D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[BienvenuJDC]

I think that it is interesting how one's perspective is effected by personal experience. I've always had certain outlooks about raising children when I was single. Now that I am married with two children (even having one as a special needs child), I still hold many of the same views, but they are from different perspectives now. So also is my views of the marriage relationship. I don't think that one can have the same outlook (good word OUT -look...one who is in such situation...looking OUT) without the same experiences. You never hear of the term 'IN-look'...

I don't want anyone to respond with personal info, but what is the perspective of:

• a single person (Never been married)

• a young married person

• an experienced married person

• a married person (as the unfaithful one)

• a married person (as the one married to the unfaithful)

• a married person (as the unfaithful one -- Not forgiven)

• a married person (as the one married to -- Not forgiving)

• a married person (as the unfaithful one -- Forgiven)

• a married person (as the one married to -- Forgiving)

• a widow/widower - the loss of that loved one...especially before their time...would that loss change perspective

If you lost your spouse, might you say to yourself...if I only had them back...I would keep them no matter what mistakes that they would make...

And for the record...I think that there is a difference between someone who made a mistake and someone who makes a patterned lifestyle. Is there enough information in this story to indicate (for sure) if Alfred...made a mistake...or made a lifestyle...?

[Dark Muse]

I just realised something Dark Muse; you are an 'idealist'. The problem with that is we are reading a story where idealism does not dominate and we are not here to judge the characters by our own standards. Our world is not always an idealistic world either. I think Lawrence is going for reality here and not idealism or moral perfection. I would personally agree with you on the moral issues and very much not approve of a husband sneaking around behind my back or getting another woman pregnant, or even just fooling around, being secretive. I don't think, however, married couples have to tell each other everything about their lives - people need some space. I also think there is a thing called 'forgiveness'; that is not an easy road to travel and not always possible; but one has to consider the possibilty. I doubt I would be too forgiving in the instance of a filandering husband, but this was a different century for one thing; therefore, I am not sure this woman has a lot of options left to her. Apparently, she cannot even return to her former home. The point is, getting hung up again, on this moral debate, is not helping us to understand the story and the deeper meanings, themes, etc. If anything, Lawrence always treats his characters very humanly and humans are fallible; they certain are not always perfect, or moral.

I really do not consider myself an idealist. I just have very high standards and hold people up to high expectations though part of this comes from the fact that while I do not make any claims to perfection, the moral code I judge others by I do uphold for myself, so it is hardly something impossible that I am seeking. I just do not have much give when it comes to those of a weak willed nature. I am just very much into personal reasonability and people being held accountable for their actions.

There is this quote I read somewhere that sums up my basic feelings I cannot recall the exact words off the top of my head but it says basically. "You cannot always control what you feel, but you can control how you behave"

[Janine]

That is Maggie's dilemma. I would suggest her not to sleep with Alfred for a long time to punish him, but then he may repeat the offense again. Excuse me if I take it so lightly.

I know this is to Dark Muse, but I think that tactic would drive him to more straying from the nest. The we would have a second story perhaps - a sequel.

One compensation for women is, as we men and women get older, we need men less and men need women more in their emotional need. I am past 30.
I was needy when I was 20's and happily not anymore.

jinjang, wait till you reach my age!

[jinjang]

jinjang, wait till you reach my age!

What do you mean? Do women get the upper hand? Or we are just better off without any men?

Do you say upper hand or upper end?

[BienvenuJDC]

I really do not consider myself an idealist. I just have very high standards and hold people up to high expectations

That is pretty much what an idealist is...

[Janine]

I think that it is interesting how one's perspective is effected by personal experience. I've always had certain outlooks about raising children when I was single. Now that I am married with two children (even having one as a special needs child), I still hold many of the same views, but they are from different perspectives now. So also is my views of the marriage relationship. I don't think that one can have the same outlook (good word OUT -look...one who is in such situation...looking OUT) without the same experiences. You never hear of the term 'IN-look'...

