D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[BienvenuJDC]

Can anybody else hear Garrison Keillor's voice when reading DHL?

[Dark Muse]

I agree. I agree, too, that she seems to know the outcome and portent of the letter already. I wonder if her main objective is actually to draw the narrator into her and her husband's scandal. I am not sure for what reasons she is doing that. Perhaps, she is being flirtious with the narrator all along. Has anyone thought of this - why she would share a personal deception like this one with a virtual stranger.

Yes I had considered that possibility. I had in fact expected that they were going to actually hook up at some point, particularly after he had brought Joey back home after having saved him. There did seem to me to be some underlined attraction between the two of them. Or rather it seemed that she was trying to appeal to him, but he was just oblivious or ignoring it.

I'm living with his father and mother--I've no home of my own now. My people had a big farm--over a thousand acres--in Oxfordshire. Not like here--no. Oh, they're very good to me, his father and mother. Oh, yes, they couldn't be better. They think more of me than of their own daughters. But it's not like being in a place of your own, is it? You can't really do as you like

I found this part to be a bit curious as well. For one thing there seems to be something ambiguous about her past. For as she speaks of her parents farm, it seems as if her family had been well off but it seems to be something that is no more. For she says she no longer has a home to go back to, and she speaks of the farm as past tense saying "had." Does this indicate that something happened to the family farm? Or did she have a falling out with her family?

Than when she speaks of living with her in-laws, while it seems she is treated well there, and she seems to like them she also laments the restrictions of not having a place of her own.

Is she resentful of Alfred that they still live with their parents? As when she talks of him, it does not seem he has any real definite goals. He was a farmer, a chauffeur, than he ran off to the war.

Or does she want complete independence? Yet when she had the evidence that she could perhaps use to set herself free from Alfred in the end she destroys it. Perhaps after six years she has lost hope and resigned herself to her fate.

[Janine]

...and remember, from a man's perspective...women don't always want the truth,
but what they want is their desired truth...ever hear the question, "Does this
make me look fat?" There's not an answer than a man can give that won't get him
into trouble... Or..."Do you think that she is pretty?"

Garrison Keillor's....

Bien, this is getting a bit scary...you're starting to sound just like my ex-boyfriend...he was a Keillor fan; but then...maybe a lot of men are...he also would say the statement you said above....

But, that is probably typically male in observation concerning the compliment bind....But then again...maybe, there is only one answer like in math!? Women know the universal answer to those questions.

I never thought of Keillor anything like Lawrence - now that is interesting. I actually, never read a Keillor book, so I can't judge that one.

Emmy, I am glad you are so happy here in the thread discussion; already you have contributed a good deal. It's great to see newcomers this month. I am glad I noticed that you liked Lawrence and invited you. I try to recruit people who mention having read his work(s). I figure they might also enjoy the short stories and learn more about him. Lawrence has been the focus of my personal study for the past 4 or 5 yrs; before, that it was some bit of study on Thomas Hardy; but Hardy did have a heavy influence on Lawrence's work (at least in the beginning) so it's good I studied one right after the other. I had read Lawrence years back, but never fully delved into his works, as I have in the past few years on here. By the time I read all of the major works and some minor, I was curious to read his first novels "The White Peacock"; and recently I read "The Trespasser". I just noticed TWP on Amazon not long ago. I keep it in my wishlist, even though I own a paperback copy I will look it up and see if I can find one for you from a decent seller. It would have to be used I think sinced it out of print now. Have you purchased from Amazon before? I will go and find the link if I am able. Actually, a friend of mine found Lawrence's Australia novel, "Kangaroo", in California at a used bookstore. I like the book and own the movie adapatation with Colin Friel playing Lawrence and Judy Davis playing his wife Frieda. The names in the novel are changed, but one can easily spot the married couple. The characters are Richard and Harriet. I had to settle for a VHS tape but I enjoy that production very much.

I will post this and then answer Dark Muse's following post. Just afraid I could lose this one.

Yes I had considered that possibility. I had in fact expected that they were going to actually hook up at some point, particularly after he had brought Joey back home after having saved him. There did seem to me to be some underlined attraction between the two of them. Or rather it seemed that she was trying to appeal to him, but he was just oblivious or ignoring it.

