D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[Quark]

Once again he is seeing a difference in Winifred towards him; as later we see the surprise he has about the red flowers on the piano.

Yeah, Winifred's manner is slightly changed from what Coutts remembers. The way Coutts has distanced himself from her has made it necessary for her to find some boldness. It's clear she struggling with this, though. She shrinks from directly asking Coutts key questions, and she regrets having bought her red flowers. This is a huge turn-off for Coutts who finds this timidness odious. Part of why he hates this so is because he's feeling the same tension and anticipation the reader is. For the reader this is slightly exhilarating, but for him it's probably just uncomfortable. The other reason why he might hate Winifred's reserve is because it makes a relationship with her impossible. Coutts says later, "for if I breathe outwards, in the positive movement toward you, you move off." Coutts hates her because he knows that any advance he makes toward her will be repelled. Winifred, on the other hand, loves Coutts--now that he's engaged--because it restrains him from making any advances. His desire for her is just a wistful longing which is safe for her. Coutts concludes: "If I draw in a vacant sigh of soulfulness, you flow near my lips." I can see why this would frustrate Coutts.

So even though he is seeing her now so much altered, he hates this ‘outspokenness’ in Winifred.

You mean he hates she cannot bear outspokenness, right? That's what the line says.

I was wondering what significance the ‘opposite darkness’ has. Why did the valley ‘re-echoe with vague thread?’ I know he feels a threat here, but wondered why exactly the valley is described this way – is it civilization encroaching on nature? I especially love this ‘gold-and-black’ snake image to describe the train and I think that futher indicates a threat in Coutt’s mind; snakes would for Lawrence. I am not sure – is it actually heading seawards?...Or does he know then that he is headed in the wrong direction – like the train – the opposite direction?

Considering the Pagan symbolism used in the story, snakes in Paganism were a good thing. It was Christianity that made them bad. Snakes in ancient times stood for rebirth, transformation, sometimes eternal life, because of fact that they shed their skin.

I can't help but think this is a sexual allusion.

I think all three of you are right. Virgil is right to suggest that the image is quite sexual, and DM is right that it symbolizes change and newness. The change would be from Connie to Winifred; the sexual allusion hardly needs to be spelled out. Primarily, though, I think Janine is right in bringing up the odd, threatening noise it makes. This indicates that the train is meant to be a warning. The ominous--and oddly sensual--train warns Coutts that he shouldn't be pursuing this encounter.

Is the charm that Wini puts on Coutts a sexual spell?

Yes.

[Virgil]

Yeah, Winifred's manner is slightly changed from what Coutts remembers. The way Coutts has distanced himself from her has made it necessary for her to find some boldness. It's clear she struggling with this, though. She shrinks from directly asking Coutts key questions, and she regrets having bought her red flowers. This is a huge turn-off for Coutts who finds this timidness odious. Part of why he hates this so is because he's feeling the same tension and anticipation the reader is. For the reader this is slightly exhilarating, but for him it's probably just uncomfortable. The other reason why he might hate Winifred's reserve is because it makes a relationship with her impossible. Coutts says later, "for if I breathe outwards, in the positive movement toward you, you move off." Coutts hates her because he knows that any advance he makes toward her will be repelled. Winifred, on the other hand, loves Coutts--now that he's engaged--because it restrains him from making any advances. His desire for her is just a wistful longing which is safe for her. Coutts concludes: "If I draw in a vacant sigh of soulfulness, you flow near my lips." I can see why this would frustrate Coutts.

It sounds like you're speaking from experience Quark. You seem to know how Coutts' feels so well.

Just a note. Janine sent me a quick PM. She's having a bad time with her eye and will not be on the forum tonight and possibly tomorrow as well.

[Quark]

Just a note. Janine sent me a quick PM. She's having a bad time with her eye and will not be on the forum tonight and possibly tomorrow as well.

She said something about that in a previous post. I hope it's not too serious.

It sounds like you're speaking from experience Quark. You seem to know how Coutts' feels so well.

Well, you keep pushing me away Virgil.

[Dark Muse]

Well, you keep pushing me away Virgil.

OMG LOL

[Janine]

OMG LOL

me too!!!....poor Quark!...nobody wuves him......



I will be here soon...probably tonight. Eyes are mostly all better now.

