Page 195 of 217 FirstFirst ... 95145185190191192193194195196197198199200205 ... LastLast
Results 2,911 to 2,925 of 3249

Thread: D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

  1. #2911
    Vincit Qui Se Vincit Virgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    20,354
    Blog Entries
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by Janine View Post
    You are all a riot. I went away for a half a day and come back to all these post; one in which my name was included with the particular mention of part of the male anatomy - gee, thanks, Virgil! It's a wonder that was not censored since the four letter word meaning a male bird is always censored; also the word which we use as a swear which is actually the technical name of a female dog. This censor program is very odd to me sometimes.
    Any time dear. Actually this isn't the first story I've mentioned that word in respect to a Lawrence story.

    First off, I said basically the same thing you are now saying, Dark Muse, from the beginning. I just got the impression the narrator got dragged into this husband and wife argument and he did not wish to be confrontational himself or 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 goes 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.
    We will need to talk about that ending laugh. Why would the narrator laugh at the possibility of it being "a plant?" I guess we'll save this for the end.

    Virgil, if you read my prior post and comments to Saphire's questions I did say the reason I thought the "we" was used in 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 believe it to mean his mate, his wife. Read back to post #2904, to see my full take on this subject.
    Yes I saw you wrote something about the we being Lawrence and Frieda and the Red Baron. They aren't in the story.

    My post gives a take on this idea and why.
    I don't see exactly what you said on "we." You went into his biography. I don't see what that had to do with the "we" in the story. Are you saying Lawrence slipped in his writing and let out some biographical bit that refers to his personal situation? It doesn't strike me that way. That seems like a conscious elocution and I just don't exactly know what to make with it.

    haha...I wrote about this in my post, also. Virgil, *grrr* do you ever read my posts?
    Well, once you wrote about the red baron and one can't fight city hall, you lost me and my attention. You know I have ADD.


    I don't really totally agree with this part. I think it's more like Dark Muse stated in her last post.
    You think the father is manipulative too? I'll have to go check. I don't quite remember that part well.

    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?
    Whenever you're ready.
    LET THERE BE LIGHT

    "Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena

    My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/

  2. #2912
    Our wee Olympic swimmer Janine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southern New Jersey, near Philadelphia
    Posts
    9,300
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Virgil View Post
    Any time dear. Actually this isn't the first story I've mentioned that word in respect to a Lawrence story.
    Are you trying to drag me under, get me into trouble, my dear friend, Virgil? I know you mentioned the word before; but WOW, the repetition in that paragraph was stark and then my name appeared in it, too; even more shocking! I still can't believe you get away with writing that word in a post. Not sure you would get away with the corresponding female part.

    We will need to talk about that ending laugh. Why would the narrator laugh at the possibility of it being "a plant?" I guess we'll save this for the end.
    Good idea to wait. I think, personally, the laugh was a spontaneous one, and can't truly be explained logically, but we can discuss that when we get to it.

    Yes I saw you wrote something about the we being Lawrence and Frieda and the Red Baron. They aren't in the story.
    NO, that is not what I was getting at. It was the whole idea of the war and how this story came about. You asked me to look up the background in that book and then you make me a laughing stock. I did my homework, did you do yours smarty pants? *grrrr*...I like that *smarty pants*, I think I will use that often in conjunction with your name.

    I don't see exactly what you said on "we." You went into his biography. I don't see what that had to do with the "we" in the story. Are you saying Lawrence slipped in his writing and let out some biographical bit that refers to his personal situation? It doesn't strike me that way. That seems like a conscious elocution and I just don't exactly know what to make with it.
    No, I didn't say he 'slipped'; Lawrence doesn't just 'slip'; with all his revisioning, Lawrence means what he puts down in his short stories. He is pretty precise and says so in letters concerning them, etc. However, he did rely on his own experience and I think the "We" was used mostly in the home and this would be a good way to indicate that he was married as well. That's the impression I got.

    Well, once you wrote about the red baron and one can't fight city hall, you lost me and my attention. You know I have ADD.

    You think the father is manipulative too? I'll have to go check. I don't quite remember that part well.

    Whenever you're ready.
    Those last three I can't answer - give me strength! Since, I don't get much of anything out of those, AND I do agree, you MUST have ADD, Virgil, I will definitely post the next part of the text; so we can proceed onward and hopefully upward. I will do so tomorrow, since it's nearing midnight and I am really tired.
    Last edited by Janine; 05-12-2009 at 12:05 AM.
    "It's so mysterious, the land of tears."

    Chapter 7, The Little Prince ~ Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

  3. #2913
    Dreaming away Sapphire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    below the sea surface
    Posts
    1,179
    First of - thank you all for responding to my question regarding the "we"-part.

    Janine, I had totally forgotten D.H. Lawrence had any relation to the Red Baron! I really "like" the Red Baron as a historic figure, being quite interested in the development of plains and flying during WWI. And of course because of Snoopy . I do not think Frieda is really his sister though - all the accords I find (I have to say though, it's wiki and other internet pages I do not know the original sources of the information) only mention them as "distant relatives".
    Fact stays, that Lawrence knew what it was like to live secluded from people or at least hold a low profile. We might recognize this in the narrator of the story. I do not know enough about D.H. Lawrence ( BTW, why not D.H.R. Lawrence? ) to say he sees himself as the I-person, but I see the parallels you draw and I think it is plausible. It might be a real-life story, but I do not find the town Tible on google maps, and I do not think it snowed very hard in the winter of 1918/1919. At least, not when I check it against the information of a weather station in Ferryhill, Durham - but that is over 250 miles from where Lawrence stayed that winter. And after all, the heavy snow could be added to make the story more "unnatural".
    If it is a story that really happened to Lawrence or someone he knew, it would make sense that he fictionalized it though. I guess unless the writer himself ever told about this story really being true, we will never know.
    I disagree when you say "They were not in this area very long". Or at least, I put questionmarks to it. If they were not there very long, how could the narrator have had time to know "the ground so well" as is written in the last part of the text you quoted?! Could he have learned that ground so well over the course of one Summer/Autumn/Winter. Maybe...

    As for the "we" and the not returning of it: I think your argument for "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." is quite sound, even if it would not mean Lawrence himself.
    Even if "we" meant him and a relative or servant (though I think it means he knows about married life) it makes a more homey atmosphere and empathizes the nursing part.

    As for Eliza not coming to England - it never crossed my mind that she might not! I often take people on their word without thinking about it, and the fact that she wrote in her letter about having the money to be able to come made it even more plausible. I never thought twice about it - just took the letter for action and actually imagined the story to have her in it in the end, standing in the doorstep or such. I guess your argumentation about it being not a very sensible step for the girl to take is a good one, and especially the fact that she wrote that letter in French - if she does not know English it would be quite crazy to go to the UK without any idea whether Alfred would be there to take care of her (she asks him to come towards her, though she knows where he lives as she wrote that letter to an address). And in reading it again, I see she wrote "write and tell me" and that is a thing which will never happen - I did not register that part in my brain.
    And it did not help that I totally did not understand what Alfred meant when he said "Back your life it's a plant." If we get there, I would like a little course in English to understand what he tries to say there for though I know the words I do not get the way they're put in the sentence

    I guess I empathize a bit too much with the girl, having quite a few friends from Belgium I was quite annoyed when the narrator called her a "French girl" - Belgium is NOT France. I immediately had a vision of Poirot (Agatha Christie) in my mind. He would agree with me .
    On the other hand, the letter was addressed from France, not Belgium

    Dark Muse, thank you for your idea on why the narrator kept his mouth shut about the girl wanting to come to the UK. It suddenly made sense, even in my mind . Though I still do not approve of him telling lies - but hey, that is just my opinion.

    Virgil, it is interesting to learn that Lawrence is anti-modern. I guess life really was a downer to him... I am a bit surprised though; I mean, his ideas on marriage and relationships - don't they fit more into a modern society ? Maybe I look too far ahead though, in his time (his "modern" days) his ideas were not really accepted. The roaring twenties were coming though...