Dark Muse,The more I think about it now, I think that was the case. He also, mentioned that he had meet her before:

As I passed the end of the upper house, I saw a young woman just coming out of the back door. I had spoken to her in the summer. She recognized me at once, and waved to me.

In some ways, saving her peacock, considering how close she is to the bird, would indicate he understood that 'animal' connection and that he empathised with Maggie; establishing a sort of connection between the narrator and Maggie. I don't see this connection as a sexual tension exactly, but more like a man becoming accutely aware of the sensitivites to a woman and her earthiness. In caring for the bird, he taps into his own 'nurturing' side and in this way, he's own sensitivity makes a connection to the woman loving her pet peacock. I think you hit on something vital before, when you said that Maggie didn't have any children and yet here, she knows of this letter, in which her husband has supposidly fathered a child, in another country, by a younger woman. Both those factors, have to make a woman feel even more threatened and more vulnerable; even more unsure of herself and her place in life. I think in someways, they did indeed have some type of underlying attraction between them; I am not saying it was sexual or romantic, in anyway or could progress to that; while reading I never really thought that could happen at the end, unlike your own predictions. I think the narrator did indeed note the female elements or an earthy nature in Maggie, that could be dangerous for him. He mentions being affected by her, starting with this line, which I know we previously did point out and discuss:

her gloomy black eyes softened caressively to me for a moment, with that momentary humility which makes a man lord of the earth.

Another would be:

she looked up at me and smiled, with that odd, immediate intimacy, something witch-like and impossible...

It's like she is a witch or unworldly creature of the earth, casting a sort of spell over him. He is wary all along. I think this is why he so often mentions her as 'witch-like'. I think the narrator (Lawrence) fears her in someway. He fears her female dominance. This notion runs through many of Lawrence's stories. He did have an extreme fear of female dominance, which stemmed from his own mother's overbearing way with his father. In this case, there is again Lawernce's 'duality' being revealed. He wants to empathise with the woman and yet something inside him fears her. This may be why he doesn't reveal the whole truth when he is reading the letter. He remarked, just prior to reading it, that:

So we stood among the shafts of the open cart-shed that faced the road. Then she looked down at the ground, a little sideways, and I noticed a small black frown on her brows. She seemed to brood for a moment. Then she looked straight into my eyes, so that I blinked and wanted to turn my face aside. She was searching me for something and her look was too near. The frown was still on her keen, sallow brow.

Then a short bit later he said:

I looked at her, and didn't quite realize. She looked too far into me, my wits were gone.

So to me by now, her female, earthy witch-like spell has worked and egged him on to read the letter to her; she has successfully conjoled him. By this last line, he felt quite powerless to refuse her. He has gone too far in his mind, to turn back; his judgement was impaired, to some degree, by all the soft witchy conniving and the rolling and sulky dark eyes. He seemed quite taken with her eyes and the witch quality, this seemed to keep him curious; like when one looks at something quite frightening or horrid and still can't take one's eyes from the subject.

I found this part to be a bit curious as well. For one thing there seems to be something ambiguous about her past. For as she speaks of her parents farm, it seems as if her family had been well off but it seems to be something that is no more. For she says she no longer has a home to go back to, and she speaks of the farm as past tense saying "had." Does this indicate that something happened to the family farm? Or did she have a falling out with her family?

Yes indeed, there does seem to be something curious and ambiguous about her past. But, did she mean the farm was better or worse, smaller or larger? If her former home was better, then why did she marry into a poorer state? This might bring up the question, was she tricked into this life she now leads. Was her husband Alfred charming back then; turned cruel to her now; or if the truth were known in their private lives, did she try to dominate him and this is why he sought comfort elsewhere? We really do not know of their intimate relationship. We know of one prominent statement, that the narrator makes

"with that momentary humility which makes a man lord of the earth."

To me, this suggests that Maggie is capable of that connection and yet, is she so with her own husband? This scenerio between the married couple, might be much like Lawrence's own parents' situation, in which L's mother, Lydia, thought herself 'above' her husband, Arthur, in social statis and ran him down continually, in front of the children. It's just a thought and another connection. Afterall, one does write about what one knows of most prominently in one's life.