[Virgil]

me too!!!....poor Quark!...nobody wuves him......



I will be here soon...probably tonight. Eyes are mostly all better now.

Great about your eyes Janine. I should be here tonight too, as long as Quark keeps his hands to himself. Tomorrow my wife and I have tickets to Camelot: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/ar...ic/09came.html and http://www.pbs.org/livefromlincolnce...lot_2008-05-09. My mother-in-law said it was broadcast on PBS last night. So why did I need tickets? I'm sure it will be better in person.

[Janine]

Great about your eyes Janine. I should be here tonight too, as long as Quark keeps his hands to himself. Tomorrow my wife and I have tickets to Camelot: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/ar...ic/09came.html and http://www.pbs.org/livefromlincolnce...lot_2008-05-09. My mother-in-law said it was broadcast on PBS last night. So why did I need tickets? I'm sure it will be better in person.

Virgil, Wow, that is great! I have not looked at the links yet, but I love "Camelot" and once had the golden oportunity of a lifetime to see it onstage in NYC on Broadway - it was the version with Richard Harris as Arthur - what an experience that was! I was always crazy over Richard Harris. Is this the stage play you will see tomorrow? Oh, I am so jealous. I want to go, too. I loved that show! Yes, why of course, it will be waaaay better live. You will just adore it. I know I did and I love all the music so much. Your wife will love it, too.
I had to come back in here and edit, after I looked at the link. Wow, the great Gabriel Bryne is starring as King Arthur - I adore him! This sounds like a great production, Virgil. Now I am really jealous. Here are the song highlights: Among the many musical highlights in Camelot are Arthur's "I Wonder What the King is Doing Tonight," Guenevere's "The Lusty Month of May" and Lancelot's "If Ever I Would Leave You."...love them all, but last one is one of all my all time-favorite songs...awwww....lucky you! Do enjoy it. I think I will go and listen to the soundtrack tonight. I have it on CD. I read the two articles now and the stage set and orchestra sound great and very dynamic.

Well, I certainly hope our beloved Quark, keeps his hands off of you... I know better, he liked girls - he told me he used a yellow marker in part of the text to one of L's book and I suggested he needed to read "Lady Chatterly's Lover"; that he would need a whole box of those markers!

I was out and my eyes feel sort of funny again. The weather here is cooler and so damp - horrible day and will be cold tonight I predict. Where did that healing Lawrence sun go to? I have to be careful still about the eyes, or I will relapse. I hope to be on tonight later. Did everyone finish up discussing this part of the text that I posted? It seemed there might be a few more things to point out about it; that post of text is a page or so back, by now.

If all of you say you are done with it and want to shove on, I will post another section to talk about.

[Janine]

I guess we are ready to move on; if anything was missed from the last section of text, feel free to post those comments anytime.

Next Part of Text

"I find a lucky pebble. I think, now I'll throw it over my left shoulder, and wish. So I spit over my little finger, and throw the white pebble behind me, and then, when I want to wish, I'm done. I say to myself: 'Wish,' and myself says back: 'I don't want anything.' I say again: 'Wish, you fool,' but I'm as dumb of wishes as a newt. And then, because it rather frightens me, I say in a hurry: 'A million of money.' Do you know what to wish for when you see the new moon?"

What does everyone think of the significance of this paragraph? My impression of that Coutts says is that he really doesn’t want for anything. He is being truly honest? This tone seems to me to be cynical or maybe careless in someway.

She laughed quickly.
"I think so," she said. [b]"But my wish varies."[b]
"I wish mine did," he said, whimsically lugubrious.
She took his hand in a little impulse of love.

I does seem to be that his statement sets up opposing thoughts between the two and the continue to go on speaking in a code to be interpreted by each about one another. When she takes up his hand it is an impulsive gesture and the text says of love. Therefore does she really love Coutts?

They walked hand in hand on the ridge of the down, bunches of lights shining below, the big radiance of London advancing like a wonder in front.

This sets the scene of a very magical romantic night, with more references to the light as in the words ‘shining’, ‘radiance’, and ‘wonder’….much like Quark pointed out before, as it they are thrown into this world of night and fantasy as in “Midsummer’s Nights Dream.” Note that they now are joined ‘hand in hand’.