    As the new text isn't posted yet, I take this opportunity to ask about two (edit: 3) things I do not find an answer to in the previous posts:
    1
    I do not see any of you going into the part where the narrator talks about the eyes of the baby.
    Quote Originally Posted by page 186 in this thread for me, post #2789
    'He has sweet smiling eyes, but not like your beautiful English eyes--'
    She suddenly struck her hand on her skirt with a wild motion, and bent down, doubled with laughter. Then she rose and covered her face with her hand.
    'I'm forced to laugh at the beautiful English eyes,' she said.
    'Aren't his eyes beautiful?' I asked.
    'Oh, yes--very! Go on!--Joey, dear, dee-urr, Joey!'--this to the peacock.
    This part struck me, for several reasons:
    - Talking about the eyes again. We have heard about Maggie's, now the eyes of Alfred are mentioned. Why is this important? (Maybe it is not?)
    - The narrator is just guessing. Mind you, the letter says 'He has the smiling eyes and virile air of his English father' - so why on earth does he add 'but not like your beautiful English eyes'. If he tries not to give away Alfred as a father he is really doing a lousy job with that line. A woman calls her darling little brother's eyes not as beautiful as the eyes of a dear friend of the family?! If I was a suspicious wife that would be a dead ringer to me! And apart from that, the narrator does not know whether Alfred's eyes are beautiful or not. Quite a leap...
    - Why does Maggie laugh at this? I know she's kind of nervous and anxious and does not really want to hear what is in the letter while she does want to know on other levels - but why does this part trigger her so? And is Joey just a distraction to her or is it relevant that she says her husband's eyes are very beautiful and then calls for her peacock?

    2
    I was struck by the same inconsistency as Dark Muse (post # 2793) - if Joey came with Maggie from her home 7 years ago, then why is she only married for 6 years? And why did she marry Alfred, he seems to be from a less wealthy family than her - was it because they fell head over heels?
    I really wonder where Tible might be, as it is mentioned that her parents have a farm in Oxfordshire. If this is far away from Tible, it might be that Maggie came to the region of Tible 7 years ago and only then came to know Alfred - instead of moving there because of him. The question stays why she moved out 7 years ago though, as her parents do not strike as poor people who would lend their daughter out as a servant or such... It all stays a mystery, but why did Lawrence create this extra year?! Just to bother us with it?

    3
    Joey is not the only peacock, though he is the only one mentioned by Maggie to have come with her from her home. The others are "his descendants". Now as peacocks find a mate for life I wonder where this peahen is?! Did she die already? I found online that peacocks are likely to get about 12 years old (can be 20 though) so that is not really a help - no idea how long Maggie had Joey (and a peahen maybe) before she moved. The site does mention that peahens are to die first, but who says Joey and his mate where of the same age?
    And isn't the story suggesting Joey loves Maggie (and she loves him)?! That at least implies that the peahen is dead, or Joey also has an unlucky marriage
    My mind goes wild here - what if Maggie and Alfred met one another on some sort of peacock trade? Alfred having a hen, Maggie a ****? By now, Alfred's bird died - another (very flawed) reason to not like Joey still being alive (jealousy).
    I am not really sure whether peacocks are natural in the UK. Strange how this kind of information is nowhere to be found! I mean, it should be easy... I think they're not though, simply because I never see them "in the wild" and I do not think the wildlife in the UK is very different from the Netherlands?! Not sure about them being natural here either though... Any bird lovers who could give us a final answer to that?

    Sorry for the long post

    * I see we can not write peacock without the pea...
    Last edited by Sapphire; 05-12-2009 at 04:59 AM.
    It is not too late, to be wild for roundabouts - to be wild for life
    Wolfsheim - It is not too late

  4. #2914
    Our wee Olympic swimmer Janine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southern New Jersey, near Philadelphia
    Posts
    9,300
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Sapphire View Post
    First of - thank you all for responding to my question regarding the "we"-part.
    Wow, Saphire, you wrote up a storm; you are getting like me! This will be a challenge to answer but I will try my best.

    Janine, I had totally forgotten D.H. Lawrence had any relation to the Red Baron! I really "like" the Red Baron as a historic figure, being quite interested in the development of plains and flying during WWI. And of course because of Snoopy .
    I like the image, too, I will check out the Youtube link later on; thanks; I love Youtube! The connection caused Lawrence a lot of grief.

    I do not think Frieda is really his sister though - all the accords I find (I have to say though, it's wiki and other internet pages I do not know the original sources of the information) only mention them as "distant relatives".
    I think you are correct on that. I don't know why I said that. I just looked it up and it was a distant cousin of hers - Manfred von Richthofen. An excellent book I read by Harry T. Moore "The Intelligent Heart" states him as such. The fact remains that his war heroism did play heavily in the Lawrence's life and the fact that Frieda von Richthofen came from aristocracy. Her father also had played a prominent role in past military excursions. His image is reflected in the short story 'The Prussian Officer', which we discussed a few years back in this thread.

    Fact stays, that Lawrence knew what it was like to live secluded from people or at least hold a low profile. We might recognize this in the narrator of the story. I do not know enough about D.H. Lawrence ( BTW, why not D.H.R. Lawrence? ) to say he sees himself as the I-person, but I see the parallels you draw and I think it is plausible. It might be a real-life story, but I do not find the town Tible on google maps, and I do not think it snowed very hard in the winter of 1918/1919. At least, not when I check it against the information of a weather station in Ferryhill, Durham - but that is over 250 miles from where Lawrence stayed that winter. And after all, the heavy snow could be added to make the story more "unnatural".
    Well, many of Lawrence stories are based on some incident or some character he may have met or known. Usually, one can research that fact, and find out who the models for his characters were; this story, I could not really come up with anything solid to that idea, so I am merely surmising or thinking outloud. Good authors sift through and embellish, I am not sure if the snowstorm was exaggerated or truly they had this type storm back then; the idea is enough for me, as to it being 'unnatural' ;since that would fit the story and theme well. I would say have to say, that personally, the facts are irrelevant. I did read online and quoted that peacocks were from one origin - think it was India and they were introduced into other regions in the world. Most likely they were brought back during some of the travels or pursuits of the English in foreign lands. We have wild peacocks here in the US, I believe. I don't see why everyone thinks it so strange that there are peacocks in England at this time. Lawrence's first book was entitled "The White Peacock" as you know. Now I can't imagine a white peacock in England but then again, perhaps it was brought there and multiplied, being original to foreign lands. In TWP the bird is more symbolic than anything and sort of otherworldy, so who knows? 'Tible' could be fictional; or it could have been real, maps and town names change everyday in the entire world. I think it most likely it was fictional. This is an early story, and in TWP 'Nethermere' is a totally fictional place that Lawrence's imagination dreamed up. Only Lawrence can answer all these questions; we will have to summons his spirit.

    If it is a story that really happened to Lawrence or someone he knew, it would make sense that he fictionalized it though. I guess unless the writer himself ever told about this story really being true, we will never know.
    I disagree when you say "They were not in this area very long". Or at least, I put questionmarks to it. If they were not there very long, how could the narrator have had time to know "the ground so well" as is written in the last part of the text you quoted?! Could he have learned that ground so well over the course of one Summer/Autumn/Winter. Maybe...
    It was in the biography about this area where the Lawrence's occuppied a cottage for a short time, before leaving England altogether. I surmised it from that. It would not be unusual at all that Lawrence or the narrator would know the ground or terrain well, in only a short space of time. Lawrence was an avid hiker/walker; his curiosity lead him to all kinds of places and amazingly enough, he walked great distances, even having such a serious medical condition. At this juncture of his life he was still fairly young and in better shape than he would be later on with his bad lungs. I can well picture him quiely exploring the area on foot.

    As for the "we" and the not returning of it: I think your argument for "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." is quite sound, even if it would not mean Lawrence himself.
    Even if "we" meant him and a relative or servant (though I think it means he knows about married life) it makes a more homey atmosphere and empathizes the nursing part.
    Right, I noticed the "we" was pretty much, when he was at home nursing the bird. The mention of two nursing it and nurturing it back to health seemed to me more intimate and more loving. I got the impression the other half of the "we" was a woman, since woman are usually good at nuturing and nursing sick animals back to health. At one point later on, Lawrence, even admits he is a little afraid of Joey.

    As for Eliza not coming to England - it never crossed my mind that she might not! I often take people on their word without thinking about it, and the fact that she wrote in her letter about having the money to be able to come made it even more plausible. I never thought twice about it - just took the letter for action and actually imagined the story to have her in it in the end, standing in the doorstep or such. I guess your argumentation about it being not a very sensible step for the girl to take is a good one, and especially the fact that she wrote that letter in French - if she does not know English it would be quite crazy to go to the UK without any idea whether Alfred would be there to take care of her (she asks him to come towards her, though she knows where he lives as she wrote that letter to an address). And in reading it again, I see she wrote "write and tell me" and that is a thing which will never happen - I did not register that part in my brain.
    Exactly, glad you can now view it that way. I think in this time period it is very unlikely she will venture to come to England with a small child. Also, so true, Alfred is not intending to write her obviously; the letter is gone now, right? He would not even have an address to write to and even if he did, I doubt he would bother. We can discuss that in more detail when we get to that part.