I don't want anyone to respond with personal info, but what is the perspective of:

• a single person (Never been married)

• a young married person

• an experienced married person

• a married person (as the unfaithful one)

• a married person (as the one married to the unfaithful)

• a married person (as the unfaithful one -- Not forgiven)

• a married person (as the one married to -- Not forgiving)

• a married person (as the unfaithful one -- Forgiven)

• a married person (as the one married to -- Forgiving)

• a widow/widower - the loss of that loved one...especially before their time...would that loss change perspective

If you lost your spouse, might you say to yourself...if I only had them back...I would keep them no matter what mistakes that they would make...

And for the record...I think that there is a difference between someone who made a mistake and someone who makes a patterned lifestyle. Is there enough information in this story to indicate (for sure) if Alfred...made a mistake...or made a lifestyle...?

Bien, you are doing a whole study here. Interesting I admit. I do wonder how our perspectives change according to our own experience and circumstances. I also think it has a lot to do with age. When we are younger we expect the world to run like clockwork. As we get older, we realise people have to make concessions and also people are fallible and we accept that more readily, than we might have done in our youth; that does not mean a wife should let a husband walk all over her or visa versa. I think a lot needs to be factored in. With a husband, I now know to have been a philandering mate, it's odd that I don't condemn Alfred. I certainly, would not find Alfred a suitable kind of husband. I just think that war drives people appart and as Virgil pointed out, gives rise to 'unnatural' circumstances, where perhaps people, who would have lived descently prior to the war, are drawn into doing things they later regret. Now if the lies in this story, can't be forgiven as human weaknesses, then I don't know what we can forgive. 'Forgiveness' is a Christian ideal and I believe in it. Other's might not. Christ forgave the theives hanging on the cross with him and he even forgave his crucifiers, am I not right? As the bibical verse goes "Let those free from sin cast the first stone." I think that is very wise.

[BienvenuJDC]

And what goes around comes around...

maybe someday we might be in need of forgiveness...and I'm not talking about from God...but from each other...

[Dark Muse]

I suppose that is the key for me there are some things that are beyond forgiveness and should not be forgiven nor do they deserve to be forgive. As well I do not think that "human weakness" is an excuse to let one off the hook. There should be consequences for ones actions.

While Maggie might "choose" to stay with Alfred, I do not think there is anything within her behavior that suggests she genuinely forgives him for what he did. She accepts and perhaps sees that her prospects are better with him than if she had attempted to left, but I don't think this story leaves one with the idea that from where on out they are going to repair their marriage. I think Maggie is still bitter toward him (and rightfully so) and no matter what Maggie may or may not do in regards to him, I do not think that this incident is just a one time thing.

Maggie's behavior and remarks about Alfred earlier within the story suggest that prior to the letter he has already acted in an untoward way toward her, be it another affair or some other less than appealing behavior. I just do not see Alfred as someone who has only made one mistake in his life and is now going to amend for it.

I think he is a cad through and through. Not just because of this single episode but because of what the story suggests to me about his past and future behavior outside of this incident.

[Janine]

I suppose that is the key for me there are some things that are beyond forgiveness and should not be forgiven nor do they deserve to be forgive. As well I do not think that "human weakness" is an excuse to let one off the hook. There should be consequences for ones actions.

While Maggie might "choose" to stay with Alfred, I do not think there is anything within her behavior that suggests she genuinely forgives him for what he did. She accepts and perhaps sees that her prospects are better with him than if she had attempted to left, but I don't think this story leaves one with the idea that from where on out they are going to repair their marriage. I think Maggie is still bitter toward him (and rightfully so) and no matter what Maggie may or may not do in regards to him, I do not think that this incident is just a one time thing.

Maggie's behavior and remarks about Alfred earlier within the story suggest that prior to the letter he has already acted in an untoward way toward her, be it another affair or some other less than appealing behavior. I just do not see Alfred as someone who has only made one mistake in his life and is now going to amend for it.

I think he is a cad through and through. Not just because of this single episode but because of what the story suggests to me about his past and future behavior outside of this incident.

