D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[Janine]

Lawrence certainly captures moments and he was very adept and skilled at stringing those moments together, but he couldn't write about his relationship with Miriam and then with Clara in a short story. That would be two short stories. Add in his mother and there might be three short stories.

Gee, you are fast posting tonight, Antiquarian. Yes, I can see what you mean. I can agree with that....it would take three short stories, at least.

Susan Minot's "Evening" captures a moment in life, in a way. It captures the moment of the mother's dying, but there are the subplots of the two sisters/daughters, the married one and the unmarried one and the relationship of the mother in her younger years with the boy who dies. This couldn't be done effectively or correctly in a short story. The unity would be lost.

I saw that film and posted about it in the movie thread - do you recall, Antiquarian? Did you read the book?

In "The Witch a la Mode" everything focuses on Coutts relationship to Winifred and his ambivalent feeling for her. That's one of the reasons we don't hear much about his relationship with Connie. It would harm the unity of the story. Lawrence was a very superior short story writer. Many beginning writers find it difficult not to ramble in a short story, but they have to learn if they're to have any success at all.

They say he was more direct in his short story writing and did not 'beat around the bush' like he did often in his novels. Sometimes he was working out what he needed to say in the novels and many think he becomes redundant in a preachy sort of way, at times.

Sometime back, Virgil, posted and said that Lawrence indeed was an excellent, if not one of the best short story authors. I know therefore, he would totally agree with you about your saying he was 'superior'. I am appreciating his short stories more and more all the time. I admit that short stories have not particularly been my favorites in the past, but now, with the two active threads, I am liking them more and more all the time. I too think he was superior and genius at his writing of these stories.

I was reading about his personal life in his letters to various people.

If you read some to Murray or from Murray, I can tell you that he is quite biased at times. He and Lawrence were friends and then had a major falling out between them in which Lawrence felt very betrayed by Murray. That too, is so very complicated. Did you read all the letters to and from Jessie? The letters still leave a lot of gaps, that I felt the novel and a good biography reveals about just how they interacted together. I have a number of the books of letters here but I have hardly scratched the surface myself. Lawrence was no saint, but I can very much see his side of it. I can't condemn him either. There are too many conflicting reports and opinions.

[Janine]

Yes, I read Evening as well as watching the film. I like Susan Minot's writing, though some think her style choppy.

I was reading letters Lawrence wrote to many different people.

Antiquarian, That is good, that it is a mix; but there are just so many available nowdays. I think it would take me till I died, to read them all. I think there are 8 full volumes of Lawrence's letters - can you imagine? How did he find time to write all he did and all these letters and essays, plays, short stories, novels, poetry, etc, etc? I think this is what truly fascintes me about Lawrence. All this and the fact, that he did not live a long life. Sad to have such talent and die so young; but many did back then, before cures for TB and other terminal illnesses. Also, I don't know how he achieved so much when he really never was a very healthy man, as far back as his youth. I have great respect, for that kind of drive; probably because I lack it myself.

Yes, I would definitely agree with Virgil, in that Lawrence is one of the best short story writers ever. Truly a shame his stories aren't more widely read or collected into less expensive volumes, but at least they're online. I do think some people don't like his heavy use of symbolism, though I find it adds quite a bit of depth to his stories. I like it very much.

I would agree, also. It is a shame, but I think they are in some demand now; well I know the novels and the various biographies are abundant online and years back it was not so. Maybe, I am just going by what is listed on Amazon, but there seems to be a lot offered these days. Did I ever send you the link for the Cambridge online exhibit of Lawrence? It is quite fascinating and I like to look at the photos and various other things on there, such as his original manuscripts.

Yes, I also find the symbolism is quite fascinating; probably before when I read these stories, I did not pick up on all of that, or fully understand the stories; now I feel a broader view is making me appreciate them in their truer aspect. I am glad of that. This thread has done much for my own appreciation. I love discussing them with all of you. Everyone adds a new idea/perspective to the discussions; we all learn more that way and see more in the story and the symbolism.

I find I don't dislike Lawrence, though I can't agree with all his beliefs, but that's not really important. I have much sympathy for him. But I can't as yet like his mother or Frieda, though as I said, I felt sorry for his mother in many ways.

Yes, Virgil and I have discussed this many times. We love Lawrence and his work, but we don't agree completely with all his ideas, but that is ok. We can still highly respect and appreciate the author and what he achieved. I feel sympathy or maybe empathy, for the situtations he found himself in growing up. I felt badly that he had a difficult time publishing these fine works. It was a different world back then, now he would have no problem getting his work published.

His mother did have her reasons to be as she was; his father was quite brutal to her at times, although Lawrence admitted later that he was too unfair in his portrayal of his father in the novel "Sons and Lovers". I still feel they were so totally mismatched. Lawrence's mother doted on her children, most prominently the boys. She did act superior in ways, but she did have a hard life, so one has to feel for her, too. When she married Lawrence's father, she did not bargain for all she got, either. I know what it is like, growing up with parents who are at odds, with each other on a daily basis. This also might be why I connect with this part of Lawrence's childhood and adolescense and the effect it had later on his life.

