D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[BienvenuJDC]

That's alright...I often see things from a very wide perspective...I see things from the space shuttle and people may not see where I'm getting things. It's funny that DHL never addressed the space program here. You'd think that he would have mentioned something that huge...

[Janine]

Was I? I didn't mean to be.

yes, you can be a real meanie sometimes, but we'll forgive you.

This is a fine story Janine, with incredible subtlety.

I thought so the first time I read it; but, actually on repeat readings, I find it much deeper than I first thought. I thought it would be a good easy one to discuss - well how wrong I was on that prediction. It is turning out to be a very fascinating story, with much deeper/darker connotations, and I like that.

Yes, absolutely. I think the gender roles in England may have been drastically changed in WWI, and in the US in WWII. And yes lawrence blamed the war for a lot of society's problems. Actually it was reciprical. He saw the modern industrial world as leading to the war (that's not in this story) and then the war having a terrible effect on society as well.

I apologize Bien if I came across as harsh. I didn't mean to be harsh. I thought your last few posts were straying from the story. But as I look back it was more my impression than so.

These last two are to Bien, I know; but Virgil, my good friend, I am very proud of you at this moment for appologising to Bien for misinterpreting his post. That is very fair.

Now you can remove the B,M,D from your signature!

[Janine]

That's alright...I often see things from a very wide perspective...I see things from the space shuttle and people may not see where I'm getting things. It's funny that DHL never addressed the space program here. You'd think that he would have mentioned something that huge...

Bien, in 1919? Was there even a space program at the time?

[BienvenuJDC]

Bien, in 1919? Was there even a space program at the time?

Well...not that the governmental officials let on...but the documents in Roswell were doctored to read the 1950s...the first space program was lead by Captain Verne according to his memoirs in 1865. But it was kept a secret until the 1950s, when there was a governmental cover-up in Roswell. Few people actually know this because officials spread misinformation by feeding rednecks with false reports.

[Janine]

Well...not that the governmental officials let on...but the documents in Roswell were doctored to read the 1950s...the first space program was lead by Captain Verne according to his memoirs in 1865. But it was kept a secret until the 1950s, when there was a governmental cover-up in Roswell. Few people actually know this because officials spread misinformation by feeding rednecks with false reports.

...did you read this in a Michael Crichton novel - maybe Airspace? Isn't Roswell where they claim they found cattle slaughter by aliens? Of course, this is all bordering on the political, so we better not further explore this in this thread, or they will be giving us a warning. I think Lawrence would have this knowledge in 1919, although he liked stargazing emensely and mentions the heavens and stars often in his work; they are very significant to his philosophy, so maybe he knew something we didn't know...

[BienvenuJDC]

...did you read this in a Michael Crichton novel - maybe Airspace? Isn't Roswell where they claim they found cattle slaughter by aliens? Of course, this is all bordering on the political, so we better not further explore this in this thread, or they will be giving us a warning. I think Lawrence would have this knowledge in 1919, although he liked stargazing emensely and mentions the heavens and stars often in his work; they are very significant to his philosophy, so maybe he knew something we didn't know...

No...this just came off the top of my head. Captain Verne...Jules Verne From the earth to the Moon written in 1865. And the politics in this context would not be current politics as is mention in the rules......and the reports in Roswell...as I said... was a cover-up. So..IF...DHL did read the works of Jules Verne, then that was his own loss...

[Janine]

No...this just came off the top of my head. Captain Verne...Jules Verne From the earth to the Moon written in 1865. And the politics in this context would not be current politics as is mention in the rules......and the reports in Roswell...as I said... was a cover-up. So..IF...DHL did read the works of Jules Verne, then that was his own loss...

Ok, got your drift now. I can't imagine, that Lawrence would read Jules Verne, but one never knows.

[Sapphire]

Hi all

I am reading this discussion with great interest. I hope you guys do not mind that I keep silent most of the time - I just had a hard time getting my mind around it all and have an actual opinion on this story (I still do not really see the point of the story). Your talking definitely helps me - I would have never, ever thought all this behind it

I do have one question about the part that is being discussed now:
Why on earth is the narrator suddenly talking about "WE" when he talks about rescuing the bird?
Who is the "we"? Is it his sister? His wife? His mother? Who is he living with in that house? And how long has he lived there? If he lives in the English country side, and is so familiar with the ground that he can find his way over rocks in heavy snow - why does he not know his neighbours? He only mentions talking to her once ("in summer"), not even indicating that he knows her name. Do people not talk in that part of the country? Is rumour not part of country life? Maybe it is because she lives not really next to him? But definitely on walking distance...
I realize I am asking questions that can only be answered by imagination , not by reading the story more carefully. I guess I should stick with
Why does Lawrence switch to "we" in this part of the story, never to return to it again?
Maybe he wants to imply that the narrator is no bachelor but knows married life?