Well, even if what you say is the absolute truth then so what? How does it effect the story? I don't see why we have to take a stand either way. I just see this as a story or slice of life that we will never know all the circumstances behind the characters actions. Maybe Alfred was shell-shocked when he had his affair? of course I am just kidding but still the point is we don't know that much truly about #1 the affair with the Belgium girl #2 what Alfred went through in the war #3 how his married life has been with his wife up until now. Everything in the story is suggested but not spelled out, so who is to possitively say how things were. We only have gotten a glipse into Maggie and Alfred's personalities and dispositions. I don't think anyone can make a fair judgement on just these scanty impressions one gets of the characters, same applies for the narrator; whom actually we can feel his mind more clearly than the others since the story is in first person.

Asside from this, your personal beliefs, along with all others here are their own. They all 'own' them and have the right to think morally, as they feel compelled to think. You can't force your views on anyone else here or in the world in general. To say you don't believe in forgiveness (specifically, that there are some things beyond forgiveness) is one of those personal beliefs and you can't force others to agree with you, so you are wasting your time trying to do so. We need to respect everyone's person perspective on this story and their own opinions/beliefs.

I wish to move on with the text. Any objections to that idea? Otherwise, I see this going nowhere again, but round and round in endless circles. Let's shove on and explore the next part of the text. I will post that tomorrow, in a separate post; it is too late now.

[Dark Muse]

I did not accuse you forcing your beliefs on others when you mentioned your views on forgiveness, so are people who disagree with you not alloud to express opinons without being accused of something.

[Virgil]

Do you really think so? I can't picture an English father-in-law blatantly referencing sex to a daughter-in-law no matter how close they feel.

He's certainly a very earthy fellow who is quite comfortable in his way of the world. This is Lawrence's ideal person, one whose gone through life and been honest about his sexuality, link to the nature and the cycles of life. Also he is the pre-war person of the story, removed from the distorted and dysfunctional ways of post war England. (Before I get comments on this, I am speaking from Lawrence's point of view, not my personal. How can I do this? Well, if I haven't mentioned this before, I did my master's thesis on DH Lawrence and have read not only a lot of his fiction, not only biographies, but also his a bit of his non-fiction ideas and many of his letters. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with his ideas, I'm just presenting them.)

I mean you may be thinking too much of sex to possibly misinterpreting the story.

I may have sex on my mind. But for Lawrence sex is the central experience from which all other things come from. If there is a possible sexual connotation in a Lawrence work, it's almost certain he did it intentionally. Of course it's always possible it leaked in accidentally.

Excuse me if I misinterpreted what you said. I thought you mentioned something about the reversed dominance between men and women after the war and how men lost their ruling roles in their households. When Maggie has the letter, she had the upper end of the fight. Now the narrator turned around the situation and gave Alfred the excuse to fight back hence regaining the dominance?

Actually I did say that. I meant that in the post war scene of the story, the men have lost dominance, and I think now I see the witch references to Maggie as a suggestion by Lawrence to women's gaining of power in the post war world.

Yes, I wanted to ask you if Wintry peacock, Joey, means the manhood, why Alfred is trying to kill him. I lingered on the statement: Maggie is making too much of the bird. That is when I concluded Joey was in the way between Maggie and Alfred. I also called it Joey interfering innocently. What does it symbolize? I have no idea.

Very good questions. I'm not sure I've reached any conclusions on this yet. Let me hold off, but the tension between Alfred and the peacock and Maggie's love for the peacock creates a classic triangle of jealosies. I guess it comes down to what exactly the peacock is symbolizing.

[Nightshade]

I think that it is interesting how one's perspective is effected by personal experience. I've always had certain outlooks about raising children when I was single. Now that I am married with two children (even having one as a special needs child), I still hold many of the same views, but they are from different perspectives now. So also is my views of the marriage relationship. I don't think that one can have the same outlook (good word OUT -look...one who is in such situation...looking OUT) without the same experiences. You never hear of the term 'IN-look'...

I don't want anyone to respond with personal info, but what is the perspective of:

• a single person (Never been married)

• a young married person

• an experienced married person

• a married person (as the unfaithful one)

• a married person (as the one married to the unfaithful)

• a married person (as the unfaithful one -- Not forgiven)

• a married person (as the one married to -- Not forgiving)

• a married person (as the unfaithful one -- Forgiven)

• a married person (as the one married to -- Forgiving)

• a widow/widower - the loss of that loved one...especially before their time...would that loss change perspective

If you lost your spouse, might you say to yourself...if I only had them back...I would keep them no matter what mistakes that they would make...

