Well, sometimes first time mothers are not as 'maternal' as one would think; not 'immediately', as all would expect from them to be. Afterall, if this a tremendous responsibility that has been thrust on this young woman; and without the support of a loving husband/father, it has to be difficult for her. I don't condemn the mother, here at all. Does it say how young the baby is? If an infant and a week or two old, Emma still could be suffering a sort of 'post pardem depression' and her demeanor/attitude might be quite subdued or numbed, to what it normally would have been, or her nerves might not allow her feelings to totally surface towards the child. For some women, it takes a bit of time to bond with the child, especially an illegitimate child, which was not planned. Perhaps since the older sisters tends to take over so much and rule the family, this material 'bonding' does not happen as quickly....it is delayed. I don't think Emma hates the child; her deep-down feelings are those of love.Originally Posted by Dark Muse
Well, first time mothers don't always adhere to a strict schedule, either. If the baby was not crying for food, and was she was nursing, the baby might not need to be feed within the confines of the strict two hour schedule, the older sister has layed out for her. Sometimes babies will feed all the time and others will not. I know this from my son and his wife's new experience with their first child/infant. It was not always easy to know when to feed the child and even when fussy the baby would not always want food. I saw this part of the story more like a way of putting down the younger sister and being more dominent and bossy towards her.She does not even know when her own child is hungery or how often she should feed it. And the way she anwerers her sister, as if she does not really care. I do not think her just being young, is enough of an excuse for that.
In a multi-faceted way this seeing the child as a 'symbol' is understandable in different aspects within the dynamics of this dysfunctional family. The fact that his child has arrived, and is now visible and real, is a sore spot to their reputation, also now the child means more work for everyone and this would cause the younger daughter to feel resentment towards them and to the 'cause'(the child) of that added work - her unwanted (shameful) pregnancy and now the presence of the child, who represents a sort of undermining of any bit of peace, that might have existed in this family. It is a complicated situation and I think feasible, that now they all feel that they have more than they can handle, with the small baby to help raise, and with the aging father, who to me sometimes seems to be 'losing touch' with reality; not to mention the feeling of shame/disgrace, they can't seem to escape.
Some new mother's don't know exactly what to do with a small child, especially being on one's own basically with no husband. Nowdays they have baby classes to prepare one for babycare. My son and daughter-in-law took one and still they had to struggle through learning so much the first two weeks or so. It is not easy at first to care for a helpless infant. I don't feel harsh towards the mother here. I think she does love the child and she is being put down by her sisters. They are enabling her to be helpless if she truly is that way, by taking over and being dominent. There is a true power struggle going on here - not just between daughters and father but also among the sibblings themselves.She has to be told to take care of her own child, and how to care for it.
Well, she can...she does not have total responsibility of the child; neither does she share the complete quilt or shame, of the actions lead to this baby's existence. Bertha may do the chores and tend to many things in the house, even her father, but still the baby is connected directly to her sister, the babe's mother. Some new mothers can feel totally overwhelmed at first. This passes normally and they are more close to their babies in the end. Giving birth does not always assure immediate material response.In addtion to be more responseable Bertha acts much more affectionately towrd the child.
In someways but ofcourse nothing as extreme this recalls me to "Sleepy" in the Chekhov thread because there the child also became a symbol. In that case a symbol of depriving the young woman who tended the child her much needed sleep. In the Lawrence story the baby is again a symbol - but this time a symbol of the shame that now will become part of the family. They can't see past the shame at this point and see the baby as a good and wonderful thing. In both stories the perception of the child is altered because of the circumstances.
Quote by Quark
Quark, I think this may be true. Afterall, the members of this family are all individuals and may think somewhat differently in this situation. Perhaps Bertha is more open-minded about the child. As I said also she can feel maternal since she is not the mother - I know that does not make sense, but if you read the rest of my post you will see what I mean. She is not directly linked to the 'shame'.Perhaps Bertha doesn't think of the baby as a symbol like the rest of the family does. I know Lawrence only accuses Emma directly of interpreting the baby as a symbol, but clearly that sentence is applicable to the other members of the family. It might also explain why Bertha is more maternal toward the child.
"It's so mysterious, the land of tears." 
Reply With Quote
Oh good, we are finally disagreeing, DM; I was wondering what was going on lately.
I don't know if we can assume all of that from the scant information that is given in the story but maybe we can surmise somethings about Emma. I will have to re-read that part over again, because I really can't recall exactly my impression on her quality of mothering.