"You know . . ." he began, then stopped.
"I don't . . ." she ironically urged.
"Do you want to?" he laughed.
"Yes; one is never at peace with oneself till one understands."
"Understands what?" he asked brutally. He knew she meant that she wanted to understand the situation he and she were in.
"How to resolve the discord," she said, balking the issue. He would have liked her to say: "What you want of me."

Interesting passage and was not sure what to make of the key words entirely such as ‘ironically’…also what was he about to say when he began “You know…..?” Why exactly did she say “I don’t…” Did she wish things to remain mysterious between them? She admits then that one is never at peace until they resolve the discord and he knew she wanted to understand their position at this time. He holds back from saying “What you want of me.” – both seem afraid to actually come out and say what is on their minds. Why can’t they openly confront each other? Would that ruin the magic and mystery of the evening?

"Your foggy weather of symbolism, as usual," he said.
"The fog is not of symbols," she replied, in her metallic voice of displeasure. "It may be symbols are candles in a fog."
"I prefer my fog without candles. I'm the fog, eh? Then I'll blow out your candle, and you'll see me better. Your candles of speech, symbols and so forth, only lead you more wrong. I'm going to wander blind, and go by instinct, like a moth that flies and settles on the wooden box his mate is shut up in."

This is one of my favorite passages, and these images, but I am not sure I clearly understand what he is saying when he says “I prefer my fog without candles, then asks, “I’m the fog, eh?” Is he then saying that all this symbolism just leads him astray and makes him blind to any truth? If she says that symbols may be candles in a fog and he wishes to do away with them, then I suppose this means he would like to be straightforward with her and not play these symbolic games, as she would have these symbols be interpreted by each.
The last line seems to indicate that he is thinking instinctively and wandering blindly or employing Lawrence’s idea of blood-consciousness and Winifred is using mind games. He would therefore be attracted to her wooden box of mystery, yet she is shut tight within herself. The moth was mentioned earlier as being attracted to the flame and now it is mentioned again as settling on a ‘wooden box’ his mate, would be ‘shut up’ within. I like the analogies in this particular passage and how they relate back to the earlier mention of the moth and flame. Also, does his reference to himself as a fog indictate his proceeding blindly or by instinct (blood-consciously)?

"Isn't it an ignis fatuus you are flying after, at that rate?" she said.
"Maybe, for if I breathe outwards, in the positive movement towards you, you move off. If I draw in a vacant sigh of soulfulness, you flow nearly to my lips."
"This is a very interesting symbol," she said, with sharp sarcasm.

I especially like that middle line, as has been already made mention to earlier. It is so specific and the meaning quite clear. If he holds back, then Winifred comes towards him and the opposite. It seems this clearly states the game they are playing or the game that Winifred is leading him along in playing with her. I think by acting in this way she is building suspense and also tantalizing Coutts further. He knows how to keep him interested and yet at bay at nearly the same time.
What exactly is the translation of "ignis fatuus" - Virgil, you are good at these Latin/Greek phrases. It is 'fatal'... something..or....flame? duh, help...I never had Latin in school.

He hated her, truly. She hated him. Yet they held hands fast as they walked.
"We are just the same as we were a year ago," he laughed. But he hated her, for all his laughter.
When, at the "Swan and Sugar-Loaf", they mounted the car, she climbed to the top, in spite of the sharp night. They nestled side by side, shoulders caressing, and all the time that they ran under the round lamps neither spoke.

Clearly and honestly stated is the fact, that they both truly hate each other. I think there is a fine line between love and hate; both are strong emotions. Even though, they feel this strong impulse of hate towards each other, they hold fast their hands and can’t seem let go; true of their relationship to each other as well. He makes it clear he feels they are no more advanced, than they were when they were together, a year ago. Then he laughs and yet hates her for her laughter as a reaction to his. In the car they continue to stay close, ‘nestled side by side, shoulders caressing.’ I wondered what the significance of her going to the top of the car was, and 'in spite of the sharp night'? Any ideas on that, anyone?

[Dark Muse]

I cannot coment on everything right now, but there were a couple things I wanted to say for the time being.

What does everyone think of the significance of this paragraph? My impression of that Coutts says is that he really doesn’t want for anything. He is being truly honest? This tone seems to me to be cynical or maybe careless in someway.