Than when she speaks of living with her in-laws, while it seems she is treated well there, and she seems to like them she also laments the restrictions of not having a place of her own.

I noticed this, too; but "not having a place of her own" throws me off. Does she indicate a place for both she and her husband, but used the her own simply as a figure of speech? Maybe, Maggie does resent the fact they are stuck there, without a farm or a place of their own. Perhaps, Alfred is lazy and unmotivated and has no desire to part with living with his parents. In that case, I could feel even more sorry for Maggie, stuck in this situation; although, it might be worse to live alone with Alfred.

Is she resentful of Alfred that they still live with their parents? As when she talks of him, it does not seem he has any real definite goals. He was a farmer, a chauffeur, than he ran off to the war.

I am seeing this point more clearly and I am basically agreeing it is a good possibility. I think Maggie has a lot of resentment to her husband and her lot in life. Yes, I also noticed he had had a variety of jobs and seemed to be without any true goals or direction in life. He is very 'unsettled' and yet Maggie is opposite it seems; she is 'rooted' to the earth. Connections are made to the cows, the farm, the peacock: all representing the earth and 'animalistic' natural factors, which often become prominent in Lawrence's work.

Or does she want complete independence? Yet when she had the evidence that she could perhaps use to set herself free from Alfred in the end she destroys it. Perhaps after six years she has lost hope and resigned herself to her fate.

I am not sure that letter would be enough evidence to base a divorce on. For one, the man could deny having sex with the Belgium girl and say her whole story was a fabrication. Or the paternity, back then, could never be proven. It could have been an number of soldiers who fathered the child. I don't see where Maggie had any 'out' that was actually realistic. She might leave Alfred and the farm and his kind parents and then end up returning more downtrodden, than before. She may only have her bit of female pride, her peacock friend, Joey, and indeed be resigned to her lot in life.

[jinjang]

I noticed the discussion is not moving on and inevitably I am breaking my words.

The peacock has been known as a symbol of fidelity because peacocks are birds that mate for life, and the male goes through great efforts to try and attract the attentions of his chosen mate.

That is an excellent point, Dark Muse. Now let us add the adjective “wintry” to peacock.
The Marriam-Webster Online gave me the second meaning of the adjective:
2 a: weathered by or as if by winter : aged, hoary b: cheerless, chilling
Oxford American Dictionary gave me the meaning: chilly, lacking warmth or vivacity
Two-volume short Oxford Dictionary: Devoid of fervor or affection; dismal, dreary, cheerless.

I skipped the first meaning, thinking Lawrence did not possibly mean the first meaning “of relating to winter.” Did someone mention peacocks are not English birds; hence, it is out of place? The cheerless out-of-placed bird interposes the reconciliation between Maggie and Alfred. While in the war, he got weak and now he wants to get back to Maggie. I consider the war, his age, his good looks, and his libido. Alfred may have been between 18 and 22 years old when he joined the war. Maggie determined to drag drearily on the issue of infidelity.

This moment in their lives described in the story is short fleeting, compared to the whole life. Let them listen to the father-in-law who speaks wisdom. It is too bad we do not get to hear the mother-in-law, except the short description of her expressions. I feel deep empathy toward Elise who is left alone to raise the child without a father.

There did seem to me to be some underlined attraction between the two of them. Or rather it seemed that she was trying to appeal to him, but he was just oblivious or ignoring it.

That is a little far-fetched, do you not think so? She may have been seeking sympathy without intending to attract him.

I wonder if her main objective is actually to draw the narrator into her and her husband's scandal. I am not sure for what reasons she is doing that. Perhaps, she is being flirtious with the narrator all along. Has anyone thought of this - why she would share a personal deception like this one with a virtual stranger.

I see the power of persuasion here. But, I definitely agree with Janine on this point below:

I felt it was just a slice-of-life tale; some that could happen to any one of us in our walk of life and that Lawrence is merely recording it and giving the reader the option of interpreting it in his own way… The narrator is not just a narrator but a character now in the story because he has been thrown into the situtation quite by accident.