And for the record...I think that there is a difference between someone who made a mistake and someone who makes a patterned lifestyle. Is there enough information in this story to indicate (for sure) if Alfred...made a mistake...or made a lifestyle...?

Bien, you are doing a whole study here. Interesting I admit. I do wonder how our perspectives change according to our own experience and circumstances. I also think it has a lot to do with age. When we are younger we expect the world to run like clockwork. As we get older, we realise people have to make concessions and also people are fallible and we accept that more readily, than we might have done in our youth; that does not mean a wife should let a husband walk all over her or visa versa. I think a lot needs to be factored in. .

Right having finally pulled myself together and decided to join in I just want to say before i forget after rereading the thread and reading thje story, what your talking about here bein is really an application of media relativist ( or was in the pluralist?)audiance theory. and ther have been studies that show that people form different backgrounds bring differnt things to a 'reading' of a pice. If you are intrested I could dig out the referances to studies sometime this week.

[Sapphire]

Wow... that's a lot of posts since I left! Lets try catching up...

And sorry in advance for talking about ALBERT all the time instead of ALFRED. I have been making this mistake all along and I try to catch myself before I post my messages. It might go wrong one day though: So if I write Albert I mean Alfred .

@Virgil
I really liked to read your explanation of why Lawrence choose for a narration in the first person here. Thank you for that.

n one of my last posts, I commented on the psychic tension between Alfred and Joey. I think it's critical to understanding the story. I'm surprised no one commented on it.

I do not really know what to say about that. I think it is there. JinJang asks why Alfred would kill Joey if he symbolizes the manhood. In my eyes that is easy enough: Alfred does not like competition. He has been unfaithful, but he detests the idea that Maggie might be too. So he wants this other (symoblic) manhood out of the way. Maybe it even goes so far that he thinks such will give him back his own manhood?!

I may have sex on my mind. But for Lawrence sex is the central experience from which all other things come from. If there is a possible sexual connotation in a Lawrence work, it's almost certain he did it intentionally. Of course it's always possible it leaked in accidentally.

Personally, I think that once an author is known for focussing on sex a lot - people will start looking for it and always manage to find it. I mean, there is symbolism towards sex to be found in everything. The most innocent words will be the first to be turned dirty.
Having said that, I think that in a short story like this Lawrence will probably have thought ever sentence over and over and I think high enough of him to believe he saw every possible connection So I think you're right in always pointing it out. Especially if Lawrence looked at sex as the "central experience". I think that explains a lot, thank you for pointing that out.

@JinJang

They are all meddlesome and manipulating bunch of miserable people!

Definitely. And maybe that is why I appreciate having read this story. Humans will be humans, humans make mistakes (and I believe they SHOULD admit those). Here we see the mistakes being made over and over again and all on top of one another. The one lie follows on the next - maybe the message of it all is that once you start being untrue (both as in sleeping with another girl as in not telling about it or lying about it) you can never ever be truthful again? You just get sucked into the lies and people around you start/keep lying too. Just a thought

@Dark Muse
I see your strong point on never keeping secrets from your spouse. However, I think both Maggie and Albert are keeping their secrets too much to themselves.

I think Maggie deserves to know the truth and from that be able to make up her own mind about how she wants to approach the situation.

I do not know what Maggie told to Albert about the letter, but he never read it. And even after the narrator told his version of the letter Maggie did not seem to believe him - what stopped her from throwing that letter in Albert face, telling him she knew all about (OK, putting in a lie there) this Eliza and letting him explain? He did not know the narrator's version of the story so he might just have admitted the whole thing. Instead she... well, we do not know what she does, do we? I am pretty sure she is keeping her own secrets about it all - maybe not even telling Albert there is a child.
I do think the moment Albert got home - he should have told Maggie about Eliza. If he did not, the coming of the letter might have been a good reason to come clean. And I think his response to the narrator when he told him there was a baby (after all, why would Albert know that if he did not read the letter) was downright appealing. But there is enough time to rant about that when we come to that part of the text.

The narrator was (in my eyes) wrong in reading a personal letter. Maggie was wrong in burning a letter that was meant for her husband.