When I read this, I interepted to mean, he did not really know what he wants. He cannot think of something to wish for, becasue he does not know, what it is that he should wish for, or that he wants in his life, but than he feels as if there should be something, that a person ought to have something they can wish for, so he just throws in the million dollars becasue he does not truly know what else he wants.

I does seem to be that his statement sets up opposing thoughts between the two and the continue to go on speaking in a code to be interpreted by each about one another. When she takes up his hand it is an impulsive gesture and the text says of love. Therefore does she really love Coutts?

I am not completely convinced that she truly loves him. I think that inspite the fact that it says it was a "gesture of love" the use of the word impuslive, could suggest it being more of an act of passion, or out of a physical attraction.

Interesting passage and was not sure what to make of the key words entirely such as ‘ironically’…also what was he about to say when he began “You know…..?” Why exactly did she say “I don’t…” Did she wish things to remain mysterious between them? She admits then that one is never at peace until they resolve the discord and he knew she wanted to understand their position at this time. He holds back from saying “What you want of me.” – both seem afraid to actually come out and say what is on their minds. Why can’t they openly confront each other? Would that ruin the magic and mystery of the evening?

I think in a way that the discord is really all they have within thier relationship, and I think in part they really do not know what there is between them, and niether one can really answer the questions. As I belive it is primarialy a physical attraction between them, the tension and the firction they create with each other, is what helps egg them on. If they were to remove that, than I do not think there would really be anything left between them, becasue I think thier "love" lacks any real depth.

[Quark]

Well, I certainly hope our beloved Quark, keeps his hands off of you... I know better, he liked girls

Yes, Quark likes girls. I was just trying to creep out Virgil.

I guess we are ready to move on; if anything was missed from the last section of text, feel free to post those comments anytime.

Thanks for posting the next chunk of the story. I probably won't get a chance to post until tomorrow night, though. I'm leaving today, and I want to post on the Chekhov thread before I go.

[Virgil]

Backing up just a little, I definitely think the "spell" Winifred puts on Coutts is sexual, though she may not wish it to be since we learn a kiss is all she wants. I think Coutts know Winifred is not the kind to marry, something a part of him desires, but she does represent the wilder side of him, something another part of him does want to indulge in. However, I don't think the moment of seeing the train is the moment in which Coutts becomes bewitched by Winifred. I think it occurs much earlier, perhaps when he's mentally comparing her to the Venus statue, or when he allows himself to miss the tram with the German lady so he can walk with Winifred.

Everyone keeps saying that Winifred is not the type to marry. What makes her not the type to marry? Yes she's toying with Coutts in this episode, but is this a one time thing or a serial type of thing? For all we know she may be getting back at Coutts for something in their ealier relationship. What I'm trying to say is that I don't see anything in Wini that constitutes someone who goes around like this with many guys. We don't know of course, but Coutts doesn't indicate this about her character.

[Dark Muse]

I think the fact that she has such an unfavorable view of marriage suggests she herself is not the type to marry. Personally I do not think that Winni is objecting to Coutts marrying Connie in specific, but to the idea of Coutts marrying at all.

When they are talking Coutts says to her "Whou should nevery marry anyone"

and she replies "And you must offer your head to harness and be bridled and driven?"

I do not thin Winni is in favor of the idea of marraige at all.

[Janine]

I think the fact that she has such an unfavorable view of marriage suggests she herself is not the type to marry. Personally I do not think that Winni is objecting to Coutts marrying Connie in specific, but to the idea of Coutts marrying at all.

When they are talking Coutts says to her "Whou should nevery marry anyone"

and she replies "And you must offer your head to harness and be bridled and driven?"

I do not thin Winni is in favor of the idea of marraige at all.

Well, I am here now; but after I write this I have to go back and answer others of the posts. I seem to have caused a stir here and some opposition to thinks I said in my commentary on last part of text I posted. Good! Means you are all awake and noticed. I guess some opposition keeps you all interested.

