here Lawrence has the opportunity give the moon imagery. The third part is where WIni invites Coutts into her home. And finally the fourth part is the climatic kiss. Lawrence seems to take the characters through a journey. He could have had the climatic kiss occur at Laura's house in some side room, or he could have had Coutts go straight to Wini's house on some pretense or he could have had them get to her home in a matter of a sentence or two. The journey is unneccesary structurally. So there is the opportunity to integrate thematic elements in that scene.

Personally I think Winni is the one that really puts an end to thier meeting together, becasue it says that he realized all she wanted from him was that kiss, and that is when he starts the fire and than flees the scene

Well, it gets interupted by the flaming lamp. When a woman invites a man into her home at eleven at night (she invites him in), induces a passionate kiss (she moans and goes near "him like a suddenly risen flower"), and "offers her throat," I would think she's inviting him to something more.

[Dark Muse]

But all Winifred wanted was a kiss, and she got that. Coutts wanted more, but he could see Winifred only wanted the kiss, bolding is mine:

The hurt became so great it brought him out of the reeling stage to distinct consciousness. 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 startled; there stood the objects of the room, stark; there, close below his eyes, were the half-sunk lashes of the woman, swooning on her unnatural 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 vein, with heavy intensity, while his heart grew dead with misery and despair. This woman gave him anguish and a cutting-short like death; to the other woman he was false. As he shivered with suffering, he opened his eyes again, and caught sight of the pure ivory of the lamp. His heart flashed with rage.

Winifred just wanted to toy with him. He is the one who wanted more, but then he's angry with himself for wanting her.

The fire starts because he kicks over the lamp out of anger when he sees that Winni really did not want to go any further with him

[Virgil]

The fire starts because he kicks over the lamp out of anger when he sees that Winni really did not want to go any further with him

But remember, we have only his word for how Winifred felt. We never get Winifred's viewpoint. I agree with DM. Coutts started the fire out his rage at Winifred not wanting more.

Good point, but she hangs on him despite it all. I don't know. Is Wini some sort of temptress to destroy his fedility but not satisfy him? What are her motivations?

[Dark Muse]

*Gasp* how could you? *points to avatar*

Good point, but she hangs on him despite it all. I don't know. Is Wini some sort of temptress to destroy his fedility but not satisfy him? What are her motivations?

In a way I think she wants to prove to him that he really should not get married, that he is not fit to be married, and that such is not what he really wants. It seems to me, that she was trying to prove to him that they can never truly escape each other, even if they admit they cannot live together either.

Neither one of them were really meant to be married.

[Janine]

Now that I've read it a second time, I'm going to have to fined some way to understand this story. To be frank, I'm a little confused. To answer Janine's question, he had the opportunity for sex, but actually runs away. He doesn't take it up or follow through, dependng on who is doing the seducing. If he is trying to seduce Winifred, then he doesn't follow through. If Winifred is trying to seduce him, which I'm now leaning to as a reading, then he doesn't take it up. I think the inerpretation of the story rests on who is seducing whom. What are your feelings on this?

Hi Virgil who looks like Janine; enjoying my avatar today, Virg? You robber you!

Well, this is what I did; I went out for awhile; I had to go do some errands. I was hoping to get away from all this arguing/disagreeing and instead I have to admit, I did mull it all over, when I was out. So I am back and I can say only one thing...I was getting perturbed about obsessing on this whole question of 'who is right and who is wrong'. We wouldn't even have a story, if no one did wrong. We would have this nice guy, Coutts, who was very upstanding and followed all the rules of being engaged. The conflicts in this story are what make it interesting, and like many stories throughout literature, conflict and deception are common themes, along with many others. There would not be many good stories, actually, if no one did any wrong. Why would we need them? It is almost laughable, that no one condempted Syson in 'The Shades of Spring', when he went to see his former girlfriend; for God's sake he was married at the time, but it was unhappily. It seems that wasn't as 'unforgivable' a gesture, as this one where Coutts slips and goes 'spur of the moment' and sees his old girlfriend, on an impulse. Also, no one seems to condemn the officer who falls for "Anna Karenina", nor the man who has sex with an under-aged women in "Lolita"; this list in literature could go on and on...

The bottom line is this - lets just drop this whole disagreeing part. It truly is insignificant. It happened and we have to deal with it now. This whole constant bickering back and forth, about how we view the two main characters and their code of morals, is senseless.

Virgil and Antiquarian both asked what we should do next. I feel I should post some text and underline key words, phrases and we should talk about the writing....it is so very beautiful and even spring-like.

Dark Muse, I agree that we will disagree forever, on this issue, and the other one you commented on about revenge, which hit a nerve with me, I admit. I am a very non-violent person, so I just could not understand that way of thinking. But, that is irrelevant, and I was only trying to show, how things far worse than breaking a trust, are sometimes applauded.

So everyone asked me what we should do next and I think first, we should all stop being so 'judgemental', because we really are not learning a thing about this fine story, by going around in circles. Instead, we are just discussing our own ideas of morality.


I see the story in 3 distinct sections, not four. Usually Lawrence uses three but I will check that over tonight in the text.

Dark Muse and Antiquarian, I don't agree with this at all.

The fire starts because he kicks over the lamp out of anger when he sees that Winni really did not want to go any further with him

It was not deliberately set, why would he set fire to her house? No, I don't believe that one minute. The text reads:

A sudden involuntary blow of his foot, and he sent the lamp-stand spinning.

How can something 'involuntary' be intentional? I am lost here.

[Virgil]

*Gasp* how could you? *points to avatar*

I'm feeling impish tonight.

In a way I think she wants to prove to him that he really should not get married, that he is not fit to be married, and that such is not what he really wants. It seems to me, that she was trying to prove to him that they can never truly escape each other, even if they admit they cannot live together either.

Neither one of them were really meant to be married.

Good thought. You might be right.

[Janine]

Did you have to do that Virgil? I am confused enough as it is.

Did anyone even notice my post, since you had my avy first? I think I am going to bed. I have had it on this thread today!

Good point, but she hangs on him despite it all. I don't know. Is Wini some sort of temptress to destroy his fedility but not satisfy him? What are her motivations?

Virgil, if you wrote this, I do agree with you - yes, I think the metaphor here is, Wini is a kind of temptress and has bewitched him. She definitely is still hanging onto him; she really doesn't want to let him go. She is controlling like his mother and putting him into a bind; he can't win either way. The ending represents the circle of fire and frees him from the spell, get it?

I will post the text tomorrow. I am too tired out now and a little crabby, too...I admit it....
geez I hope I don't get like you, Virgil, - M ,B & D!

[Virgil]

Hi Virgil who looks like Janine; enjoying my avatar today, Virg? You robber you!

You're behind the times Janine.

So everyone asked me what we should do next and I think first, we should all stop being so 'judgemental', because we really are not learning a thing about this fine story, by going around in circles. Instead, we are just discussing our own ideas of morality.

I've come to the conclusion they are both morally suspect. It is important to come to some understanding on this though. Lawrence creates all sorts of moral implications. He beckons us to be judgemental.

"You didn't tell us you were going away. Why didn't you?" asked Laura, in her distinct tones, between laughing and reproach. Coutts looked at her ironically, so that she fidgeted with some crumbs on the cloth.

"I don't know," he said. "Why do we do things?"

"I'm sure I don't know. Why do we? Because we want to, I suppose," and she ended again with a little run of laughter. Things were so amusing, and she was so healthy.

"Why do we do things, Pater?" she suddenly asked in a loud voice, glancing with a little chuckle of laughter at Coutts.

"Ay--why do we do things? What things?" said the old man, beginning to laugh with his daughter.

"Why, any of the things that we do."

"Eh? Oh!" The old man was illuminated, and delighted. "Well, now, that's a difficult question. I remember, when I was a little younger, we used to discuss Free Will--got very hot about it . . ." He laughed, and Laura laughed, then said, in a high voice:

"Oh! Free Will! We shall really think you're passé, if you revive that, Pater."

This is actually beckoning us to question why Coutts and Wini act the way they do. Are they under free will or is there something that is controlling them?

[Dark Muse]

Dark Muse and Antiquarian, I don't agree with this at all.

It was not deliberately set, why would he set fire to her house? No, I don't believe that one minute. The text reads:


How can something 'involuntary' be intentional? I am lost here.

Right before the lamp is ends up knocked over it says this:

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.

So he fixes his attention upon the lamp, and he is in a state of rage, and than next thing you know the lamp is kicked over.

Though he might not have conciousuly been thinking I am going to kick over that lamp, I think the two events are linked, so I do not think it was completely accidental and innocent.

[Janine]

You're behind the times Janine.

Well, when I was writing this, you did still have my avatar. Then you quickly changed it. Yes, now I see you have DM's. By the time I post this no doubt you will have stollen someone else's

I've come to the conclusion they are both morally suspect. It is important to come to some understanding on this though. Lawrence creates all sorts of moral implications. He beckons us to be judgemental.

It takes two to tango...

Virgil, it may be Lawrence's intention, your last statement; but, do you think we could start from the beginning of the story tomorrow and work up to the end? Geez, it is not even Monday yet and we filled up 5 pages, mostly of arguing and disagreement. I really want to go back to the beginning of the story and work it along, like we have done others. Maybe things will become clearer to us that way. I know I am confused as heck now.

This is actually beckoning us to question why Coutts and Wini act the way they do. Are they under free will or is there something that is controlling them?

I think the story mentions 'Free Will' in the very begining at Laura's house. I was trying to figure out why it was capitalized.

Quotes by Dark Muse

So he fixes his attention upon the lamp, and he is in a state of rage, and than next thing you know the lamp is kicked over.

Though he might not have conciousuly been thinking I am going to kick over that lamp, I think the two events are linked, so I do not think it was completely accidental and innocent.

I was well aware of those lines preceeding, the part I quoted. I don't want to keep arguing the point here. I read this section over several times in the past few days and I came to the final conclusion, that the lamp accident was not intentional. Believe what you may, Dark Muse, but I interpretted it for myself as 'unintentional'. I don't think Coutts would be so cruel as to cause either Wini or her house harm. I really want to drop the issue and not be drawn back into a difference of opinion on this issue and another endless and pointless discussion on a matter of opinion. I am too weary for that now....maybe I am just overly tired.

[Dark Muse]

I do not think he did it with the intent of atucally causing harm. When he kicked over the lamp, I do not think he was thinking of starting a fire.

I do think he did it out of an act of rage, and that was just the nearest thing in which to act out his temper upon, but I do not think he was acutally trying to start a fire.

And that is all I will say on it.

[Janine]

Good, then you agree it was not intentional. Let us leave it at that. I agree he was feeling rage at the time the accident happened. How it really happened we can only surmiss, since there is not much information on the incident. Like I said, I read that part over a few times because I was questioning it at first. I came up with my own conclusion in the end.

And that is all I am going to say on the matter.

[Dark Muse]

Janine Anna Karenina is my all time favorite book. So many people just hate Anna! Not Vronsky, no, I suppose because he's not married, but so many people hate Anna.

LOL yeah I hated Anna though I did not necessarily like Vronsky I thought Anna was worse.