I think their distraction or rather his distraction is likely his ponderous and hesitant moment before deciding to translate the letter in consideration of easing her troubles.

When are we moving on to the next part?

[Dark Muse]

I I consider the war, his age, his good looks, and his libido. Alfred may have been between 18 and 22 years old when he joined the war. Maggie determined to drag drearily on the issue of infidelity.

You make infidelity sound like having a bad hair day.

Like she should just be, oh well since there was a way, of course it is perfectly excusable and acceptable that my husband knocked some other check up, and how awful am I to be concerned about this issue.

You seem to think that somehow Alfred is the victim here. And Maggie is just a horrible person because she happens to be found of her pet peacock, as you earlier tried to blame the failure of their marriage on the bird, and suggested it was pathetic that she felt affection for her pet.

I cannot move myself to feel sorry for Elisa even if she did not know that Alfred was married. Pehrpas she is not at fault if she was igonrant but I still cannot really syampathize with her.

Besides there is the possiblity that Alfred was correct about her just being a total fluzzy, though I would not consider him reliable and take what he says at face vaule, but it is always possible she really was just a loose woman who would sleep with anyone.

[jinjang]

Please interpret "wintry" peacock for me. I would like to be persuaded.

[Dark Muse]

I am not quite sure what you need to be persuaded of.

Are you suggusting the point of this story is that having a pet peacock is justification for your husband to be unfaithful to you? And that the real problem in a marraige is pets and not infeidelity, because Alfred would be faithful if only Maggie was not found of her peacock?

[jinjang]

You mentioned somewhere the title tells a lot about the story.
What does the "wintry" peacock signify to the main theme of the story in your opinion?

Let me give you one of my favorite quotes:
"When you are young in the flesh, morning revealed to you that your most ardent happiness was deception and illusion. You will have to grow very old in order to learn that, by way of compensation, your bitterest suffering was also deception and illusion."

In some sense and in a grand scheme of things, the incident could be viewed as a very "bad hair day."

What is so wrong about reconciliation?

[Dark Muse]

I am not willing to be so glib about infideility, nor blame it on birds.

[jinjang]

I apologize if I sounded insincere about infidelity.

What I am trying to say is that the wintry peacock may symbolize Maggie's dreary obsession of her husband's infidelity. She is locked up in her emotion of being betrayed by her husband, disregarding her own contradictory desire to make a peace with Alfred and with her situation. I always focus more on the first persons and their inner struggles, not the exterior influences - her husband’s infidelity being one of the exterior influences and her whole situation of no-alternative way out being another. Alfred is not important but Maggie’s peace is, when I think of Maggie as the first person.

I would like to put Alfred as the first person sometimes, but this point we will disagree for sure.

[Dark Muse]

But ultimately Maggie new the peacock before she ever met Alfred, the bird was a part of her life before he ever entered into the picture. And I do not know the exact quote, but it makes a reference in the story to the peacock being something of her own home, which for some reason or other she seems unable to go back to.

For me to Maggie the bird is more of a symbol of nostalgia. Something from her past she can hold on, and as she laments not having a place of her own, and she is living with Alfred's parents, Joey is something that Maggie can have that is her own. Joey is a source of comfort to her because she is neglected by her husband.

Without Joey, Maggie would have a truly dismal life, she would have no one to turn to. Though her in laws are nice to her, they are not her true parents, they still primarily "belong" to Alfred, or are a more a part of Alfred than she is.

But Joey is the only thing which is wholly her own. It is her connection to this lost past of hers, this home that does not truly exist for her anymore. Which she is denied both in her past as well as in her present, without much hope of her obtaining it in the future.

For some unknown reason she was severed from her family home, and now that she got married, she was still unable to establish a new home for herself. Both because of Alfred's seeming lack of ambition in acquiring his own place, and because of his lack of any really interest and affection for his wife.

[Virgil]

I'm back and trying to catch up. I'm sure you've zoomed ahead of this, but let me throw my thoughts. You guys can move on and not respond if you don't wish.