@BienVenuJDC
A whole study indeed! Of course our perspective is influenced by our marrital status, but lets not put too much weight on it. I think that in the end it is all our experiences in this world, and all our circumstances that make our out/inlook on life (even fictional life). To make your "study" thorough, one should definitely add the kind of marriage (or not) a person's parents/guardians had/have. Just everything that might shape our idea of this institution.
That is, if you would want to make this study scientific. Reading your post I take that you "just" think it an interesting idea - I am all in favour of exploring such. So here is my status: single, and not planning on ever getting married or having children for that matter. I know my mother was the same at this age though, so you never know .

@Janine

When I heard you all discussiong her as being 'Northeast' it seems to have set off a bell in my head and I thought of something that Hamlet said when talking to Polonius in double meanings or it may have been R & G, is former classmates.

I found in ACT2, SCENE2 the following: "I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw." To be honest, that just confuses me - more cardinal directions which are bounded to an emotional state of mind . I guess it will be a study in itself. Respect that you manage to remember such!

The point is, getting hung up again, on this moral debate, is not helping us to understand the story and the deeper meanings, themes, etc. If anything, Lawrence always treats his characters very humanly and humans are fallible; they certain are not always perfect, or moral.

I do think this story was meant to make people think about morality and what to do in situations like that. In that light, it is interesting to talk about this. I do not think there is one answer to it - people will see it in their own light. I totally agree with you though, that we should not get too much hung up about it - lets not forget about the text itself.

Janine, I think we're all ready for a new piece of this wonderful story! Bring it on

[Quark]

I do not really know what to say about that. I think it is there. JinJang asks why Alfred would kill Joey if he symbolizes the manhood. In my eyes that is easy enough: Alfred does not like competition. He has been unfaithful, but he detests the idea that Maggie might be too. So he wants this other (symoblic) manhood out of the way. Maybe it even goes so far that he thinks such will give him back his own manhood?!

Yeah, the peacock is weird symbol. Or is it even a symbol? I kind of like Virgil's idea that the peacock is just another character who creates a second love triangle between itself, Maggie, and Alfred.

The one lie follows on the next - maybe the message of it all is that once you start being untrue (both as in sleeping with another girl as in not telling about it or lying about it) you can never ever be truthful again? You just get sucked into the lies and people around you start/keep lying too. Just a thought

I don't know if there's much of a message to this one. I tend to agree with Janine that this is slice of life kind of story. There isn't really much you're left with at the end of the story other than a dysfunctional couple. I suppose that's why the story ends with laughter. There really isn't anything else one can do with this.

I do think lies are important somehow, but I'm not entirely sure what exactly they do. Obviously, they cover the truth from the person being lied to. But, then again, they don't really seem to work. The other person always knows what's going on, and the lies are circumvented. Maggie knows Alfred is having an affair, and Alfred knows that Maggie knows. Even the family knows. Yet, they don't know all the details, and the picture they get of the affair is rather shadowy. Maybe that's the message (it's difficult not to find messages, I guess) that people know each other only loosely. They rarely ever have a complete picture of the other.

I found in ACT2, SCENE2 the following: "I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw." To be honest, that just confuses me - more cardinal directions which are bounded to an emotional state of mind . I guess it will be a study in itself. Respect that you manage to remember such!

In that quotation, Hamlet is hinting to Polonius (and the audience) that he is feigning madness. To say that he's mad only when the is north-north-west is to say that he's made only some of the time--meaning when he chooses. It has some parallel with "The Wintry Peacock." The father is saying that Maggie is ill only some of the time--meaning when Alfred is away.

[Sapphire]

Just passing through...

In that quotation, Hamlet is hinting to Polonius (and the audience) that he is feigning madness. To say that he's mad only when the is north-north-west is to say that he's made only some of the time--meaning when he chooses. It has some parallel with "The Wintry Peacock." The father is saying that Maggie is ill only some of the time--meaning when Alfred is away.

I really think that if the father refers to Maggie as being North-East the last 2 days, he's referring to her being ill WHEN ALFRED IS HOME. Isn't he home those last 2 days?! At this moment, it is the time frame that might confuse me more than the expression itself...