Ok, Dark Muse, in answer to you answer to Virgil's post; I agree with V that we can't truly assume that Winifred is against marriage herself, and especially to Coutts. I think she would like to control him and be part of his life (maybe as Lawrence viewed his mother); now that might not equate to marriage, but she certainly would like something with him - an arrangement, I don't know...maybe it would be marriage she would eventually want or an engagement. I don't feel we have enough information to determine what Winifred truly wants. I think that Antiquarian put it well when she said 'neither of them knew what they wanted'. I agree with that idea. So how can we definitively say Winifred is against marriage? I think definitely she is against Coutts marrying with Connie. That I am sure of. I think that if Coutts were to marry Connie sure enough, it would be as she stated '"And you must offer your head to harness and be bridled and driven?" He admitted as much when he brought up the idea of a cross to be nailed to, this idea indicating his life and marriage to Connie.


I am going now to answer the other posts above.

[Janine]

I cannot coment on everything right now, but there were a couple things I wanted to say for the time being.

Good, glad you saw the next part of the text I posted last night.

When I read this, I interepted to mean, he did not really know what he wants. He cannot think of something to wish for, becasue he does not know, what it is that he should wish for, or that he wants in his life, but than he feels as if there should be something, that a person ought to have something they can wish for, so he just throws in the million dollars becasue he does not truly know what else he wants.

Yes, Dark Muse, I would agree with you on all of this. I think he truly did not know what he wanted. He is quite confused about what he wants long term in his life.

I am not completely convinced that she truly loves him. I think that inspite the fact that it says it was a "gesture of love" the use of the word impuslive, could suggest it being more of an act of passion, or out of a physical attraction.

I don't know for sure; she might love him for what he was and apparently he is quite intelligent and a deep thinker, that is evident by the way the spar verbally with each other. I know the actual person, Helen, who this character was fashioned after may have felt some degree of love for Lawrence, who is the model for Coutts. I think that a lot of woman loved Lawrence, but that does not mean they thought him attainable. He just had a natural attractiveness for women and it was not such a physical thing as his whole personality, etc. It could be such in this instant that Helen does feel something deeper than just passion or sex attraction to Coutts. Afterall at the end she is the one to withdraw her affections first. If it was merely sexual attraction why would she care and why would she then stop when he wanted to make love to her. If she wanted nothing further than that then they would have proceeded and not let anything obtruct their in the path to passion. Something vital stopped them and it started with Winifred pulling away. I believe she did want Coutts but she did not just want his only his sexual being, he wanted way more than that.

I think in a way that the discord is really all they have within thier relationship, and I think in part they really do not know what there is between them, and niether one can really answer the questions. As I belive it is primarialy a physical attraction between them, the tension and the firction they create with each other, is what helps egg them on. If they were to remove that, than I do not think there would really be anything left between them, becasue I think thier "love" lacks any real depth.

I don't think the 'discord' is all they had going for their relationship to each other. I don't think either of them would be that shallow. I don't see either as shallow people or angry mean people who just want to take and never give back; or even try and get even. I just think they both are in a state of individual 'discord', within themselves; not just in relation to each other. Both are restless and don't know how to proceed to any kind of real conclusion, so they merely play this game verbally with each other, egging each other on in a kind of dreamlike fantasy world of their own making. I think they enjoy this game more than anything - yes, as you said 'the tension and the friction' is evident and it drives them on to pursue each other. It is a contest of wills, in one way. Whether the love lacks depth is not so important to me, but I think if it was realised fully, eventually it would destroy itself entirely as a flame burns out...I think this, because they seem to ignite a fire beneath each other (call it passion) and then they like to play with the fire and they would eventually just be consumed by it. I think this has a lot to do with their individual 'wills'.

[Janine]

Yes, Quark likes girls. I was just trying to creep out Virgil.

that you did! I hope you meet a nice one soon, Quark, so you don't have to go on creeping out V.

Thanks for posting the next chunk of the story. I probably won't get a chance to post until tomorrow night, though. I'm leaving today, and I want to post on the Chekhov thread before I go.

Take your time; I posted in Chekhov today. The thread was fading away towards that dreaded second page.

Backing up just a little, I definitely think the "spell" Winifred puts on Coutts is sexual, though she may not wish it to be since we learn a kiss is all she wants. I think Coutts know Winifred is not the kind to marry, something a part of him desires, but she does represent the wilder side of him, something another part of him does want to indulge in.