I agree; and this is typical Lawrence to some extend; he is showing us a bad situation in which a woman is trapped in her economic circumstances and I believe his empathy is for the woman here, not for the man. Let's face it, the man is a cheat and a jerk; this point I agree, with Dark Muse. But, Maggie does not have the option to 'just take off' and 'go on her own'; infeasible that she would run away with the narrator; he is really not interested. I think when she is sitting downtrodden in the kitchen later on, she is showing us how sad and impossible her situtation is; my memory of that scene is a bit foggy, so will be better when we come to that actual part of the text. I don't see any evidence that the narrator is siding with the husband; I just don't read it that way. He is pointing out, as he did in other stories, that the woman is trapped by economical reasons. In "The Horse-Dealer's Daughter" much was the same - a young woman with no real options for her future, unless she were to become married. I've read other stories where the same theme is explored or presented; so to me it is not that unusual.

I'm not sure I agree that Lawrence's empathy is with the woman in this story. In fact I'm pretty sure it's not. Yes she's definitely trapped, but you know that doesn't excuse her lack of rage on this situation. I do think that is significant.

Not that is seen in public...or at least in the presence of Alfred, his parents, and/or the narrator...maybe she's too private concerning her deep down emotions. She might have been crying her eyes out the rest of the time. Even the "strongest" of people are extremely emotional when no one is around...

That's speculation though. We can only really go by what's presented.

Janine, you definitely know great deal about the author. It is highly likely that the narrator is married because of the paragraph: “In the night, however, we heard him thumping about.”

Janine and I are sort of ameteur Lawrence experts.

I always let my French husband look at any pretty girl. Preoccupied men at any age do not seem to have the "male wondering eye." In France, flirtation is a complement to women and even an etiquette.

Oh every woman should have that attitude. God bless you. Can you please speak to my wife? Oh and I do like to flirt.

Experience would not have to avert eyes. I know it is totally unrelated to the story set in England soon after South African War (1899-1902).

Are you saying this story is set after the South African War? I thought it was World War I.

Haha I am pretty much just as frank, opinionated and argumentative in person

I completely believe that.

[Dark Muse]

I'm not sure I agree that Lawrence's empathy is with the woman in this story. In fact I'm pretty sure it's not. Yes she's definitely trapped, but you know that doesn't excuse her lack of rage on this situation. I do think that is significant.

The more I consider Maggie's attitude and the langauge she usues, the way she responds, the more I am convinved that her lack or rage comes from the fact that she is not in the least bit surprsied.

While I had wanted her to hit him over the head the a frying pan, or have a revenge fling with the narrator, the reason I think she does exhibit a lack of rage is becaue she exepcts nothing more or less from Alfred.

There are many suggestions that this is his first offence, and it does seem to allude to the fact that even prior to this incident he was not a husband to be desired.

Not to mention how long they have been married now, and her prospects being fairly hopeless. She probably knows getting angery will do no good because she already knows that Alfred is a good for nothing shmuck but she was fooled by him and is now stuck with him.

[Virgil]

One of the things I had found interesting during this whole porcess of reading the letter to her, is the distraction of both of them. Though she had asked him to read the letter to him, it seems she already more or less knows what it is. For she does not beleive his version of the letter as he reads it but already has decided the truth of the matter beforhand, as she keeps interupting him with her commentary.

As well it is when he starts to read the letter that Joey comes up, and so she seems to be only half paying attention to him with her focus having shifting upon the bird as he reads. As if the letter is really of no importance at all.

And then there was that seemingly rather odd moment when he suddenly asked about the cows. It struck me as a bit currious when I read it as it seemed a bit out of place and without reason. But just popped out of nowhere.



In the middle of thier conversation he asks about cows, and than the go right back to discussing the letter again.

I also found the slight inconsistency to be currious. She says that she was married to Alfred for six years



But than letter she said that Joey came down from her home with her seven years ago.



So there is a year in which she had not been staying at her home, but it is not very likely back than that she was living with Alfred for a year before they married.

Excellent observations Dark Muse. Those distractions caught my eye too. I do think they are significant, first because the peacock becomes the central symbol of the story and second because the cows are a stark contrast to the peacock.

I am one of those easily distracted. I just finished writing a proposal for my work and got here. While I enjoy reading very much all your postings, my arms are up in the air at this point... I have never - never once in my life - dissected a story this much. That is why I am in math - one answer to a problem! I will keep reading all your opinions, though, enjoying it from a safe distance as before. You now have a good listener (reader).