I can't say I hate or dislike Frieda. I just think she had her own code of thinking and she was very much a modern thinking woman. I might be basing my notion of her on some film portrayals of her and they were favorable. She did leave her children behind to go and live with Lawrence. I am not sure how a mother can do that. I don't think she had a good marriage at all. She married quite young and basically innocent. Of course, by the time she meet up with Lawrence, she was far from innocent. Something about her made him fall in love with her; I guess something just connected. I do think he loved her intensely. Who is to say why they hit it off and married. All the strife they went through, they must have loved each other. I don't doubt that one bit, although I don't think it was a marriage that always ran along smoothly. In "Women in Love' the characters of Ursula and Birkin are suppose to have been representative of the two of them. The novel speaks volumes about how Lawrence viewed their love affair/marriage; but this does not include the facts of a former marriage or children for the Ursula character (Frieda).

[Virgil]

I read an essay of Lawrence's today called "Sex Versus Loveliness." In it, Lawrence says:

While ever it lives, the fire of sex, which is the source of beauty and anger, burns in us beyond our understanding....Sex and beauty are one thing, like flame and fire. If you hate sex, you hate beauty.

To me, this seemed very applicable to this story.

It's probably applicable to many Lawrence works. Some have described Lawrence's philosophy as a religion of sex. Not the free love sex of the 1960's, lawrence would be appalled by that (some have even said he was really a prude), but a natural sexuality that stands in opposition to social constraints. He would probably argue that that free love sex is just as much as unnatural as overly Victorian constraints. If I can summarize it his philosophy, which really is a sort of theology, is a combination of naturalism linked to a spiritualism through his notion of blood consciousness. Most naturalists (like Hardy for instance) are actually atheists, or semi atheists, but Lawrence isn't. Sex - what he consders natural sex - is a blossoming of that spirituality, the fullfilment of blood consciousness. I hope that makes sense.

Oh, I don't hate his mother. Hate is far too strong a word and emotion. I just don't like her, though I feel somewhat sorry for her. And I don't hate Frieda, but I can't like her, either, or feel sympathy for her. Not at this point.

I never cared for his mother either, but I can be ambivalent over her, but I really do not like Frieda at all.

Sometime back, Virgil, posted and said that Lawrence indeed was an excellent, if not one of the best short story authors. I know therefore, he would totally agree with you about your saying he was 'superior'. I am appreciating his short stories more and more all the time. I admit that short stories have not particularly been my favorites in the past, but now, with the two active threads, I am liking them more and more all the time. I too think he was superior and genius at his writing of these stories.

I really love Lawrence's short stories. Of the English (not American) short story writers I feel he's the best. And I include Joyce in the English.

If you read some to Murray or from Murray, I can tell you that he is quite biased at times. He and Lawrence were friends and then had a major falling out between them in which Lawrence felt very betrayed by Murray. That too, is so very complicated. Did you read all the letters to and from Jessie? The letters still leave a lot of gaps, that I felt the novel and a good biography reveals about just how they interacted together. I have a number of the books of letters here but I have hardly scratched the surface myself. Lawrence was no saint, but I can very much see his side of it. I can't condemn him either. There are too many conflicting reports and opinions.

I would never trust anything Lawrence says about himself or others. He could be quite viscious and he always seemed to have an agenda. Well, always is too strong, but frequently. I happen to like Jessie, and though she would not have traveled around the world with him I think she would have been a better wife than Frieda.

Yes, I would definitely agree with Virgil, in that Lawrence is one of the best short story writers ever. Truly a shame his stories aren't more widely read or collected into less expensive volumes, but at least they're online. I do think some people don't like his heavy use of symbolism, though I find it adds quite a bit of depth to his stories. I like it very much.

His use of symbolism is on top of an already finely crafted story.

I think I read somewhere that Lawrence wrote at least 5,500 letters. That's astounding.

Actually his letters, onl;y the ones he wrote, not the ones he received back, amount to eight volumes. And he wrote about a dozen novels (some of which he re-wrote from scratch a couple of times), three volumes of short stories, and his collected poems is a volume about four inches thick; plus he wrote several non-fiction books, lots of essays (collected into two volumes), and three or four travel books. And he died at the age of 44!! Can you imagine? Where did he find the time? He didn't edit his work much. He was just one of those people who naturally can write perfectly off the cuff. Occaisionally I find a sentence that I think could have been edited, but not very often.

Well, it's hard to say if Lawrence would have had an easy or a difficult time publishing his stories now. The market for short stories is a limited one and Lawrence's style, though gorgeous, is not in favor at the moment among publishers, sad to say.