    And it did not help that I totally did not understand what Alfred meant when he said "Back your life it's a plant." If we get there, I would like a little course in English to understand what he tries to say there for though I know the words I do not get the way they're put in the sentence
    He meant that it was 'a set up.' In other words, that the woman is claiming the child is his biologically, and really it probably is not; she may even not know who the child belongs to paternally. She may just be seeking an English husband, trapping a man into marriage. Don't be embarrassed that you did not understand. I did not get it at first either and then I realised what it meant.

    I guess I empathize a bit too much with the girl, having quite a few friends from Belgium I was quite annoyed when the narrator called her a "French girl" - Belgium is NOT France. I immediately had a vision of Poirot (Agatha Christie) in my mind. He would agree with me .
    On the other hand, the letter was addressed from France, not Belgium
    Maybe she was Belgium born and lived in France. I am not sure other than that idea. I will check the text again.

    Dark Muse, thank you for your idea on why the narrator kept his mouth shut about the girl wanting to come to the UK. It suddenly made sense, even in my mind . Though I still do not approve of him telling lies - but hey, that is just my opinion.
    Think I would agree on that, too.

    Virgil, it is interesting to learn that Lawrence is anti-modern. I guess life really was a downer to him... I am a bit surprised though; I mean, his ideas on marriage and relationships - don't they fit more into a modern society ? Maybe I look too far ahead though, in his time (his "modern" days) his ideas were not really accepted. The roaring twenties were coming though...
    Here is where I do not agree with Virgil at all. One can't just spout out that he was anti-modern. Come on, Virgil. Lawrence is a lot more complex than that. In some way Lawrence was very modern in his thinking; in other ways traditional. I really think this is something needs extensive study and one can't make a general statement like this. I think in many ways, Lawrence was ahead of his time in his way of thinking.

    As the new text isn't posted yet, I take this opportunity to ask about two (edit: 3) things I do not find an answer to in the previous posts:
    1
    Ok, I will do my best but I am anxious to post more text.

    I do not see any of you going into the part where the narrator talks about the eyes of the baby. This part struck me, for several reasons:
    - Talking about the eyes again. We have heard about Maggie's, now the eyes of Alfred are mentioned. Why is this important? (Maybe it is not?)
    - The narrator is just guessing. Mind you, the letter says 'He has the smiling eyes and virile air of his English father' - so why on earth does he add 'but not like your beautiful English eyes'. If he tries not to give away Alfred as a father he is really doing a lousy job with that line. A woman calls her darling little brother's eyes not as beautiful as the eyes of a dear friend of the family?! If I was a suspicious wife that would be a dead ringer to me! And apart from that, the narrator does not know whether Alfred's eyes are beautiful or not. Quite a leap...- Why does Maggie laugh at this? I know she's kind of nervous and anxious and does not really want to hear what is in the letter while she does want to know on other levels - but why does this part trigger her so? And is Joey just a distraction to her or is it relevant that she says her husband's eyes are very beautiful and then calls for her peacock?
    Interesting. I did not pick this up. I will have to read that part again.

    2
    I was struck by the same inconsistency as Dark Muse (post # 2793) - if Joey came with Maggie from her home 7 years ago, then why is she only married for 6 years? And why did she marry Alfred, he seems to be from a less wealthy family than her - was it because they fell head over heels?
    I really wonder where Tible might be, as it is mentioned that her parents have a farm in Oxfordshire. If this is far away from Tible, it might be that Maggie came to the region of Tible 7 years ago and only then came to know Alfred - instead of moving there because of him. The question stays why she moved out 7 years ago though, as her parents do not strike as poor people who would lend their daughter out as a servant or such... It all stays a mystery, but why did Lawrence create this extra year?! Just to bother us with it?
    I don't think it unusual that she might have come to the area for some reason and then met Alfred or maybe she came to marry him but stayed with the family for a time to get better acquainted. In those days, cousins even married each other. I am not sure I know the true answer to this year discrepancy and not sure it's that vital to the meaning in the story. Where did you get the impression that her real family was more well off than Alfred's family is?

    3
    Joey is not the only peacock, though he is the only one mentioned by Maggie to have come with her from her home. The others are "his descendants". Now as peacocks find a mate for life I wonder where this peahen is?! Did she die already? I found online that peacocks are likely to get about 12 years old (can be 20 though) so that is not really a help - no idea how long Maggie had Joey (and a peahen maybe) before she moved. The site does mention that peahens are to die first, but who says Joey and his mate where of the same age?
    And isn't the story suggesting Joey loves Maggie (and she loves him)?! That at least implies that the peahen is dead, or Joey also has an unlucky marriage
    I don't have any sound idea on this question. I am not sure it is that important to the story and most of what you say is conjecture or making up a subplot. These are interesting thoughts and theories but not sure at all how the mating thing works with peacocks. I like your last theory - that Joey had an unlucky marriage! Good one....

    My mind goes wild here - what if Maggie and Alfred met one another on some sort of peacock trade? Alfred having a hen, Maggie a ****? By now, Alfred's bird died - another (very flawed) reason to not like Joey still being alive (jealousy).
    A little too wild! Now who is being imaginative? Saphire, you should be a author.

    I am not really sure whether peacocks are natural in the UK. Strange how this kind of information is nowhere to be found! I mean, it should be easy... I think they're not though, simply because I never see them "in the wild" and I do not think the wildlife in the UK is very different from the Netherlands?! Not sure about them being natural here either though... Any bird lovers who could give us a final answer to that?
    It is strange how one can't find a solid straight answer on the peacock quesiton in relation to England. I did find some research that I posted awhile back. I still hold to the idea that the peacock was not native to the land but imported from foreign regions where it is native.

    Sorry for the long post
    No problem. I am a long poster, also.

    * I see we can not write peacock without the pea...
    I know, isn't that funny? If you name the female dog same thing happens. One is the usually the rooster and the other a harmless pup. Makes me laugh.
    Last edited by Janine; 05-12-2009 at 03:53 PM.
    "It's so mysterious, the land of tears."

    Chapter 7, The Little Prince ~ Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

  5. #2915
    Vincit Qui Se Vincit Virgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    20,354
    Blog Entries
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by Janine View Post
    Are you trying to drag me under, get me into trouble, my dear friend, Virgil? I know you mentioned the word before; but WOW, the repetition in that paragraph was stark and then my name appeared in it, too; even more shocking! I still can't believe you get away with writing that word in a post. Not sure you would get away with the corresponding female part.
    What did I say that was profane. I used words that are quite acceptable. At least I think so.

    NO, that is not what I was getting at. It was the whole idea of the war and how this story came about. You asked me to look up the background in that book and then you make me a laughing stock. I did my homework, did you do yours smarty pants? *grrrr*...I like that *smarty pants*, I think I will use that often in conjunction with your name.
    But you were discussing the use of "we" in the story.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sapphire View Post
    Fact stays, that Lawrence knew what it was like to live secluded from people or at least hold a low profile. We might recognize this in the narrator of the story.

    That he did.

    I do not know enough about D.H. Lawrence ( BTW, why not D.H.R. Lawrence? ) to say he sees himself as the I-person, but I see the parallels you draw and I think it is plausible.
    I'm not sure I think the narrator is really a stand in for Lawrence.

    As for the "we" and the not returning of it: I think your argument for "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." is quite sound, even if it would not mean Lawrence himself.
    Even if "we" meant him and a relative or servant (though I think it means he knows about married life) it makes a more homey atmosphere and empathizes the nursing part.
    How old do people think the narrator is? It doesn't say anywhere, but for some reason I got the impression he was relatively young, younger than Alfred. But that's just an impression. I don't think it says anything in the story.

    I guess I empathize a bit too much with the girl, having quite a few friends from Belgium I was quite annoyed when the narrator called her a "French girl" - Belgium is NOT France. I immediately had a vision of Poirot (Agatha Christie) in my mind. He would agree with me .
    On the other hand, the letter was addressed from France, not Belgium
    Yes, I kind of empathize with the girl too. She's not exactly innocent, but she's in a difficult situation and Alfred appears to have abandoned her.

    Dark Muse, thank you for your idea on why the narrator kept his mouth shut about the girl wanting to come to the UK. It suddenly made sense, even in my mind . Though I still do not approve of him telling lies - but hey, that is just my opinion.
    Lies run through all the communication in the story.