We do dissect the Lawrence stories down to the bone. We really get into the heart of them. I hope you wil like that and I hope you will participate.

Since you are getting tired, I will tell you a funny story to distract you.
Koreans can not pronounce 'th' and so we rough it up like 'd.'
A Korean couple whose ages are thirty and thirty-two would answer to their ages:"I am dirty. I am dirty-too."

That is a great one Jin!!

I realize that many Lawrence stories have sex all over hidden, including this one. Men know what they want while women themselves do not exactly know what they want. Maggie, in reality and in all truth, wants Alfred, but clings to Joey as if the bird can satisfy her need of affection. It is pathetic!

Oh, there are plenty of Lawrence women who know what they want in other stories.

One of the things which interested me about this story is the title. Titles often play a key and important role in stories, and there most be a specific reason why this one is called Wintry Peacock. It seems here the peacock is made to play a more significant role than just the friendly companion of Maggie but rather there is some deeper statement in the presence of the bird to carry throughout the story and the characters.

I knew the peacock played an important role in many different cultures and so I started some research on symbolism behind the bird. Some of the things I found I think are interesting and while I am not sure what their exact meaning is, I can see who they might perhaps play into this story.

In Christianity the Peacock came to be seen as a symbol of vanity and it was said that even the beautiful peacock thinks his own feet as ugly. This was meant to be a lesson to humans that they should remember their own imperfections and faults.

In Japan the peacock was believed to have the power to devour poisonous serpents and so it came to represent the transformation of evil into good.

In some cultures it is seen as a symbol of immortality.

And best for last, most ironically, and which I find most difficult to see as a coincidence.

The peacock has been known as a symbol of fidelity because peacocks are birds that mate for life, and the male goes through great efforts to try and attract the attentions of his chosen mate.

Dark Muse, those are interesting symbols but you should by now since you've been participating in many of our Lawrence discussion know what Lawrence means to suggest by the peacock. First of all it's a bird and second it's a bird with proud flaming colors and third there is the syllable "c*ck" in its name. I think you know what I'm saying now.

I am one of these people too. Often in a conversation I will say something or point out something completely irrelevant from the conversation at hand. I think the reason I do this is out of awkwardness. Plus I am a fidgety person with and find it difficult to concentrate too long on one thing.

The distractions serve a writing role as well as thematic. To just read the letter would be relatively boring. A good writer would naturally break that up into segments and have a little drama going on in parallel. But I do think there is a thematic element to the distraction. I mentioned above how the peacock suggests a male element, and that I'm confident in. What I'm less confident is in what the cows represent. I think they represent the female element, but it's not really developed. Notice also it's a boy that is controlling the cows.

I can understand why Maggie's character would try to distract herself with the peacock. If I were her, I'd be doing it to deaden the emotional impact of the situation I find myself in. I wouldn't want to cry or show more vulnerability, especially to an acquaintance, at what I discover in the contents of a personal love letter from someone else to my husband and patting and cooing at the peacock would sort of remove me from the scene a little.

And I think it shows us something about the situation here. Maggie has more emotion for the peacock than her husband. Do we ever see her give such affection to her husband?

I don't like how the narrator decides to soften the letter, not because I am adamant that the truth should be stated at all times but because I feel as if there was no reason for him to do so.

That is something I can't figure out yet either. The best I can come up with is that he does not want to fully encounter the emotional situation of him directly telling her the real circumstances. The other possibility is that he does not want to violate a male bond with her husband. None the less the translation event highlights a lack of communication going on through out the story. The lack of communication between Maggie and Alfred is stark; the dishonest communication between the narrator and Maggie is certainly there; the only honest communication occurs between Maggie and the peacock and perhaps Eliza and Alfred, though it's only Eliza.

I feel that Maggie's character came to him for confirmation of her husband's deceit and betrayal. She already suspects his character and is intuitively certain but she cannot justify the inclination to leave him if that suspicion is not substantiated. So the narrator does her a great injustice by lying to her. Worse, he believes it is to save her feelings but she already suspects, even already knows the content of the letter, so his action is useless and does not contribute at all to the situation. He is doing something for the sake of his idea of what is honourable and noble, stemmed from a feeling of pity for the woman, but devoid of a righteous compassion for Maggie's character. He is softening the letter because he is misplacing Maggie with the idea of her. She is only a general case to him, not a real person. The general case is the the woman would be distressed to discover such a deceitful truth, the real person is a woman who is all too knowledgeable about the actual character of her husband. Again, I am amazed at Lawrence's skill in showing this displacement very well.

No I tend to disagree. I think he's doing it in male solidarity with Alfred. And I do think the dishonest communication is very central to the story's theme.

I've been having trouble finding 'The White Peacock' in stores; the general level of Australian bookstores is quite poor and they seem to have endless copies of Lady Chattterley's Lover and Sons and Lovers.

Thanks so much, Janine, for welcoming me to this thread. I am having an absolutely wonderful time and I'm grateful for the internet and its advancements in uniting me with the handful of DH Lawrence lovers who happen to be on the other side of the world. The times before the DH Lawrence short stories thread were very lonely for me indeed.

well, that's great Emmy. I'm not sure if i've welcomed you. Welcome to lit net and to the Lawrence club here.

I think you [Dark Muse] hit on something vital before, when you said that Maggie didn't have any children and yet here, she knows of this letter, in which her husband has supposidly fathered a child, in another country, by a younger woman. Both those factors, have to make a woman feel even more threatened and more vulnerable; even more unsure of herself and her place in life.

No question, the contrast between Eliza having a baby and Maggie being childless is very significant. There is so much in this story that one can consider a wasteland: the winter setting, the barren woman, the lack of love, the lack of communication, animals that are unnatural to the environment (peacocks in England?), lies and infidelity, the lack of honest emotional response.

It's like she is a witch or unworldly creature of the earth, casting a sort of spell over him. He is wary all along. I think this is why he so often mentions her as 'witch-like'. I think the narrator (Lawrence) fears her in someway. He fears her female dominance.

Not sure about fear, though that's possible, but certainly resents it, certainly disdains it.

This notion runs through many of Lawrence's stories. He did have an extreme fear of female dominance, which stemmed from his own mother's overbearing way with his father. In this case, there is again Lawernce's 'duality' being revealed. He wants to empathise with the woman and yet something inside him fears her. This may be why he doesn't reveal the whole truth when he is reading the letter. He remarked, just prior to reading it, that:

I don't agree with that last sentence, but I do think Lawrence in general did fear female dominance.

So to me by now, her female, earthy witch-like spell has worked and egged him on to read the letter to her; she has successfully conjoled him. By this last line, he felt quite powerless to refuse her. He has gone too far in his mind, to turn back; his judgement was impaired, to some degree, by all the soft witchy conniving and the rolling and sulky dark eyes. He seemed quite taken with her eyes and the witch quality, this seemed to keep him curious; like when one looks at something quite frightening or horrid and still can't take one's eyes from the subject.

Perhaps that's why he tells her as much as he does, but i still think he's trying to not violate another man's privacy.

Yes indeed, there does seem to be something curious and ambiguous about her past. But, did she mean the farm was better or worse, smaller or larger? If her former home was better, then why did she marry into a poorer state? This might bring up the question, was she tricked into this life she now leads. Was her husband Alfred charming back then; turned cruel to her now; or if the truth were known in their private lives, did she try to dominate him and this is why he sought comfort elsewhere? We really do not know of their intimate relationship. We know of one prominent statement, that the narrator makes

"with that momentary humility which makes a man lord of the earth."

Lord of the earth is a proud peacock.

I noticed this, too; but "not having a place of her own" throws me off. Does she indicate a place for both she and her husband, but used the her own simply as a figure of speech? Maybe, Maggie does resent the fact they are stuck there, without a farm or a place of their own. Perhaps, Alfred is lazy and unmotivated and has no desire to part with living with his parents. In that case, I could feel even more sorry for Maggie, stuck in this situation; although, it might be worse to live alone with Alfred.

More wasteland.