Oh I think if he had llived now his style would have been a little different. The use of symbolism was fairly popular at the early part of the 20th century. I think he still would have been a great writer. He was just natural.

They're usually looking for things more surreal. Many, many wonderful novel and short story mss. go unpublished every year. Publishing houses are always teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, so they tend to go with "big name authors" and that usually mean inferior writing, the genre writing, like romance, romantic suspense, mysteries, etc. Very sad, the state of publishing today. Certainly Lawrence's stories would deserve to be published, but it's impossible to second guess how hard a time he would have

Oh I don't think he would have been good at surreal.

I suppose I'll never forgive Frieda for abandoning her children. I usually give people a rather wide berth, but not on this issue. To me, one doesn't abandon children to run off with a man no matter how deep or intense the love.

Oh I absolutely agree too on this. But i detest Frieda even outside this issue. She was snobby, uppity, and cold.

[Virgil]

I feel Joyce was better at the novel than Lawrence,

Personally I think Lawrence's Sons and Lovers is a better bildingsroman than Joyce's Portrait of the Artist. And while Ulyssess is a great great novel, it does seem at times to lack flesh and blood. Lawrence's great novels The Rainbow, Women In Love, and Lady Chatterly seem so much more down to earth, though perhaps not as ambitious as Ullysses.

But I do agree, Lawrence was at his best in the short story form. you should try some of his novelas too. I forgot to mention those above. He's got at least five or six.

as was Hardy,

Hmm, while I enjoy a Hardy novel, for some reason i never felt he was that skillful.

[Dark Muse]

I do like Lawrence's short stories better than Joyce's, though, or Hardy's. I think the only authors I like as much, as far as the short story is concerned are Faulkner, Flannery O'Conner (and they're totally different in style, being Southern gothic, so there's really no comparison), William Trevor, and Virginia Woolf.

I prefer Joyce's short stories over his novels. I enjoyed the stories I read in The Dubliners, but I loathed Portrait. But still all around I think Lawrence is the better writer and I much prefer him.

[Dark Muse]

From what I have read so far, I prefer Lawrence's novels.

I was not really moved by Stephen at all either to like or dislike. One of the reasons I really did not care for the book, I was not in the least drawn into the character, so I really did not care what happened to him through the book.

Lawrence draws me into his characters a good deal more, even if I do not always like or agree with them, they are at least interesting to me.

[Janine]

Wow, so many posts on here today....will I ever catch up....?

I am starting with Antiquarian's longer post:

I think I read somewhere that Lawrence wrote at least 5,500 letters. That's astounding.

Yes, absolutely astonishing, isn’t it?

No, you didn't send me the link, but no hurry. I know you're very busy right now.

Antiquarian, go with this link for now; this is not really the one I saw before, unless they have altered the site. I don’t see as many photos here of family and friends, as before, but I do see the statue in front of the library; if you click on the various listings on the left side of the main page, it will take you to a lot of interesting things.

Well, it's hard to say if Lawrence would have had an easy or a difficult time publishing his stories now. The market for short stories is a limited one and Lawrence's style, though gorgeous, is not in favor at the moment among publishers, sad to say. They're usually looking for things more surreal. Many, many wonderful novel and short story mss. go unpublished every year. Publishing houses are always teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, so they tend to go with "big name authors" and that usually mean inferior writing, the genre writing, like romance, romantic suspense, mysteries, etc. Very sad, the state of publishing today. Certainly Lawrence's stories would deserve to be published, but it's impossible to second guess how hard a time he would have.

Yes, I understand entirely and they may be out of fashion as to what people buy popularly today. What I actually was getting at was the idea of censorship being so stringent in his day; same with what James Joyce ran up against trying to publish his work. Both of their works would easily pass the censorship test. Back then they were not rejected because of their quality but because of the fact they were considered dirty or obscene. Lawrence went through a whole obscenity trial with “Lady Chatterly’s Lovers.” He finally had to publish it on his own. It was sad how that was rejected and today it would have been mild compared to what kind of literature gets published.
I also was referring more to his novels than to his short stories.

I suppose I'll never forgive Frieda for abandoning her children. I usually give people a rather wide berth, but not on this issue. To me, one doesn't abandon children to run off with a man no matter how deep or intense the love. I read a partially fictionalized account of the life of Frank LLoyd Wright (Loving Frank) and Mamah Borthwick Cheney (also a woman ahead of her time - a feminist), and she, too, abandoned two small children (and a husband) to run off to Europe with Wright. I find that simply unforgivable. I couldn't even have sympathy for her when she was brutally murdered, along with her children, at Taliesin. I felt for the children and for her abandoned husband, who was, understandably, devastated. He lost everything. I could not like or respect her or Wright. To leave a husband would be forgivable, but to leave children, for me, is not. In that, I don't give people any leeway at all. So, I suppose I will always dislike Frieda.