    Virgil, it is interesting to learn that Lawrence is anti-modern. I guess life really was a downer to him... I am a bit surprised though; I mean, his ideas on marriage and relationships - don't they fit more into a modern society ? Maybe I look too far ahead though, in his time (his "modern" days) his ideas were not really accepted. The roaring twenties were coming though...
    Hehe, Lawrence parodied the roaring twenties types in Women In Love. No, it's not suprising at all that Lawrence's ideas on marriage and relationships don't coincide with modern relationships. His views can be seen as in the Romantic tradition, where there is a spirituality in the natural and that social conventions (such as marriage) are the antogonism to that spirituality. If you want a quick way to understand Lawrence, think of him as a primitive. The primitive is in touch with that natural spirituality but has no social convention.

    - Why does Maggie laugh at this? I know she's kind of nervous and anxious and does not really want to hear what is in the letter while she does want to know on other levels - but why does this part trigger her so?
    That is a great question and something that struck me too. I don't have an answer for it yet, but it certainly is extremely important to the story. Read the last sentence of the story, the narrator's spontaneous and strange laugh that echoes Maggie's laugh earlier in the story. Obviously there is some significance to the laughing.

    3
    Joey is not the only peacock, though he is the only one mentioned by Maggie to have come with her from her home. The others are "his descendants". Now as peacocks find a mate for life I wonder where this peahen is?! Did she die already? I found online that peacocks are likely to get about 12 years old (can be 20 though) so that is not really a help - no idea how long Maggie had Joey (and a peahen maybe) before she moved. The site does mention that peahens are to die first, but who says Joey and his mate where of the same age?
    And isn't the story suggesting Joey loves Maggie (and she loves him)?! That at least implies that the peahen is dead, or Joey also has an unlucky marriage
    Fabulous find Sapphire!!! That is quite true. I had not thought of that. I did notice that Joey has decendents and that parallels the father who also has decendents, and so links the father and the peacock.

    My mind goes wild here - what if Maggie and Alfred met one another on some sort of peacock trade? Alfred having a hen, Maggie a ****? By now, Alfred's bird died - another (very flawed) reason to not like Joey still being alive (jealousy).
    I think that kind of complexity is there in the story. Your mind is not going wild. This is a tremendously well crafted work.

    I am not really sure whether peacocks are natural in the UK. Strange how this kind of information is nowhere to be found! I mean, it should be easy... I think they're not though, simply because I never see them "in the wild" and I do not think the wildlife in the UK is very different from the Netherlands?! Not sure about them being natural here either though... Any bird lovers who could give us a final answer to that?
    I think we mentioned that they weren't natural.

    Sorry for the long post

    * I see we can not write peacock without the pea...
    And Janine thinks I talk dirty.
    LET THERE BE LIGHT

    "Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena

    My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/

  6. #2916
    Our wee Olympic swimmer Janine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southern New Jersey, near Philadelphia
    Posts
    9,300
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Virgil View Post
    What did I say that was profane. I used words that are quite acceptable. At least I think so.
    You know what I am referring to. I suppose you are going to say anatomical is just fine. You still crack me up!

    But you were discussing the use of "we" in the story.
    What? This does not register. We did have a lengthy discussion about the "we".

    That he did.
    He certainly did. Well, at least we agree on something here.

    I'm not sure I think the narrator is really a stand in for Lawrence.
    He appeared to me in the form of a ghost last night and told me himself - believe it - whispered to me "I am the narrator!" You know me, I think all the first person narrations are Lawrence. But truly, the reason I think it, just because of what I read and posted on the background of the story. Shall I post that again for you, Mr. ADD?

    How old do people think the narrator is? It doesn't say anywhere, but for some reason I got the impression he was relatively young, younger than Alfred. But that's just an impression. I don't think it says anything in the story.
    Younger than you!

    Yes, I kind of empathize with the girl too. She's not exactly innocent, but she's in a difficult situation and Alfred appears to have abandoned her.
    I do, but just maybe she is lying, too. It could be someone else's kid. Obviously, Alfred is going to abandon her for good; we wouldn't have a story without that factor. Maybe she send this letter out to several eligible males.

    Lies run through all the communication in the story.
    Or lost in translation...just kidding...lies yes, whether blantant or little white lies....still deceit, cover-up.

    Hehe, Lawrence parodied the roaring twenties types in Women In Love. No, it's not suprising at all that Lawrence's ideas on marriage and relationships don't coincide with modern relationships. His views can be seen as in the Romantic tradition, where there is a spirituality in the natural and that social conventions (such as marriage) are the antogonism to that spirituality. If you want a quick way to understand Lawrence, think of him as a primitive. The primitive is in touch with that natural spirituality but has no social convention.
    I still think that it's a philosphical and complicated thing to aspect of Lawrence to define absolutely. Some might say the idea of the 'primative instincts' is actually a progression in modern thinking, not a regression. That's a whole new debate. Lawrence was no way conventional in the usual sense of the word.

    That is a great question and something that struck me too. I don't have an answer for it yet, but it certainly is extremely important to the story. Read the last sentence of the story, the narrator's spontaneous and strange laugh that echoes Maggie's laugh earlier in the story. Obviously there is some significance to the laughing.
    You know what else echoes in the story? It came to me today. The fact, that Joey is aligned with Alfred, in that they both would have been rescued from death; then they would both have been nursed back to health by a human being who was compassionate.

    Fabulous find Sapphire!!! That is quite true. I had not thought of that. I did notice that Joey has decendents and that parallels the father who also has decendents, and so links the father and the peacock.
    Peacock's all have either accendents or decendents.

    I think that kind of complexity is there in the story. Your mind is not going wild. This is a tremendously well crafted work.
    Aha, you now admit this story is well crafted. I think it's very well thought out and very well written.

    I think we mentioned that they weren't natural. Imported from India.


    And Janine thinks I talk dirty.
    Very much so, in the mind! But totally harmless, I believe. A wolf on the outside, a puppy inside.

    Hey, Virgil, did you notice you caught blue type from Saphire? Hope that's not like swine flu!

    I am determined to post the next part of the text now...next post......get ready, here is comes.....
    Last edited by Janine; 05-12-2009 at 11:35 PM.
    "It's so mysterious, the land of tears."

    Chapter 7, The Little Prince ~ Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

  7. #2917
    Our wee Olympic swimmer Janine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southern New Jersey, near Philadelphia
    Posts
    9,300
    Blog Entries
    3
    Next Section of the Text

    The next day was clear, and the snow had frozen, so I decided to carry him back to Tible. He consented, after various flappings, to sit in a big fish-bag with his battered head peeping out with wild uneasiness. And so I set off with him, slithering down into the valley, making good progress down in the pale shadow beside the rushing waters, then climbing painfully up the arrested white valleyside, plumed with clusters of young pine trees, into the paler white radiance of the snowy, upper regions, where the wind cut fine. Joey seemed to watch all the time with wide anxious, unseeing eye, brilliant and inscrutable. As I drew near to Tible township he stirred violently in the bag, though I do not know if he had recognized the place. Then, as I came to the sheds, he looked sharply from side to side, and stretched his neck out long. I was a little afraid of him. He gave a loud, vehement yell, opening his sinister beak, and I stood still, looking at him as he struggled in the bag, shaken myself by his struggles, yet not thinking to release him. Mrs. Goyte came darting past the end of the house, her head sticking forward in sharp scrutiny. She saw me, and came forward. 'Have you got Joey?' she cried sharply, as if I were a thief. I opened the bag, and he flopped out, flapping as if he hated the touch of the snow now. She gathered him up, and put her lips to his beak. She was flushed and handsome, her eyes bright, her hair slack, thick, but more witch-like than ever. She did not speak. She had been followed by a grey-haired woman with a round, rather sallow face and a slightly hostile bearing. 'Did you bring him with you, then?' she asked sharply. I answered that I had rescued him the previous evening. From the background slowly approached a slender man with a grey moustache and large patches on his trousers.
    "It's so mysterious, the land of tears."

    Chapter 7, The Little Prince ~ Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

  8. #2918
    Dreaming away Sapphire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    below the sea surface
    Posts
    1,179
    Yes, a new part of the text But first some comments on the previous posts.