That is an excellent point, Dark Muse. Now let us add the adjective “wintry” to peacock.
The Marriam-Webster Online gave me the second meaning of the adjective:
2 a: weathered by or as if by winter : aged, hoary b: cheerless, chilling
Oxford American Dictionary gave me the meaning: chilly, lacking warmth or vivacity
Two-volume short Oxford Dictionary: Devoid of fervor or affection; dismal, dreary, cheerless.

I skipped the first meaning, thinking Lawrence did not possibly mean the first meaning “of relating to winter.” Did someone mention peacocks are not English birds; hence, it is out of place? The cheerless out-of-placed bird interposes the reconciliation between Maggie and Alfred. While in the war, he got weak and now he wants to get back to Maggie. I consider the war, his age, his good looks, and his libido. Alfred may have been between 18 and 22 years old when he joined the war. Maggie determined to drag drearily on the issue of infidelity.

Very good observation in there Jin. I think it fits with what I've been saying about a wasteland and unnatural situation.

I think you guys passed up discussing the central part of the quoted passage. Here:

'And is your husband at home?'

'I expect him home tonight. He's been wounded, you know, and we've been applying for him home. He was home about six weeks ago--he's been in Scotland since then. Oh, he was wounded in the leg. Yes, he's all right, a great strapping fellow. But he's lame, he limps a bit. He expects he'll get his discharge--but I don't think he will. We married? We've been married six years--and he joined up the first day of the war. Oh, he thought he'd like the life. He'd been through the South African War. No, he was sick of it, fed up. I'm living with his father and mother--I've no home of my own now. My people had a big farm--over a thousand acres--in Oxfordshire. Not like here--no. Oh, they're very good to me, his father and mother. Oh, yes, they couldn't be better. They think more of me than of their own daughters. But it's not like being in a place of your own, is it? You can't really do as you like. No, there's only me and his father and mother at home. Before the war? Oh, he was anything. He's had a good education--but he liked the farming better. Then he was a chauffeur. That's how he knew French. He was driving a gentleman in France for a long time--'

At this point the peacocks came round the corner on a puff of wind.

'Hello, Joey!' she called, and one of the birds came forward, on delicate legs. Its grey speckled back was very elegant, it rolled its full, dark-blue neck as it moved to her. She crouched down. 'Joey, dear,' she said, in an odd, saturnine caressive voice, 'you're bound to find me, aren't you?' She put her face forward, and the bird rolled his neck, almost touching her face with his beak, as if kissing her.

'He loves you,' I said. She twisted her face up at me with a laugh.

'Yes,' she said, 'he loves me, Joey does,'--then, to the bird--'and I love Joey, don't I. I do love Joey.' And she smoothed his feathers for a moment. Then she rose, saying: 'He's an affectionate bird.' I smiled at the roll of her 'bir-rrd'. 'Oh, yes, he is,' she protested. 'He came with me from my home seven years ago. Those others are his descendants--but they're not like Joey--are they, dee-urr?' Her voice rose at the end with a witch-like cry.

There's a lot there to highlight. First, Alfred is wounded in the leg and now limps. It was quite common in post WWI literature to have the soldier return with a wounded leg, suggesting the emasculation from the war experience. TS Eliot's The Wasteland and Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises are examples. It suggests a lack of virileness. This is a story about the ramifications of the war. Alfred has been gone to be a soldier from the first day of their marriage, he has been wounded, while away to the war he's fathered a child, and now has run off from that responsibility. The woman has lost her farm and land and is now dependant on her husband's family. The only emotional connection is the unnatural love between Maggie and Joey. Notice too the bird has "delicate legs," connecting him to Alfred in a strange way. The bird is a sublimated object for the love Maggie should have for her husband. The war has caused a very unnatural situation, unnatural lives.

I think I'm caught up now.

[Dark Muse]

No I tend to disagree. I think he's doing it in male solidarity with Alfred. And I do think the dishonest communication is very central to the story's theme.

Yes! Yes! Yes!

Finally, that is what I have been saying from the beigning. That he does it, just to look out for Alfred's back as some sort of inherent male bondagae thing. Afterall Lawerence is all about the "brotherhood" between men and the imporatance of male relationships with each other.