Well, I might have used the word “abandon” first on here but that is not quite fair to say. She left and would have liked them with her or have been able to see them. Divorces in that day were brutal and laws in England were cruel that way. If you were the one to break with the husband and leave him you were crucified for it and the children were used as pawns in this situation. It is sad to say; but I am very sure it all was totally unfair. The both went to court for more visitation rights but were denied. When the children got older they did visit them and stayed with them often. I know Barbara was close to them and even liked Lawrence very much. The children started out liking Lawrence emensely while the father was rather cold and calculating with them. Yes, the children suffered but Lawrence felt, after his own horrid childhood, that children should be told the truth and not lied to. I can’t condemn either of them for the fact they left England eventually. Basically many things happened that drove them out. That too is quite complicated. Up until then they tried to see the children. I think one has to live through a similar situation when married and divorced with children or a child to see just how hard it is to handle this kind of situation. My own ex very much used my son in the same way, as a pawn, mostly to try and get me back. To this day, my son knows that truth and will opening admit it. I think, in the long-run it has made him a better person. He grew up with the truth and not the lie. I could have stayed on only for him; but something told me to leave for him and for me. We had some rough years but it all worked out in the end. No one lives a perfect life and we all must adjust to our circumstances and what life deals us. I don’t therefore condemn Frieda one bit. I feel very badly for her and for her as a mother who was very much torn between true deeply felt love and her children. Ernest Weekly and she lived a dead existence together – Lawrence described it as a sleeping marriage; he was a very stern man; she as very young when she married him; he was older. In the end it was better to break with him and find happiness with the man she truly loved. I have to give her the benefit of the doubt on this one. I don’t think she was a truly bad mother, but she did what she felt she must. Was I a bad mother to leave my husband and subject my son, to being torn between two holdholds? I did what I felt I had to do at the time, therefore I can’t judge this woman having not know here at all; only reading hearsay and second hand accounts of her. If Weekly was holding the children back from her that was hardly her fault and I can’t call it abandonment by her own choice.

I have to go back now and read all the other comments and get my bearings.

Antiquarian, I did read that you completed "Sons and Lovers' and did not particularly like it, or not as well as Joyce. I am the opposite; but I do have to say, 'Sons and Lovers" I merely recommended to you to start your reading Lawrence, to better understand his family and background...as a sort of foundation for the coming works. Lawrence, himself, said he would not write another book like it again. This book contained his early life, which contained a lot of confusion and unresolved issues; this is why I suggested it to you. Personally, my favorite is still "Women in Love" - is more developed in ideas and also it contains way more symbolism and classical references. The stories of the two couples parallel each other, and they are fascinating in their differences. I like 'relationship' books and this one truly explores these intricate relationships, between the two couples. Now, Virgil's favorite Lawrence novel is "The Rainbow". My first reading of it, gave me the impression of being too long and uncentered; but that might just have been the time I read it; I hope to read it again soon and I think then, I will see a whole new book emerge; perhaps because, it is more epic and encompasses several generations of the Brangwen family, of whom the 2 sisters are then featured (after TTRB) in the novel "Women in Love".


After reading everyone's posts, it looks like it boils down to this: for once I agree with Dark Muse; (don't faint DM!) I think Lawrence the better writer in short stories; if DM also said novels; I have to agree with that, as well. I just could not connect to Joyce for some reason. I liked "Portrait" but I admit I did not always get a clear picture of just what was going on. I don't like long run on sentences - I just can't process them - so it might be a personal thing. I can easily get myself into the flow of Lawrence's prose and so often feel it is actually written as pure poetry. Loving poetry as I do I think that is one reason I key into Lawrence. I feel 'right' reading his work and also I feel he delves further into the pyche of the individual.

I for one enjoy Hardy; I read nearly all he has written; but I do feel that Lawrence took his books way further than Hardy ever did. For one thing I think their whole theology is quite different as Virgil pointed out above. Hardy believed in 'fate' ruling our lives, whereas Lawrence knew it was our free-will, even though it was effected by our pasts and pychological factors.

And bottomline - I don't hate anyone! I guess maybe I am not as 'Mad, Bad, and Dangerous to know' as Antiquarian and Virgil are...even all of you, at times.. I don't have stronge opinions on anyone in Lawrence's life, not even Murray. I try to listen to all their stories and not truly make a judgement. How can I? I was not in their skins at the time; therefore, I don't truly know what they went through. I am more tolerant of people, I suppose. People can judge others, but if they never walked in their shoes, how can they really know. I have not read 'everything' written about Lawrence, Jessie, his family and her family, and Frieda, etc., so how can I truly pass judgement on them, any of them. If there is a shadow of a doubt, I just can't see them as all bad, nor all good.

Quotes by Virgil

Personally I think Lawrence's Sons and Lovers is a better bildingsroman than Joyce's Portrait of the Artist. And while Ulyssess is a great great novel, it does seem at times to lack flesh and blood. Lawrence's great novels The Rainbow, Women In Love, and Lady Chatterly seem so much more down to earth, though perhaps not as ambitious as Ullysses.