    @Janine
    Where did you get the impression that her real family was more well off than Alfred's family is?
    From her saying "not like here" when she tells about her folks place (a big farm) in Oxfordshire. That gave me the impression that she lived less "big" now, while living with Alfred's parents. It is not clear whether that place is Alfred's or the parent's.
    On the other hand, she does say Alfred had a good education. She herself had quite something too, having had French at school - I do not think that was taught on the usual English primary schools? I do think she had a secondary education of some sort, but I do not know the school system of that time at all so I am just guessing here.
    And she says "that is how he knew French" from him being a chauffeur, not from him being at school. But maybe she means that is how he really learned French - I myself have had French for 4 years in high school and have the same problem as Maggie .
    and most of what you say is conjecture or making up a subplot
    I know, my imagination can run wild sometimes (Ok... maybe not just sometimes) And I often wonder why a writer does not elaborates on parts that are totally insignificant to most others who read a story/book
    I still hold to the idea that the peacock was not native to the land but imported from foreign regions where it is native.
    I asked around a bit and nobody really seems to know for certain, not even people that know about birds. I know peacocks are not native in the UK, but imported from India (probably by Royalty first). I guess that is enough in answer to the story, but I keep wondering whether peacocks can survive in the wild. Or do they always need some home to belong to, some human to give them extra nutrition? Some human to take care for them? Are they to be regarded as pets (instead of a wild animal)?

    @Virgil
    If you want a quick way to understand Lawrence, think of him as a primitive. The primitive is in touch with that natural spirituality but has no social convention.
    Ah... a bit like Jean-Jacques Rousseau. And I also see a lot of T.Hardy in that idea - I think that indeed explains it better than anti-modernity, thank you for that.
    Read the last sentence of the story, the narrator's spontaneous and strange laugh that echoes Maggie's laugh earlier in the story. Obviously there is some significance to the laughing.
    Yes, I wonder - is there any laugh out of joy in the whole story? Maggie seems to me to laugh out of nervousness and awkwardness and it seems to me that it might have sounded bitter (imagination again ). The laugh of the narrator came as a big surprise to me and I actually thought he was going mad at that point. Or that it all was just a dream. Alfred also laughs "a burst of laughter" right before that moment. No idea what he was laughing about either, but I doubt it was joy - it seemed more like he remembered something about the girls which might have been funny to him but by the way the guys were talking it was probably not very respectful...
    I think we might need to let this laugh-theme be until we come to the end of the story. That is, unless somewhere in between a character is found to be laughing I wonder whether the father laughs....
    And Janine thinks I talk dirty
    Well, I never thought about it as a "wrong" word until I posted it and saw **** instead of the word itself - then it hit me

    @the new text
    Wow... where shall I start?! Every time I try to cut up the text I think "but this is also significant towards..." I guess I will just have to go for a long post again
    The next day was clear, and the snow had frozen, so I decided to carry him back to Tible. He consented, after various flappings, to sit in a big fish-bag with his battered head peeping out with wild uneasiness.
    Joey consented to be transported. That word struck me, especially as in my mind it was the narrator who had been "good" to the bird and just wanted to do what is for the best - and now the bird had to give his consent. He has quite some power over humans, don't he? Is this maybe where the "nature over nurture" part might come in? Nah, I probably read too much into it - Joey is battered and uneasy. Of course he won't just give into transportation, it is probably all very new to him.
    Are peacocks easily scared? I know there are birds that can get a heart attack just because a human tries to catch them... But I guess Joey is used to humans around him.
    And so I set off with him, slithering down into the valley, making good progress down in the pale shadow beside the rushing waters, then climbing painfully up the arrested white valleyside, plumed with clusters of young pine trees, into the paler white radiance of the snowy, upper regions, where the wind cut fine.
    Leaving the "safe home" where an animal can be nursed back to live. This area is easy to leave (when the storm is over), it is however hard to get to the other home... Like nature does not want people to go there. And again, the wind is cutting...
    Joey seemed to watch all the time with wide anxious, unseeing eye, brilliant and inscrutable.
    There are the eyes again. At least, I take it "eye" here means "eyes" and the bird is not blinded on one?! Coming to think of it, in the description of Joey right before the rescue the narrator also talks about just "eye". With the baby, narrator himself or Maggie it is "eyes". A peacock with one eye. Not sure what to make of that, besides that it must be ironic when he has a tail full of eyes he can't use in the breeding season ...
    As I drew near to Tible township he stirred violently in the bag, though I do not know if he had recognized the place. Then, as I came to the sheds, he looked sharply from side to side, and stretched his neck out long. I was a little afraid of him. He gave a loud, vehement yell, opening his sinister beak, and I stood still, looking at him as he struggled in the bag, shaken myself by his struggles, yet not thinking to release him.
    I do not blame the narrator to be a bit afraid of him. Peacocks are quite big birds, and birds are scary creatures (just imagine if they pick your eye out!). I do not really know why Joey struggles - does he want to get away again, away from Alfred. Or does he want to get out and back on his home ground as fast as possible, happy to be home again (calling for Maggie)? It can easily go both ways...
    The "yet not thinking to release him" struck me: the obvious (/right) thing to do does not come to his mind. Maybe a little nag to what he did with the letter? The moment I think of that I think that is going too far, but hey - a girl can dream
    Mrs. Goyte came darting past the end of the house, her head sticking forward in sharp scrutiny. She saw me, and came forward. 'Have you got Joey?' she cried sharply, as if I were a thief.
    She guessed that in answer to Joey's cry, I guess.
    I opened the bag, and he flopped out, flapping as if he hated the touch of the snow now. She gathered him up, and put her lips to his beak. She was flushed and handsome, her eyes bright, her hair slack, thick, but more witch-like than ever.
    Not sure what to make of this. Obviously the bird dislikes the snow that caused him to almost die, well the snow and Alfred that is. But why is Maggie suddenly handsome in this situation? Because she showed some true emotions?
    I wonder, does "witch-like" mean mysterious, a double layer? Both in this world and in the magic world? Or does it rather imply wickedness?
    She did not speak. She had been followed by a grey-haired woman with a round, rather sallow face and a slightly hostile bearing. 'Did you bring him with you, then?' she asked sharply.
    Notice the narrator says "grey-haired woman", not necessarily old. He calls both Maggie and Alfred "young" though. This made me think the narrator is older than both Alfred and Maggie, somewhere in his (late?) 30's probably.
    I do not think it is strange that Maggie does not speak while the old lady does: she probably does not know the narrator and is hostile about him being on her land. Or maybe she also dislikes the bird? Maggie keeping quiet indicates to me she is too much taken in by Joey to care about the world around her at this point in time.
    I answered that I had rescued him the previous evening. From the background slowly approached a slender man with a grey moustache and large patches on his trousers.
    Again, he does not say "old"

    That is all I get out of this part. I really wish we could see in the mind of Mr. Lawrence more directly
    It is not too late, to be wild for roundabouts - to be wild for life
    Wolfsheim - It is not too late

  9. #2919
    Registered User jinjang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Out for a while
    Posts
    216
    Blog Entries
    3
    Welcome to Sapphire!

    Quote Originally Posted by Janine
    I still hold to the idea that the peacock was not native to the land but imported from foreign regions where it is native.
    The story itself says the peacocks are not native to England.

    But, I also found this website:
    http://birds.suite101.com/article.cf...ndian_peacocks

    The site says "Successful peacocks form a harem with up to five peahens."

    I am ready to get to the part where the father-in-law shows up...
    Last edited by jinjang; 05-13-2009 at 02:49 PM.
    Walk, meditate, forget - Victor Hugo
    Life is bigger than literature - Michael Cunningham

  10. #2920
    Registered User jinjang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Out for a while
    Posts
    216
    Blog Entries
    3
    I kind of feel Janine confuses, a few times, my postings with Dark Muse's, which is understandable because of the length of this discussion thread.

    Sapphire gave me an idea to use different color.

    She was flushed and handsome, her eyes bright, her hair slack, thick, but more witch-like than ever.
    Notice the change in Maggie's look! She is no longer sallow. Ignorance is a bliss! Acceptance to the lesser evil is a bliss.

    I saw a glimpse of the father-in-law, the happier and wiser man!
    Last edited by jinjang; 05-13-2009 at 03:13 PM.
    Walk, meditate, forget - Victor Hugo
    Life is bigger than literature - Michael Cunningham

  11. #2921
    Our wee Olympic swimmer Janine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southern New Jersey, near Philadelphia
    Posts
    9,300
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Sapphire View Post
    Yes, a new part of the text But first some comments on the previous posts.
    Yeah, I had to sneak that in or I would never get it posted and we will be here all summer, stuck on this one story. But hey, Saphire, I am more than happy that you are posting so much. Usually I am the longest poster here. I tend to be 'long-winded' I know, but I like to be thorough, too. At first you were just reading behind the scenes and I am delighted to see you taking such an active role now. I enjoy reading your posts.