Antiquarian, I do agree - the spell is one of a sexual passionate nature, however, as you said, she stops at a kiss. Why? If it truly is only sexual, why did she stop? I think she uses this power of the sexual spell to lore Coutts to her, but I do feel something deeper is happening within her and not just something little significance or merely sex. Like the moth that is attracted to the flame - mentioned several times throughout the story - Coutts acts as the moth and she the tempting flame. I am not entirely convinced that she does not seek for more; to the contrary, I think she would like a lot more with Coutts; this is why she does not give in to his advances. Had the lamp not spilled over and he left perhaps angrily, would this not mean he might again try to achieve the passion between them, say another time? I don't know. I think at the crucial point of the kiss being withdrawn, Winifred knows she is lording a sort of control over Coutts - the control of her 'charm', her 'spell', which makes her attractive to him. As he pulls away in anger, the lamp is kicked over, bringing all possibility of their getting together to an abrupt end. Perhaps if this had not happened, they might have argued again and confronted each other and then she might have given into his desires. Perhaps he would not have returned to marry Connie, at all. The point is and I am just entertaining the question - what exactly did Winifred want of Coutts? At one point in the story, it clearly states his thought that he would have liked to ask this question of her directly. I think that also, his unexpected appearance at Lauries that evening was as a signal to Winifred that he still held interest for her; I don't feel that she felt it was a totally sexual interest. I think if she had she would not have pursued him; what woman would want to be used like that. I honestly think she felt she could secure his affections and attentions by using her sexual power over him; using the charm of the flames of passion to draw him to her.

As I said below to Dark Muse, I don't think we can fully state in truth that Winifred would never desire to marry, ever. I do think she is a more passionate type woman than Connie probably is. I get that from the information we are given about Connie directly within the text. I think that Winifred has the capacity for passion (I also can site text to back that up) beyond what Connie would ever realise and I think that Coutts knows this. He is torn between the nice 'churchy' type woman and this more free spirited and modern thinking woman. I think one will find this theme runs through several of Lawrence's novels and stories, as well. It is born from the whole idea of the fact his parents were such opposites in their thinking and being. After you read "Sons and Lovers" you will get a better sense of this division and why Lawrence thinks in this way. That book acts as a very good foundation to explain this idea in Lawrence of constant exploration of the idea of 'duality'.

However, I don't think the moment of seeing the train is the moment in which Coutts becomes bewitched by Winifred. I think it occurs much earlier, perhaps when he's mentally comparing her to the Venus statue, or when he allows himself to miss the tram with the German lady so he can walk with Winifred.

Yes, I too think it began much sooner than his seeing the train. I think I merely said or meant, that at that moment, it became clearer or more conscious to Coutts, when he noticed the intertwined 'black-and-gold' of the train in reference to the image of a snake.

I found the snake poem online last night. I will post it soon. It is quite interesting.

Quote by Virgil:

Everyone keeps saying that Winifred is not the type to marry. What makes her not the type to marry? Yes she's toying with Coutts in this episode, but is this a one time thing or a serial type of thing? For all we know she may be getting back at Coutts for something in their ealier relationship. What I'm trying to say is that I don't see anything in Wini that constitutes someone who goes around like this with many guys. We don't know of course, but Coutts doesn't indicate this about her character.

Virgil, I agree completely. I don't see Winifred as a 'loose woman' or someone who constantly teases men. She is more modern thinking, than the finance, but that does not mean she would never be the marrying type - what exactly is the 'marrying type?' A lot of people say that about themselves, and eventually, meet the right partner and marry. I just feel that when they are making these statements - a sort of 'off-the-cuff' way of talking and a code of carefully crafted words, these words and phrases are not total reality or seriously honestly reflect, what they truly feel in their hearts. What doe they feel in their hearts? Do they even know? I think many things are said in this story, that are not honestly mean or are merely meant to get a reaction from each other. This would also, be my answer to your last post, Dark Muse.

I also want to add this to my thought 'a thin line between love and hate'. I felt this true from the text, I read directly from the story when it stated:

Thus, after months of separation, they dovetailed into the same love and hate.

Both 'love' and 'hate' are strong emotions and I feel one can't hate a person, unless they truly did love them, at one point. Yes, this love is a destructive one, most likely. Both 'love' and 'hate' are emotions of passion, not of complacency. Many times throughout the text of this story the two words are used in the same statement, not just this one, I believe.