I agree, Virgil, with you. I think he wrote some of the finest novels in the English language.

But I do agree, Lawrence was at his best in the short story form. you should try some of his novelas too. I forgot to mention those above. He's got at least five or six.

Oh, I love his novella; I just re-read "Love Among the Haystacks" and loved it and now I am reading "The Virgin and the Gypsy". I am enjoying that very much but only to chapter 3 so far. The book is only 120 pages. I love the story "The Fox". "The Man Who Died" is well crafted and marvelous.

[Janine]

LOL Virgil may be "Mad, Bad, and Dangerous to Know," but please don't put in that mix, Janine. That's Virgil's motto, not mine. I'm totally harmless, though I still won't forgive Frieda for leaving her children for Lawrence, no matter what her marriage was like.

Well never take me seriously, Antiquarian; I was just joking with you about MBD!
I just don't know much about Frieda, only what I have read in the travel books and some about her in 'Kangaroo'...she was his model for Harriet and he for Sommers. I do think she loved Lawrence and he loved her, and I don't think she truly loved her husband. I don't understand many of you who feel one should stay for the children's sake. In my mother's day this was true and believe me, the children were never spared, living in a home with strife and unhappiness. I had a pyschologist talk to me about this once and he said ' kids who were sheltered, from what their parents or their problems, were ultimately way worse off, then if they knew the truth. I think it speaks volumes, that Frieda's own children, never blamed her, for breaking off with their father. I will research that better, but I don't believe they did blame her. And as I said, she did try to get them and to see them, whenever she could...she was quite broken hearted. Her rich husband had the resources to fight that legally and he did. How could she have done otherwise? Well, aside from all this, I think we had better discuss this privately, since it gets into a lot of personal things for both of us, especially me, having had a child to consider during a very bad divorce.

I did say I greatly preferred Lawrence's short stories, and I do. Generally, though, I don't care for works based on real life, so that may have been part of my problem with Sons and Lovers, but I did like Part Two quite a lot, much more than Part One. It seemed to be more in the style of Lawrence's short stories.

How different we are in this repect; I love true life accounts or novels based on true lives or events. Well, glad you enjoyed the second half. I think most people do so. Then you really get into the 'relationship' intricacies of the novel. That is why I think you would greatly enjoy "Women in Love". I don't think you can fully make an assessment about Lawrence's work until you read that and also "The Rainbow" - those are his masterpieces.

Oh, I see now what you meant when you said his novels would be easy to publish today - the censorship he faced during his own lifetime. You're right, that wouldn't exist today, but it's still hard to predict what gets published and what doesn't. Sometimes the choices they make seem to make no sense at all, and often they're based on strictly financial gain for the publishing house. As beautifully as Lawrence wrote, he still could have a problem today - not because of censorship or lack of quality, but because of the quirkiness of publishers. Some publishers just was "topical" things, too, and don't care if the writing is good. That's how very badly written books like The Kite Runner get published. The prose in that was some of the most dreadful I've ever read, but it was topical. I know you watched the movie. I trust they cleaned it up a bit for the film version.

Well, this is the age old thing about quality/true/fine art - even visual art. The general concensis, on what is really good is appalling. So, I don't know what to say, except the modern market is that way and I don't know how we can change the world's opinions on bad art and bad writing. There is much bad writing out there and people gobble it right up; books sell like mad, bad books.
I did not notice anything in the film "The Kite Runner" that was foul or needed to be cleaned up. It was good, but I don't have a burning desire to read the book.
Yes, basically, I was speaking in terms of censorship.

I've read "Love Among the Haystacks" and "The Virgin and the Gipsy." I think both are marvelous. "Love Among the Haystacks" is in the book of stories I have and I bought "The Virgin and the Gipsy" with my most recent Amazon order, a few weeks ago.

Wasn't it enjoyable - the first? I liked that story very much. I am still reading the second one; although, I did read it years back. I am also re-listening to "Women in Love" - everytime I hear it, it only gets better.

[Virgil]

Just one word on Frieda. She was not in an abusive marriage. She may not have loved her husband any longer and he may have been very distracted with his work, but he loved her, and they had the kids. Her husband may not have been the passiante young and handsome Lawrence, but you don't leave a family like that. Plus, she wasn't exactly faithful to Lawrence either.

[Janine]

"Love Among the Haystacks" and "The Virgin and the Gipsy" are wonderful novellas (or long short stories). The writing is very sensitive and beautiful.

Yes, truly sensitive and beautiful. I loved the character Geoffrey in 'Haystacks'; he was so sweet and so sensitive; and the ending was so lovely.

The Kite Runner was just a very overly melodramatic book, very poorly written, but that wouldn't have come through in the movie. It was the prose, itself that was so bad, which you wouldn't have heard in the movie.