    From her saying "not like here" when she tells about her folks place (a big farm) in Oxfordshire. That gave me the impression that she lived less "big" now, while living with Alfred's parents. It is not clear whether that place is Alfred's or the parent's.
    On the other hand, she does say Alfred had a good education. She herself had quite something too, having had French at school - I do not think that was taught on the usual English primary schools? I do think she had a secondary education of some sort, but I do not know the school system of that time at all so I am just guessing here.
    And she says "that is how he knew French" from him being a chauffeur, not from him being at school. But maybe she means that is how he really learned French - I myself have had French for 4 years in high school and have the same problem as Maggie .
    I just read this part over and, yes, I too, get the impression her former home was larger and probably more prestigious; as you say, she had a education which would have allowed for French to be taught. It doesn't seem that Alfred's education was anything shabby though. She states that he liked farming better. We are only getting the information from Maggie here and she is acting like her background was more important that Alfred's; since no one is telling the complete truth in this story, who knows if that is true or if her family were even nice people to live with. Yet, she does claim Alfred's mother and father are good people and especially good to her. Also, did you notice this:

    "We've been married six years--and he joined up the first day of the war."

    This makes me think that they were not married very long or maybe he joined even prior to their marriage, at the time that he went off to the war; maybe, they never spend that much time together during the war years. I can't recall now how long WWI lasted? I will have to look that up online. Also, she does say 'had' a farm - concerning her parents and her. Maybe she was an 'only child', and she lost both parents - who knows? Maybe this family took her in; then it resulted in the two marrying. In that case, it might not have been that she truly loved Alfred, but it was a sort of 'marriage of convenience' or rather her position would not give her much choice in the matter, she being all alone in the world now. Saphire, I had two years of French in HS and feel the same way ...haha....

    I know, my imagination can run wild sometimes (Ok... maybe not just sometimes) And I often wonder why a writer does not elaborates on parts that are totally insignificant to most others who read a story/book
    Because it's only a short story. I think Lawrence does elaborate more in his novels, don't you? Hey, these stories do get people thinking and talking; that may just be Lawrence's intention. I think any good writer achieves that sort of thing and it's fine. One wants reader's imagination to be stimulated. That's the sign of a good author and a good story.

    I asked around a bit and nobody really seems to know for certain, not even people that know about birds. I know peacocks are not native in the UK, but imported from India (probably by Royalty first). I guess that is enough in answer to the story, but I keep wondering whether peacocks can survive in the wild. Or do they always need some home to belong to, some human to give them extra nutrition? Some human to take care for them? Are they to be regarded as pets (instead of a wild animal)?
    Maybe we should ask the peacock.... just kidding of course....I think Royalty probably brought them to England. I am sure they were a total fascination at the time. I do think they could survive in the wild of England which is a moderate climate. Birds are very resilent and they adapt over time. I think any domestic animal can survive on it's own in the wild; we had domestic geese on our lake and they ate all kinds of natural things. Only occasional did neighbors buy grain feed for them and usually only if we had a severe winter.

    @Virgil,Ah... a bit like Jean-Jacques Rousseau. And I also see a lot of T.Hardy in that idea - I think that indeed explains it better than anti-modernity, thank you for that.
    That's great Jean-Jacques Rousseau is one of my favorites! Definitely, Hardy was a huge influence, especially at this time for Lawrence. This is an early story, which appears in the first book of the 3 part set of short stories, so it's definitely early. I think both men mentioned here were quite inovative and ahead of their times - not one bit anti-modern.

    Yes, I wonder - is there any laugh out of joy in the whole story? Maggie seems to me to laugh out of nervousness and awkwardness and it seems to me that it might have sounded bitter (imagination again ). The laugh of the narrator came as a big surprise to me and I actually thought he was going mad at that point. Or that it all was just a dream. Alfred also laughs "a burst of laughter" right before that moment. No idea what he was laughing about either, but I doubt it was joy - it seemed more like he remembered something about the girls which might have been funny to him but by the way the guys were talking it was probably not very respectful...
    No, I don't think there is anything joyous about the story. I don't see the story as that type of tale; not many of Lawrence's are or maybe none really. It's more ironic in parts, but never joyous. Oh, I do think Maggie's laugh indeed bitter at times; also resentful, suspicious. The narrator's laugh came as a surprise at first to me but the more I read it the more I thought he laughed at the irony of the whole situation: a man saying it was all a set up; a wife loving a peacock more than of her husband; a husband jealous of a peacock - what is'nt there to laugh at? Maybe, he is scolfing more than truly laughing. I don't think he is laughing with them, I think he is laughing at them.

    I think we might need to let this laugh-theme be until we come to the end of the story. That is, unless somewhere in between a character is found to be laughing I wonder whether the father laughs....
    Yes, we should wait actually, until we get to that specific part of the text. You can see how much we get out of phrases and key words. There may be a clue there as to the laugh.

    Well, I never thought about it as a "wrong" word until I posted it and saw **** instead of the word itself - then it hit me
    Not you, but Virgil's repetition of anatomical parts. I had to laugh and joke with him about that. Shocked to see my name in the same paragraph. I have done that same think you did with the other word for a female dog and I really had to laugh. Also, the animal, basically a donkey. Don't try posting that word either.

    I am going to put the new text part into a new post - next one; just afraid I might loose this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by jinjang View Post
    Welcome to Sapphire!
    I second that! But I can't read that green type at all, jinjang. Are you two trying to make me go blind? I can barely read the blue. I have bad eyes at my age!

    The story itself says the peacocks are not native to England.
    jinjang, can you post the exact quote in the text where it says that. I do believe you but wish to read that part.

    I didn't check that out yet, but thanks for finding that. I will do so after posting this and the next part of Saphire's last post.

    The site says "Successful peacocks form a harem with up to five peahens."
    Oh, I would imagine that to be so. Most animals in the wild do survive by banding together in groups. I know our domestic geese always traveled that way with one prominent goose as the leader of the group and he would oversee their care and well-being. Actually, that goose was the one I told you about who was killed. It was sad to see because the group did not do well after that and now I believe they have dwindled down and are non-existent.

    I am ready to get to the part where the father-in-law shows up...
    That is the next part I have ready to post - it will be will very soon.

    I kind of feel Janine confuses, a few times, my postings with Dark Muse's, which is understandable because of the length of this discussion thread.
    Oh, jinjang, I am very sorry if I have ever done that. I did have this feeling that somehow I had not totally answered one or two of your posts a few pages back. It is true that with more posters here, we either do one of two things - skip over things or confuse things that people say. Once I recall that Dark Muse and Quark's posts got confused in a one of the former discussion. We all ended up laughing about it in the end. I am so sorry if it was frustrating for you. Next time please point that out to me at once or even post something in my profile page so I can catch up with your post(s).

    Sapphire gave me an idea to use different color.
    eeeekkkk...like I said - please spar my eyeballs!

    Quote:
    She was flushed and handsome, her eyes bright, her hair slack, thick, but more witch-like than ever.

    Notice the change in Maggie's look! She is no longer sallow. Ignorance is a bliss! Acceptance to the lesser evil is a bliss.

    I saw a glimpse of the father-in-law, the happier and wiser man!

    Yes, I agree - perhaps ignorance is bliss. Or at least, it seemed she accepted the fact, that her husband had cheated; then resigned herself to make the most of it. That's the impression I get. But that might be only a temporary state of mind she will exist in; perhaps it's a form of survival for her. I don't think the woman will ever live a happy existence, with a husband who oviously strays.

    Yes, the father-in-law seems to be the wiser man or so the story puts forth he is. Apparently Maggie is close to the parents. In this way she has ties to the family unit and it would be hard to break those ties now; especially seeing she probably has not family of her own as she once did. If her parents are still alive perhaps they did not approve of Alfred and told her if she left she would not be allowed to return. That's another posibility.

    @the new text
    Wow... where shall I start?! Every time I try to cut up the text I think "but this is also significant towards..." I guess I will just have to go for a long post again
    Saphire, No problem with long post; just don't lose them before you hit the 'Post Reply' button. Happened to me more than once.

    Joey consented to be transported. That word struck me, especially as in my mind it was the narrator who had been "good" to the bird and just wanted to do what is for the best - and now the bird had to give his consent. He has quite some power over humans, don't he? Is this maybe where the "nature over nurture" part might come in? Nah, I probably read too much into it - Joey is battered and uneasy. Of course he won't just give into transportation, it is probably all very new to him.
    You know this part didn't strike me as unusual at all. I told you all about my pet goose who got a sick eye and we had to take him to the vet. Now who think this big proud male goose, 'leader of the pack', would let us take him in the car; and yet he was quite resigned to go. I do think animals have a sixth sense that humans are kind and will help them when they are ill or in danger. I would could well imagine the opposite, too. He obviously, must know that Alfred is a constant thread to his life and he needs to flea from him. Now stuffing the bird into a bad and carting him across the frozen expanse would be a bit scary for the animal. I can see why he was wary and also remember, he doesn't know the narrator as well as he knows Maggie. He knows him only barely so his trust would be a bit shakey.