Another thing which is nagging me since I read this story but does not really relate to it is this:

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

I am sure I read that line before, or something in that sense. I am not sure it was one of Mr. Lawrence books I read it in though... Actually, I think it was a Thomas Hardy book... I tried to find it again but I did not succeed.
Not important, but it is nagging me. Like a song you have in your head but do not know the title or singer to.

As for where the sympathy of the writer is - I think he likes the person of Albert's father best. He describes him quite nicely, though I do not understand half of what he is saying. And maybe it is not the writer who is sympathetic with him, but rather Maggie. Ow well, we will get to that part later.
He definitely does not care for Elize. She is coming over to England, but the narrator does not even tell Albert to let him make up his own mind about meeting her or not (he is really manipulating lives there)! None of the people in the story seem to care a bit for that girl. Except Maggie, or at least she utters some concern about Albert not telling her he is married...

[Janine]

Hi all

I am reading this discussion with great interest. I hope you guys do not mind that I keep silent most of the time - I just had a hard time getting my mind around it all and have an actual opinion on this story (I still do not really see the point of the story). Your talking definitely helps me - I would have never, ever thought all this behind it

Saphire, I am happy to hear this; this makes the discussion more worthwhile. I am glad some things are being pointed out here that you would not have thought of. Lawrence was a fine short story writer and his work does make great use of repetition and of percieve it. After reading so many of Lawrence's stories and books, I can pretty much spot it; although some of the parts in this story I did not see right off, but only after several readings and closer consideration of the actual text. My research into where Lawrence and his wife Frieda were living at this time, greatly aided in this "war" theme intrepretation; also the time period and state of politics in England. Also, knowing this plays behind the scenes of the novel "Women in Love", made me realise this desolute winter scene was much more than an interesting landscape.

I do have one question about the part that is being discussed now:
Why on earth is the narrator suddenly talking about "WE" when he talks about rescuing the bird?

"Maybe he wants to imply that the narrator is no bachelor but knows married life?"

Definitely, I believe you answered your own question here. Indeed, at the time Lawrence and his wife Frieda occuppied a small cottage in this remote area of England. They only were here a short time, and then traveled on to other countries and notably Australia; then later they were quite nomadic in their frequent changes of residence and locations, of which Lawrence wrote stories and books reflecting surroundings. I happen to have bought a book not long ago called "The Minoan Distance", which explores Lawrence's travels and their influences on his work.

Who is the "we"? Is it his sister? His wife? His mother? Who is he living with in that house? And how long has he lived there? If he lives in the English country side, and is so familiar with the ground that he can find his way over rocks in heavy snow - why does he not know his neighbours? He only mentions talking to her once ("in summer"), not even indicating that he knows her name. Do people not talk in that part of the country? Is rumour not part of country life? Maybe it is because she lives not really next to him? But definitely on walking distance...

The "we" is definitely Lawrence and his wife, Frieda. As far as the Lawrence's being in contact with others in the area at this time, I can tell you they would have kept very much to themselves and also deliberately kept a low profile, while still residing in England. Lawrence, in this period of his life, was constantly being hounded by authorities; his work had caused quite a stir, even as it does in this thread today. Also, he was scrutinized by the fact, that his wife was of pure German decent, and not only that, but had a famous brother know to many in WWI as the Red Baron. Add to that the fact that Frieda was aristocratic by birth and you have a tricky situation to find yourself in in conservative England during the war. Therefore, having any relative on the opposing side of the war, would have made anyone instantly suspicious to the authorities. Lawrence and Frieda were residing, prior to this area, in Cornwall in a small cottage by the sea; it was there they were visited suddenly at night and harrassed by police and accused of spying for the German side; they were suspected of sending out signals at night to the boats off the coast. Of course, this was totally false and completely ludicrious; however, as the saying goes 'one can't fight city hall', or the government. At that time, their harsh treatment (they were flatly told to leave the house and never return) had quite made Lawrence determined to flea from England and never return to his native country again. He planned on going to America, but postponed that trip, to first go to Australia. So, my point here is, the Lawrence's would not have mingled, nor gossiped, with the neighboring farm occupants; I am sure they would be afraid to. It is quite feasible that this woman, was someone the narrator (Lawrence) had met only once. They were not in this area very long. Their residence was a temporary one. If you know the history behind the author, it is not hard to imagine some of the things he is saying or implying here.

I realize I am asking questions that can only be answered by imagination , not by reading the story more carefully. I guess I should stick with
Why does Lawrence switch to "we" in this part of the story, never to return to it again?
Maybe he wants to imply that the narrator is no bachelor but knows married life?

I answered that above. Definitely, this does connect him more closely to the story of a husband and wife in turmoil. Within Lawrence's own marriage, there was often much turmoil, as well. If anything, this might be one of their more peaceful times, while living in this secluded part of the country.

Another thing which is nagging me since I read this story but does not really relate to it is this:

I am sure I read that line before, or something in that sense. I am not sure it was one of Mr. Lawrence books I read it in though... Actually, I think it was a Thomas Hardy book... I tried to find it again but I did not succeed.
Not important, but it is nagging me. Like a song you have in your head but do not know the title or singer to.

Saphire, did you read Lawrence's "Sons and Lovers"? I think this line or a similar one may have been in this novel; if so, it would have concerned Miriam; who was fashioned after Lawrence's childhood woman friend and eventual lover, Jesse Chambers. This line reminds me of her eyes, because he spoke of her eyes as large brown brooding eyes, often downcast; in this case, he is saying "gloomy black eyes". He may have referred to Miriam's eyes in this way. He also referred to another character in his short story "Witch Ala Mode" similarly, based on his woman friend, Helen. I believe and their he sights the eyes as 'witchy' or 'witch-like'. This 'gloomy' or 'brooding' eye phrase is very common throughout may of Lawrence's stories. It could also, be found within a Hardy novel, since Lawrence was influenced by Hardy's work. I have read most of Hardy and most of Lawrence; therefore, I think it's an 'either-or' possibilty, but mostly I thought of his descriptions of Miriam right off when encountering that phrase and statement.

As for where the sympathy of the writer is - I think he likes the person of Albert's father best. He describes him quite nicely, though I do not understand half of what he is saying. And maybe it is not the writer who is sympathetic with him, but rather Maggie. Ow well, we will get to that part later.

Could be and that might relate to the narrator's (be it Lawrence) own father, who was 'salt of the earth'. He would have spoken in the 'heart' speech, as Lawrence referred to it. If you read Lawrence's poem, "Violets", the local venacular is very hard to decern and understand, but several readings will reveal the meaning of the poem - think "the smell of flowers and the smell of death". This he would have referred to as heart language; whereas, his mother's speech would have been more proper (high)English, which he would have referred to as 'head' speech.

Interesting thought that the woman/wife - Maggie - would be the only one sympathetic to the other woman. I can see where that would be how Lawrence would present it and I think you might be correct. The women have a common bond and so do the men. This story is very much about the battle of the sexes I believe. Although, we never see the wife of the narrator, I would surmise, knowning something of his real wife that she also would sympathise with the women on this matter. Lawrence's wife was pretty independent, modern and fiesty.

He definitely does not care for Elize. She is coming over to England, but the narrator does not even tell Albert to let him make up his own mind about meeting her or not (he is really manipulating lives there)! None of the people in the story seem to care a bit for that girl. Except Maggie, or at least she utters some concern about Albert not telling her he is married...

Do you think the woman will really come to England? This is something I greatly doubt. How in the world would she ever locate Alfred? Of course, she has his address; but still, it's a long shot she would make it to England with a child to seek him out. I think the narrator would be smart enough to realise this would end with that letter being destroyed. Even if the narrator had not read the letter, most likely the wife (Maggie) would not have delivered it to her husband. Even if he had know of the possibilty, I doubt he would have done anything different. He'd have his mother, father, and his wife to contend with.

[jinjang]

While I could not stay here long over the weekend, you all moved ahead a great deal. Let me slowly catch up.

(S)he does not at any rate appear to be a weak woman, she does come off as rather forward and strong-willed.

Emmy Castrol mentioned how she was reluctant to think Maggie as a charming person. Strong-willed women are not charming, some men say. No matter how we women view her, we could consider the possibility that Maggie is unattractive to men, to the narrator and even to her husband. If she has some qualities that dispel men, your point on the two men’s silent plotting against Maggie or women in general comes off strongly.

My point was…how the crest directly indicates "maleness" and the "male pride" and this Joey in this scene reflects ideas of maleness

I concurred that "Wintry Peacock" is still then manhood with its proud ego.

Here is where Lawrence really makes the association of the bird with a phallus. I know, Janine, I always have this on my mind. But Lawrence is always talking about this. The phallus was the central connection to blood consciousness.

Since male ego seems tied strongly to the functioning phallus, as Virgil said, it could mean Maggie upends Alfred in their fight as long as she has a solid proof to blame him with and as long as Alfred does not know she does not have the solid proof any more. Maggie did not tell Alfred what the narrator read in the letter. I am considering she was clever and manipulative in her silence over the letter.

If you read my former posts, I thought that whole winter scene very reminescent of the war and even the landscape of the war, such as the trenches and the barbed wire, etc; also the fallen soldier which I felt was the image of the bird struggling in the snow; it's also a analogy of survival of the fittest. The black and white references are significant in that they show the contrast between survival and death.

I think Virgil and Janine are saying the same thing in very different approaches. The war is between men and women and, at the moment, the men is defeated without weapons to fight back.

Thank you, Virgil, for the reference to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/dhlawren.htm.

I don't see Alfred as being one to be able to manage the family farm. Not only is he lame, but he doesn't show the attributes of responsibility. But if we are talking about Alfred's deficiency in these areas, then it would not really be accurate describing this as a phallic symbol...(or anti-phallic as it may be).

I agree with you on “Alfred’s deficiency.” If a man or woman can not settle on one thing and keeps moving from one to another, it is a sure sign of a loser in his or her life.

While war tends to often linger in the background of Lawrence's stories, I would argue that they are not the main point of his stories. I believe that this story does have a focus on gender roles and Lawrence's ideas about men and women, and the relationships between men and women, and men and men.

Along with the war on the background, your point certainly seems applicable to this story.

I do respect all of you who have read many DHL works. To know the author as well as you all do helps to understand certain aspects of the style in which the story was written. But may I suggest that the perspective from which I myself am reading may give a purer outlook. I have never read any of DHL's works. Maybe those of you who have read and are familiar with his works are trying to force his typical style into this work. Maybe you are right...too!

Yes… we all in this discussion may disagree without being wrong. I think Lawrence mapped the story with ambiguity rooted in. I think Janine agrees with me with her statement: “I think that, whether Lawrence intended these sexual overtones or undertones, is something very subjective and individual.”

[Virgil]

Why does Lawrence switch to "we" in this part of the story, never to return to it again?

That is strange. I take it the narrator doesn't live alone and he is referring to whomever lives with him. I had not really noticed that. Thanks Saphire. I don't know if it has any significance but it certainly is odd.

As for where the sympathy of the writer is - I think he likes the person of Albert's father best. He describes him quite nicely, though I do not understand half of what he is saying. And maybe it is not the writer who is sympathetic with him, but rather Maggie. Ow well, we will get to that part later.
He definitely does not care for Elize. She is coming over to England, but the narrator does not even tell Albert to let him make up his own mind about meeting her or not (he is really manipulating lives there)! None of the people in the story seem to care a bit for that girl. Except Maggie, or at least she utters some concern about Albert not telling her he is married... [/color]

Completely agree. The only person who has Lawrence's sympathy is the father, the person from the previous generation. Lawrence always loves those old world types. Notice the father speaks with that thick peasant accent. Lawrence is definitely anti-modern.

I concurred that "Wintry Peacock" is still then manhood with its proud ego.

Lawrence loves that theme. Let me also say that Janine just gets a kick out of me bringing up phalluses. It's not like I got penises on my mind. It can't be helped in a Lawrence work. The penis for Lawrence is the source of religious contact with the divine. Hope that doesn't shock people, but that's Lawrence. If you get a chance, read Lady Chatterly's Lover and see the significance of penises.

Since male ego seems tied strongly to the functioning phallus, as Virgil said, it could mean Maggie upends Alfred in their fight as long as she has a solid proof to blame him with and as long as Alfred does not know she does not have the solid proof any more. Maggie did not tell Alfred what the narrator read in the letter. I am considering she was clever and manipulative in her silence over the letter.

Everyone is manipulative in this story. Actually the way I would phrase it is that everyone participates in some form of dishonest communication in the story, everyone, that is, but the father.

I think Virgil and Janine are saying the same thing in very different approaches. The war is between men and women and, at the moment, the men is defeated without weapons to fight back.

Yes.

Thank you, Virgil, for the reference to http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/dhlawren.htm.

You're welcome.

[Dark Muse]

[color="blue"]He definitely does not care for Elize. She is coming over to England, but the narrator does not even tell Albert to let him make up his own mind about meeting her or not (he is really manipulating lives there)!

Toward the end the Narrator does ask Alfred if he has any intent to see the girl again and his response was

"Not me," he said. "Back your life it's a plant."

So Alfred clearly did make up his own mind about his thoughts on seeing the other girl and he even expressed doubts as to whather or not he truly was the father of the baby.

Perhaps this is the reason the narrator did not tell Alfred about her comming, not becuase he was out to manipulate thier lives but perhaps for the same reason he lied to Maggie, maybe he just does not like to deal with direct confrintation and it is easier for him to aviod the mess of other peoples lives than give them news they don't want to hear.

[None of the people in the story seem to care a bit for that girl. Except Maggie, or at least she utters some concern about Albert not telling her he is married... [/color

It seems that for Alfred she was just some fling of his, and well the narrator does not have any particular reason to care for her since he has nothing to do with it.

[Virgil]

Toward the end the Narrator does ask Alfred if he has any intent to see the girl again and his response was



So Alfred clearly did make up his own mind about his thoughts on seeing the other girl and he even expressed doubts as to whather or not he truly was the father of the baby.

Perhaps this is the reason the narrator did not tell Alfred about her comming, not becuase he was out to manipulate thier lives but perhaps for the same reason he lied to Maggie, maybe he just does not like to deal with direct confrintation and it is easier for him to aviod the mess of other peoples lives than give them news they don't want to hear.




It seems that for Alfred she was just some fling of his, and well the narrator does not have any particular reason to care for her since he has nothing to do with it.

Completely agree with your readings here Dark Muse. Alfred is not someone I respect in the least.

[BienvenuJDC]

Perhaps this is the reason the narrator did not tell Alfred about her coming, not because he was out to manipulate their lives but perhaps for the same reason he lied to Maggie, maybe he just does not like to deal with direct confrontation and it is easier for him to avoid the mess of other peoples lives than give them news they don't want to hear.

This seems very possible, Muse...not only possible, but plausible.

One other idea that occurred to me was that the narrator didn't take Eliza seriously. Therefore, he may thought it best just not to mention it.

[Janine]

You are all a riot. I went away for a half a day and come back to all these posts; one in particular which caught my eye in which my name was included with a specific part of the male anatomy - gee, thanks, Virgil. It's a wonder that your post was not censored, since the four letter word meaning a male chicken is always censored; also, the word, which we tend to use in a crude manner, which is actually the technical name of a female dog. This censor program is very odd to me sometimes.

First off, V, I said basically, the same thing you are now saying that Dark Muse is now saying from the beginning of this discussion thread or so I thought I did. I just got the impression the narrator got dragged into this husband-wife conflict and he did not wish to be confrontational himself or truly involved. I definitely think he was avoiding direct confrontation or anything unpleasant to himself. I don't think he was conviving with anyone and like you said at the end, Alfred makes the statement, indicating he doesn't even believe the child to be his. It very well could have been a "plant". I think that is what the narrator is laughing at, as he runs down the hill towards home. To him, at this point, in his experience with the two people, the story has a twist of irony in this statement by Alfred.

Virgil, if you read my prior post and comments to Saphire's questions, I did stated my own thinking and reasons, that I thought the "we" was used in the part after the narrator found the bird and brought him back to be nursed. While in his own home, he used the word "we" and I think that felt intimate and I believe it to mean he and his mate, his wife. Read back to post #2904, to see my full take on this subject.

That is strange. I take it the narrator doesn't live alone and he is referring to whomever lives with him. I had not really noticed that. Thanks Saphire. I don't know if it has any significance but it certainly is odd.

My former post gives a better explanation.

Completely agree. The only person who has Lawrence's sympathy is the father, the person from the previous generation. Lawrence always loves those old world types. Notice the father speaks with that thick peasant accent. Lawrence is definitely anti-modern.

haha...I wrote about this in my post, also. Virgil, *grrr* do you ever read my posts?

Everyone is manipulative in this story. Actually the way I would phrase it is that everyone participates in some form of dishonest communication in the story, everyone, that is, but the father.

I don't really totally agree with this part. I think it's more like Dark Muse stated in her last post. I was wondering if we could get on with the text. Everyone is jumping way ahead to the very ending and I still have text to post. I can post the next section tomorrow; I am a bit tired out now. I think we learned a lot from the previous section of text I posted, and I think that we all got a chance to address that particular part of the story and the elements of that section. I don't mean to disregard what you said jingjang when you made this statement "you all moved ahead a great deal"...we haven't moved ahead in the actual text at all and there are many things I think you will all notice when you take a closer look at it.

What do you think, Virgil, shall I go ahead and post the next part of the story?