Oh, just bad writing? Sometimes that can be truly laughable!

I think Frieda's children should have known the truth, I totally agree about that, I just don't see how any mother can walk away from her children, no matter what the condition of her marriage is. Not for another man. I could never walk away from my brothers and sister, let alone a child. Now, deciding to separate, with no other man or woman involved, yes, I can understand that. And if one becomes involved with someone else after the separation, well, then I can understand that, too. I think it was her leaving for Lawrence, not deciding with her husband to separate and the two of them talking things over with the children. That I could understand. I would have absolutely no objection to any woman leaving a man who treats her badly. I think it wasn't the leaving per se, it was staying with a well-to-do husband until Lawrence came along.

Well, what should a woman do then if unhappy? In those days there just were no options for a woman who left her husband. If Lawrence had not come along and she wanted to leave her husband, how could she have done so; could she have taken the three children with her? I can't see how she could have done so financially or legally. Had she left alone without the children and gone anyway, she would have ended up on the streets or worse yet a prostitude in London; that happened to many women who had no money. Even in the 50's, my mother told me she would have left my father, but gone where, with three small children? I don't think any of us can totally understand the dire situation these women could find themselves in.
I was lucky my parents let me come home, otherwise what could I have done? I didn't have a job and I had a toddler to care for.
In the early 1900's there were not many options for women, especially those with children. In "Angela's Ashes" she is stuck in a bad situation, with more children always coming along, and an abusive husband, a drunkard. She really had no way out. It was a very sad situation and I could only feel for her. I feel also, for Frieda as a mother, who was suppose to have truly loved her children. Some parents leave and don't fight the custody thing, for the sake of the children; they don't want them torn between two households. My grandfather did that and it broke his heart. It is more of a sacrifice on the part of the parent who leaves. I never condemned my grandfather for his actions because later I had revealed to me the full story by other relatives. Who was I to judge him?
Don't get the impression Frieda and Lawrence immediately left England abandoning those children; they were there for years. They stayed for a time in hopes of seeing them and the courts barred them from it; they had continuous court battles over them. I think once Frieda was allowed a visit, that was supervised; but the husband had all the control and he was not so nice about it all. I have read all this in snatches here and there in the letters and various other books I read about their life together.

Just one word on Frieda. She was not in an abusive marriage. She may not have loved her husband any longer and he may have been very distracted with his work, but he loved her, and they had the kids. Her husband may not have been the passiante young and handsome Lawrence, but you don't leave a family like that. Plus, she wasn't exactly faithful to Lawrence either.

Gosh, you people are all puritans on here. Let you be in the situation and see if the tables would be turned. Who said her husband truly loved her? That is your perception of the situtation, Virgil. She had a title, he had money. Many times marriages were merely arrangements. I got the impression this was true with them in the beginning. He was quite a bit older than her when they meet. She was a mere girl - very innocent looking. I have these photos in my books; they say a great deal.
I never said he was abusive to her. I just think he was preoccuppied with his work at the university and he was distant, cold.

The unfaithful part was only after Lawrence became impotent and very difficult to live with; and besides that it is all conjecture. I don't even blame her for that, if it is true. She was in need of more than he could give her towards the end. The man was really ill; no doubt the illness was also affecting his disposition. Lawrence pretty much knew about any affairs and he allowed it, also. She was right with him at his bedside as he lay dying and held him at the moment of death. The one who most opposed their marriage was Murray and then it is said that he tried to have an affair with Frieda. Sounds like a soap opera, doen't it?

[Dark Muse]

Gosh, you people are all puritans on here. Let you be in the situation and see if the tables would be turned. Who said her husband truly loved her? That is your perception of the situtation, Virgil. She had a title, he had money. Many times marriages were merely arrangements. I got the impression this was true with them in the beginning. He was quite a bit older than her when they meet. She was a mere girl - very innocent looking. I have these photos in my books; they say a great deal.
I never said he was abusive to her. I just think he was preoccuppied with his work at the university and he was distant, cold.

Though I do not know much about this situation in particular, I can see Virgil's point. For I do belive in personal responseablity, and I do not think life is only about following your personal whims and making yourself happy at the expense of anyone and everyone else around you.

And if one has childern than they have an obligation to thier childern regaurdless of wheather or not they decide they do not love thier husband anymore.

Life is not always about taking the course that is esaist or most appealing to you, particuarly when you are in a posistion where other people rely upon you.

[Janine]

In the end, what we approve of and don't approve of is going to be shaped by so many diverse things, we are bound to disagree. I think that's okay. I'm not going to lie and say I approved of Frieda and what she did. I don't. Yes, it is harder sometimes on the parent who leaves, but that parent is usually one who sits down and discusses the situation with his or her spouse and reaches a mutual decision, not one who runs off with a handsome, passionate, younger man.