    Are peacocks easily scared? I know there are birds that can get a heart attack just because a human tries to catch them... But I guess Joey is used to humans around him.
    What bird is that? Maybe he has high cholestrol. I didn't know that was true. However, I am sure that Joey was fearful. I would think that peacocks, having been brought to England as a sort of fascination would be very used to humans and would hang about farms. After all farms have food that has fallen from wagons, etc and they can peek at the scraps. By now, I am sure humans pose no threat to them.

    Leaving the "safe home" where an animal can be nursed back to live. This area is easy to leave (when the storm is over), it is however hard to get to the other home... Like nature does not want people to go there. And again, the wind is cutting...
    Well, nature is hard and conditions here are shown to be 'unnatural' for this part of the country this time of year, with the snowstorm and all. I am sure the treak was not easy to the next farm. It might have been several miles and uphill over uneven land, maybe hilly, even rocky.

    There are the eyes again. At least, I take it "eye" here means "eyes" and the bird is not blinded on one?! Coming to think of it, in the description of Joey right before the rescue the narrator also talks about just "eye". With the baby, narrator himself or Maggie it is "eyes". A peacock with one eye. Not sure what to make of that, besides that it must be ironic when he has a tail full of eyes he can't use in the breeding season ...
    I think it's just a way of saying 'eyes' by referring to 'eye' as singular. I am not sure if that has special significance beyond the idea of the 'eye' being all seeing or insightful, like the inner eye and one of wisdom or knowledge. Could be that is why he is using 'eye' singularly; but I am not certain...just thinking outloud on my part.

    I do not blame the narrator to be a bit afraid of him. Peacocks are quite big birds, and birds are scary creatures (just imagine if they pick your eye out!). I do not really know why Joey struggles - does he want to get away again, away from Alfred. Or does he want to get out and back on his home ground as fast as possible, happy to be home again (calling for Maggie)? It can easily go both ways...
    Right, I agree... haha...I get your joke - pick your eye out!... No, this is not Hitchcock's "The Birds", Saphire. However, a lot of people do have a fear of bird beaks. I think peacocks are kind of scary...they are large and sort of long necked and they tend to show off those feathers and act a bit threatening at times. I have seen them in the zoo parading around like that and they are sort of awesome and a bit frightening.
    To your last statement, it can easily go either way. He probably just wants to be home -birds are territorial, so he comes home to roost.

    The "yet not thinking to release him" struck me: the obvious (/right) thing to do does not come to his mind. Maybe a little nag to what he did with the letter? The moment I think of that I think that is going too far, but hey - a girl can dream
    I think he was just dumbfounded and stunned at the time; forgetting to release him. Like you said he seemed kind of scary and threatening to the narrator. I think maybe comparing it to the letter is going a too little far, but who knows.

    She guessed that in answer to Joey's cry, I guess.
    I imagine.

    Not sure what to make of this. Obviously the bird dislikes the snow that caused him to almost die, well the snow and Alfred that is. But why is Maggie suddenly handsome in this situation? Because she showed some true emotions?
    Perhaps. Not sure either. She does seem some changed the next day to the narrator.

    I wonder, does "witch-like" mean mysterious, a double layer? Both in this world and in the magic world? Or does it rather imply wickedness?
    To Lawrence usually witch-like is not a bad thing but a possitive and connected to the natural world - like the world of fairied and magic and more of the primitive idea of the pagan world. It could also indicate the 'mysterious'.

    Notice the narrator says "grey-haired woman", not necessarily old. He calls both Maggie and Alfred "young" though. This made me think the narrator is older than both Alfred and Maggie, somewhere in his (late?) 30's probably.
    I got that impression as well. Virgil gets the opposite impression. I don't know how to definitely answer this question or this idea of the narrator's age.

    I do not think it is strange that Maggie does not speak while the old lady does: she probably does not know the narrator and is hostile about him being on her land. Or maybe she also dislikes the bird? Maggie keeping quiet indicates to me she is too much taken in by Joey to care about the world around her at this point in time.
    Can't answer this yet. This involves the part of the text I did not post yet but will next. It will be easier to answer after I review that part with the dialogue/interchange between the characters.


    Again, he does not say "old"

    That is all I get out of this part. I really wish we could see in the mind of Mr. Lawrence more directly [/color]
    "It's so mysterious, the land of tears."

    Chapter 7, The Little Prince ~ Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

  12. #2922
    Our wee Olympic swimmer Janine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southern New Jersey, near Philadelphia
    Posts
    9,300
    Blog Entries
    3
    Next Section of Text

    'You've got'im back 'gain, ah see,' he said to his daughter-in-law. His wife explained how I had found Joey.

    'Ah,' went on the grey man. 'It wor our Alfred scared him off, back your life. He must'a flyed ower t'valley. Tha ma' thank thy stars as 'e wor fun, Maggie. 'E'd a bin froze.

    They a bit nesh, you know,' he concluded to me.

    'They are,' I answered. 'This isn't their country.'

    'No, it isna,' replied Mr. Goyte. He spoke very slowly and deliberately, quietly, as if the soft pedal were always down in his voice. He looked at his daughter-in-law as she crouched, flushed and dark, before the peacock, which would lay its long blue neck for a moment along her lap. In spite of his grey moustache and thin grey hair, the elderly man had a face young and almost delicate, like a young man's. His blue eyes twinkled with some inscrutable source of pleasure, his skin was fine and tender, his nose delicately arched. His grey hair being slightly ruffled, he had a debonair look, as of a youth who is in love.

    'We mun tell 'im it's come,' he said slowly, and turning he called: 'Alfred--Alfred! Wheer's ter gotten to?'

    Then he turned again to the group.

    'Get up then, Maggie, lass, get up wi' thee. Tha ma'es too much o' th'bod.'

    A young man approached, wearing rough khaki and kneebreeches. He was Danish looking, broad at the loins.

    'I's come back then,' said the father to the son; 'leastwise, he's bin browt back, flyed ower the Griff Low.'

    The son looked at me. He had a devil-may-care bearing, his cap on one side, his hands stuck in the front pockets of his breeches. But he said nothing.

    'Shall you come in a minute, Master,' said the elderly woman, to me.

    'Ay, come in an' ha'e a cup o' tea or summat. You'll do wi' summat, carrin' that bod. Come on, Maggie wench, let's go in.'

    So we went indoors, into the rather stuffy, overcrowded living-room, that was too cosy, and too warm. The son followed last, standing in the doorway. The father talked to me. Maggie put out the tea-cups. The mother went into the dairy again.

    'Tha'lt rouse thysen up a bit again, now, Maggie,' the father-in-law said--and then to me: ''ers not bin very bright sin' Alfred came whoam, an' the bod flyed awee. 'E come whoam a Wednesday night, Alfred did. But ay, you knowed, didna yer. Ay, 'e comed 'a Wednesday--an' I reckon there wor a bit of a to-do between 'em, worn't there, Maggie?'

    He twinkled maliciously to his daughter-in-law, who was flushed, brilliant and handsome. 'Oh, be quiet, father. You're wound up, by the sound of you,' she said to him, as if crossly. But she could never be cross with him.

    ''Ers got 'er colour back this mornin',' continued the father-in-law slowly. 'It's bin heavy weather wi' 'er this last two days. Ay--'er's bin northeast sin 'er seed you a Wednesday.'

    'Father, do stop talking. You'd wear the leg off an iron pot. I can't think where you've found your tongue, all of a sudden,' said Maggie, with caressive sharpness.

    'Ah've found it wheer I lost it. Aren't goin' ter come in an' sit thee down, Alfred?'

    But Alfred turned and disappeared.

    ''E's got th' monkey on 'is back ower this letter job,' said the father secretly to me. 'Mother, 'er knows nowt about it. Lot o' tom-foolery, isn't it?
    Ay! What's good o' makkin' a peck o' trouble over what's far enough off, an' ned niver come no nigher. No--not a smite o' use. That's what I tell 'er. 'Er should ta'e no notice on't. Ty, what can y' expect.'