Well, yes and you said that above in your other post. The thing about sitting down peacably with a reasonable spouse and discussing a breakup and the children sounds ideal, but most of the time it does not happen that way, nor is it feasible. Nice when it is, but I know in my own case, that would have been possible - out of the question.
Then too, I am being sensitive about the word 'adultery'. If you separate from your husband, as I did; then still are awaiting for the divorce to be finalized, does that make you an adulterous, if you date and happen to take it to the sexual level of intimacy? You know people do get lonely. I don't think it is sex they are seeking, as much as solace and comforting and human contact.

I therefore thought, if Frieda was no longer sleeping with her husband, and they might not have been; then in a sense they were separated and distant, and when L came along and she did elope with him, how different is that?

Does everyone consider Clara in "Sons and Lovers" an adulterous woman? She had been separated from her husband for years, but they were not officially divorced. It seemed even Lawrence's mother did not condemn her for her separation and Lawrence's involvement with her.

I never said I condoned blantant adultery; I don't. I just think there are some fine lines in some instances, and just where does one draw the line?

Antiquarian, wasn't Connie then committing adultery with Mellors in "Lady Chatterly's Lover"? You must have hated both of them. Connie's husband was impotent, among other things; disabled; but she might have stayed on with him as a support.

Maybe we should stick to the stories. At least on here. We disagree enough on those, let alone bringing in Lawrence's very complicated personal life. LOL

That is the thing. That is what has been annoying me, because we only have part of the facts here....and it all is very complicated.

It would be a shame if anyone felt bad because someone didn't agree with him or her.

That is true and I agree, Antiquarian. I was writing an answer to this post and bumped something on my keyboard; it all disappeared; I had to begin again. Yes, it would be a shame, if we all got angry or felt bad about this difference in opinion concerning morals. In fact, I do feel kind of bad. I always do when people are judged; even if they are not dead people. I am just like that, I guess. I have been through things myself, that I could have been judged badly for, and maybe I was (who knows?) so I can't understand the phrase that 'one could never forgive'. I am a very forgiving person. I know people who are not and they have wounded me greatly in the past. One was a person right here on Lit Net and I took it hard, even though I never even meet the person. I guess I am overly sensitive. I just don't like being misunderstood and I feel I am being so. I feel that Lawrence and Frieda are on trial here, which is silly really.

I just want to say one last thing, in response to this line, that Dark Muse wrote:

And if one has childern than they have an obligation to thier childern regaurdless of wheather or not they decide they do not love thier husband anymore.

I actually got to the point in my early adult years where I wished my own parents had separated; my two sisters are in agreement. My mother instead sacrificed her life happiness for us and she never truly found happiness I believe, not with a man. I think that is a shame. And she did not spare us at all. If anything we all suffered the fallout from their bad marriage. Therefore I don't agree that parents should stay together for the children and I don't think it selfish at all if they separate.

Quote by Dark Muse

Life is not always about taking the course that is esaist or most appealing to you, particuarly when you are in a posistion where other people rely upon you.

Easiest? This might be true for some, but if anything Frieda went to a more difficult existence. Living with Weekley she was used to a life of luxury and a maid and governess for her children. She left this comfy life to go off with a basically penniless man and they moved about constantly. Contrary to what Virgil once wrote about his impression of her being lazy and doing no housework, from what I have read, that is totally false. She worked very hard and they worked together. Not only that, the road to this new freedom, had a huge price tag and she gave up much from her former life; the transition was difficult and the constant court battles, to get to see her children, took it's toll on her, on Lawrence, too. It was far from the easy route for either of them.

I guess we should move on now, to the next part of the text. I can't go out tonight; plans got changed so I am doing laundry and can work on next section of this short story - remember, we were discussing the short story before we went off on biographical/morality tangents? I can post that fairly soon, if I go work on it offline. So expect me back then with a chunk of the text to discuss.

[Virgil]

Wow, we did get side tracked. But one last word from me on this. I agree with D-M below.

Though I do not know much about this situation in particular, I can see Virgil's point. For I do belive in personal responseablity, and I do not think life is only about following your personal whims and making yourself happy at the expense of anyone and everyone else around you.

And if one has childern than they have an obligation to thier childern regaurdless of wheather or not they decide they do not love thier husband anymore.

Life is not always about taking the course that is esaist or most appealing to you, particuarly when you are in a posistion where other people rely upon you.

Once children enter the picture one's personal hapiness is secondary, as long as abuse is not going on. If she were unhappy she should seek her hapiness in her children. I'm not a parent, but I can't imagine how anyone cannot be happy with the love from three children.

[Quark]

Okay, you guys lost me like two pages back. What are we talking about exactly?

[Janine]

Okay, you guys lost me like two pages back. What are we talking about exactly?

No problem, Quark, I am trying to move on past this current contraversy. I just worked on this part of the text (offline) so everyone can review it and add to it; hopefully answer my questions:


Next Part of Text

The housekeeper entered with a lamp, which she set on a stand.
"You will illuminate me?" he said to Winifred. It was her habit to talk to him by candle-light.
"I have thought about you--now I will look at you," she said quietly, smiling.
"I see--To confirm your conclusions?" he asked.
Her eyes lifted quickly in acknowledgment of his guess.
"That is so," she replied.

So what is the underlining theme in this part of the story – what exactly are they saying to each other. Interesting to note are the references to words we have encountered throughout the story ‘lamp’, ‘illuminate’ ‘candle-light’….so many references in this story to ‘light’.

"Then," he said, "I'll wash my hands."
He ran upstairs. The sense of freedom, of intimacy, was very fascinating. As he washed, the little everyday action of twining his hands in the lather set him suddenly considering his other love.

This private washing up reminds me of Maurice in ‘The Blind Man’ – how he also stood contemplating his wife and their life together.
So now he thinks about ‘his other love’ – Connie:

At her house he was always polite and formal; gentlemanly, in short. With Connie he felt the old, manly superiority; he was the knight,...strong and tender, she was the beautiful maiden with a touch of God on her brow. He kissed her, he softened and selected his speech for her, he forbore from being the greater part of himself.

So here one can see how he idolizes her completely. She is not a woman to him but a goddess. He is her knight in shining armour. Not too realistic. This is an idealized view of his up and coming marriage and his soon to be spouse.

She was his betrothed, his wife, his queen, whom he loved to idealise, and for whom he carefully modified himself. She should rule him later on—that part of him which was hers.

Here again,she seems like a Greek goddess and someone who will actually rule him eventually and yet he will always be her devotee, worshipper to her as his ‘idyll’. Connie embodies the image he has of an idyll; curious,Lawrence cherished this same image in a painting by Griffenhagen of ‘Idyll’ which he continually copied and painted, giving several of those away. He adored this painting.

In the first statement here,I can now see how Quark confused the idea of Connie being his wife – it does say that even thought they are not yet married, only betrothed/engaged. Sorry, Quark, for chiding you on that fact before.

But he loved her, too, with a pitying, tender love. He thought of her tears upon her pillow in the northern Rectory, and he bit his lip, held his breath under the strain of the situation.

Vaguely he knew she would bore him. And Winifred fascinated him. [b]He and she really played with fire.[b] In her house, he was roused and keen. But she was not, and never could be, frank. So he was not frank, even to himself. Saying nothing, betraying nothing, immediately they were together they began the same game.

Right here at this point,the two woman are facing each other in comparison – the way Coutts directly feels about them; in repect to Connie – bored; in respect to Winifred fascinated.
Now he admits that Winifred would never be frank, never had been and so it made him the same with himself. He could not admit all this directly to himself consciously.Therefore, they were open to this state of saying nothing, betraying nothing – yet it was all a game played over and over again.

Each shuddered, each defenceless and exposed, hated the other by turns. Yet they came together again. Coutts felt a vague fear of Winifred. She was intense and unnatural--and he became unnatural and intense, beside her.

So because they are defenseless and exposed to each other in this way is this why they feel this hatred of each other? Also, if you notice Coutts feels a vague fear of her? He also states she was intense and unnatural and made him feel the same when he was with her. From what is this fear born, does everyone thing? Is it born out of his temptation or something other. Is it born out of the fact that he knows inwardly that Winifred would like to hold her will over him, control him?

When he came downstairs she was fingering the piano from the score of "Walküre".

I wondered what significance that had. Is he a pianist? Also is that not a German score?

"First wash in England," he announced, looking at his hands. She laughed swiftly. Impatient herself of the slightest soil, his indifference to temporary grubbiness amused her.

I noticed this before – now it seems this action is something out of the ordinary for Coutts to do.

He was a tall, bony man, with small hands and feet. His features were rough and rather ugly, but his smile was taking. She was always fascinated by the changes in him. His eyes, particularly, seemed quite different at times; sometimes hard, insolent, blue; sometimes dark, full of warmth and tenderness; sometimes flaring like an animal's.

His physical description is interesting when it gets to the line about ‘her fascination with changes in him’. Then the last part, about the eyes, is so typically Lawrence – he often makes references to eyes and the different ways they can look, at various times, even completely changing hue or color.

He sank wearily into a chair.
"My chair," he said, as if to himself.

This is her house, but he feels he is a part of it, by this one remark; like he fits perfectly well into this house that is familiar to him. ‘My chair’ is all Lawrence has to have Coutts say, to get this idea across and it works brilliantly. We get a sense that he belongs here or thinks he does, at least for this moment in time.

About Frieda's relationship with Lawrence. Some of us like Frieda and some don't.

Antiquarian, I hate to keep quibbling about this, but I never said I liked her; I just don't hate the woman. I don't hate anyone for that matter; I seriously don't. I am really very easy to get along with and I am quite a respectable person myself. I would be dreadful on a jury, I would give everyone the benefit of the doubt.