    The mother came in again, and the talk became general. Maggie flashed her eyes at me from time to time, complacent and satisfied, moving among the men. I paid her little compliments, which she did not seem to hear. She attended to me with a kind of sinister, witch-like graciousness, her dark head ducked between her shoulders, at once humble and powerful. She was happy as a child attending to her father-in-law and to me. But there was something ominous between her eyebrows, as if a dark moth were settled there--and something ominous in her bent, hulking bearing.

    She sat on a low stool by the fire, near her father-in-law. Her head was dropped, she seemed in a state of abstraction. From time to time she would suddenly recover, and look up at us, laughing and chatting. Then she would forget again. Yet in her hulked black forgetting she seemed very near to us.
    "It's so mysterious, the land of tears."

    Chapter 7, The Little Prince ~ Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

  13. #2923
    Registered User jinjang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Out for a while
    Posts
    216
    Blog Entries
    3
    I hope I did not rush you to the part where the father-in-law shows up, missing important clues. His talks require deciphering. Poor non-native speakers like me can have the head spinning.

    'You've got'im back 'gain, ah see,' he said to his daughter-in-law. His wife explained how I had found Joey.

    'Ah,' went on the grey man. 'It wor our Alfred scared him off, back your life. He must'a flyed ower t'valley. Tha ma' thank thy stars as 'e wor fun, Maggie. 'E'd a bin froze.

    They a bit nesh, you know,' he concluded to me.

    'They are,' I answered. 'This isn't their country.'
    This is the part it tells the peacock is not local. Let me try to translate the father-in-law. Please correct me if I am wrong:

    “You’ve got him back again, I see,” he said to his daughter-in-law.

    “Ah,” went on the grey man. “It was our Alfred scared him off, back your life. He must have flown over the valley. That makes me thank your star as he was fun, Maggie, he’d been frozen.”

    “They are bit nervous, you know,” he concluded to me. (I guessed the word “nesh” to be nervous.)

    “They are,” I answered. “This isn’t their country.”

    'We mun tell 'im it's come,' he said slowly, and turning he called: 'Alfred--Alfred! Wheer's ter gotten to?'

    Then he turned again to the group.

    'Get up then, Maggie, lass, get up wi' thee. Tha ma'es too much o' th'bod.'
    Let try this part, too.
    "We must tell him it's come," he said slowly, and turning he called: "Alfred--Alfred! Where is he got to?"

    "Get up then, Maggie, lass, get up with you. You make too much of the bird."

    The father-in-law indicated Maggie making too much of Joey to cause irritation in Alfred toward the bird. Maggie was acting up more than she feels with Joey to annoy Alfred.
    Last edited by jinjang; 05-13-2009 at 09:29 PM.
    Walk, meditate, forget - Victor Hugo
    Life is bigger than literature - Michael Cunningham

  14. #2924
    Our wee Olympic swimmer Janine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southern New Jersey, near Philadelphia
    Posts
    9,300
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by jinjang View Post
    I hope I did not rush you to the part where the father-in-law shows up, missing important clues. His talks require deciphering. Poor non-native speakers like me can have the head spinning.
    Wow, I can imagine. You know when I first attempted "Sons and Lovers" I had the problem deciphering the father's speech. Since then, I can sort spot the words and comprehend at least, 85%. It is not easy, even if English is your native language.

    This is the part it tells the peacock is not local. Let me try to translate the father-in-law. Please correct me if I am wrong:

    “You’ve got him back again, I see,” he said to his daughter-in-law.

    “Ah,” went on the grey man. “It was our Alfred scared him off, back your life. He must have flown over the valley. That makes me thank your star as he was fun, Maggie, he’d been frozen.”
    "he'd have been frozen", I think it says. You are certainly close enough.

    “They are bit nervous, you know,” he concluded to me. (I guessed the word “nesh” to be nervous.)
    That I am not sure about, but I don't know what else it could be.

    “They are,” I answered. “This isn’t their country.”
    I had noticed that statement, but I took it at first, just to mean another part of England or separate countryside; but it may very well be, that he is talking about the peacocks native country of origin. I had not thought of that before, and considering we are talking about various countries in the story, during wartime, that would probably make sense.

    Let try this part, too.
    "We must tell him it's come," he said slowly, and turning he called: "Alfred--Alfred! Where is he got to?"

    "Get up then, Maggie, lass, get up with you. You make too much of the bird."

    The father-in-law indicated Maggie making too much of Joey to cause irritation in Alfred toward the bird. Maggie was acting up more than she feels with Joey to annoy Alfred.
    That sounds about right. I found that hard to read, too. Thanks jingjang.
    Last edited by Janine; 05-13-2009 at 10:44 PM.
    "It's so mysterious, the land of tears."

    Chapter 7, The Little Prince ~ Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

  15. #2925
    Vincit Qui Se Vincit Virgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    20,354
    Blog Entries
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by Sapphire View Post
    [color="blue"]@Virgil

    Ah... a bit like Jean-Jacques Rousseau. And I also see a lot of T.Hardy in that idea - I think that indeed explains it better than anti-modernity, thank you for that.
    Yes, very much like Rousseau and Hardy with the exception that Lawrence connects things to some religious/spiritual notion, while both of the other two are closer to atheism. Lwarence evolves to a pantheism, if not out right paganism.

    Yes, I wonder - is there any laugh out of joy in the whole story? Maggie seems to me to laugh out of nervousness and awkwardness and it seems to me that it might have sounded bitter (imagination again ). The laugh of the narrator came as a big surprise to me and I actually thought he was going mad at that point. Or that it all was just a dream. Alfred also laughs "a burst of laughter" right before that moment. No idea what he was laughing about either, but I doubt it was joy - it seemed more like he remembered something about the girls which might have been funny to him but by the way the guys were talking it was probably not very respectful...
    Oh I did not pick up on Alfred's laugh. I think one more reading on my part is in order to specifically look for the laughter throughout the story and to try to draw some significance from it.

    I think we might need to let this laugh-theme be until we come to the end of the story. That is, unless somewhere in between a character is found to be laughing I wonder whether the father laughs....
    Yes, let me look at the story again from this perspective.

    Maggie suddenly handsome in this situation? Because she showed some true emotions?
    I wonder, does "witch-like" mean mysterious, a double layer? Both in this world and in the magic world? Or does it rather imply wickedness?
    This is the point I wish to make on that passage. Let me repaste the pertinent section:

    I opened the bag, and he flopped out, flapping as if he hated the touch of the snow now. She gathered him up, and put her lips to his beak. She was flushed and handsome, her eyes bright, her hair slack, thick, but more witch-like than ever. She did not speak. She had been followed by a grey-haired woman with a round, rather sallow face and a slightly hostile bearing. 'Did you bring him with you, then?' she asked sharply. I answered that I had rescued him the previous evening. From the background slowly approached a slender man with a grey moustache and large patches on his trousers.
    Notice Maggie becomes "flushed and handsome" and so on. Whenever Lawrence uses the term "flushed" there is a sexual connotation to it, and Ican't but help but bring the symbolism to it's logical conclusion. Joey represents the phallus and what Maggie needs is a phallus to bring her back to life, to brighten her eyes, enrich her hair, to make her flush with life. The war has caused the deprivation of manhood to the community and the women have degenerated and put into roles they shouldn't be in. This is not that much different than Lady Chatterly, but here Maggie has been forced to accept a bird as some sort of pseudo phallus, while Lady Chatterly abandons her limp husband for a real penis.

    Notice the narrator says "grey-haired woman", not necessarily old. He calls both Maggie and Alfred "young" though. This made me think the narrator is older than both Alfred and Maggie, somewhere in his (late?) 30's probably.
    I do not think it is strange that Maggie does not speak while the old lady does: she probably does not know the narrator and is hostile about him being on her land. Or maybe she also dislikes the bird? Maggie keeping quiet indicates to me she is too much taken in by Joey to care about the world around her at this point in time.
    I don't know the narrator's age. I took him to be young. How old was Lawrence when he wrote this Janine?


    I'll catch up with the rest later.
    Last edited by Virgil; 05-14-2009 at 08:28 AM.
    LET THERE BE LIGHT

    "Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena

    My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/

Similar Threads

  1. Something that bugs me about short stories
    By book_jones in forum General Literature
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-12-2008, 04:28 AM
  2. Something Short and Sweet
    By applepie in forum General Literature
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-30-2008, 07:32 PM
  3. Who can help me find English short stories?
    By JohnHe21 in forum General Literature
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-14-2007, 10:42 AM
  4. Who writes the best short stories?
    By Nemerov in forum General Literature
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 09-06-2004, 04:08 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •