D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[Quark]

?!

Yes, my bad. Alfred had "come whoam a Wednesday night."

At this moment, it is the time frame that might confuse me more than the expression itself...

Oh, when you said

"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!

I thought you were wondering about the connection between the expression and the story.

Anyway, I do hope there's something beside the last word of my post that's interesting.

[Sapphire]

I thought you were wondering about the connection between the expression and the story.

Yes, thank you for the explanation. I am sorry that I forgot to state so

I guess it is the time frame that confuses me now One problem solved, one to go

[Janine]

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.

Hi Quark, glad you returned and glad you read the story. You have been highly missed here.

I agree with you two. Good observation and we have seen many a 'triangle', before in Lawrence's short stories, haven't we?

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.

That is how I saw it; how I saw the narrator perceive it. I said before, that he was not laughing 'with' the couple, or with Alfred, but at him and the whole scene, sort of like the whole joke was on him at the end, ironic. He couldn't really spare the couple from each other. He's seeing that, in the end, they are are rather ridiculous in their little lies and deceits. Maybe the fact that, the narrator got dragged into this whole affair of lying, also is ridiculous to himself, at the end. Really, as soon as he runs down the hill and away from the scene and the family, it's all up to them to carry on as they will. I see the ending as a sort of letting go, for the narrator. He's done with the whole sorid affair now. Let what comes next naturally happen. It's out of his hands, his control.

Quote by Quark

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.

Exactly, no one is being fooled here. That also could be why the narrator laughs, as he runs home. He realises now, that no one is fooling anyone in the end. Let's look at that text more closely, when we get to it and see what we can discover. I think the timing of the words and conversation between the two men is important, crucial.

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.

You are right, after reading that quotation over a few times here, I finally got it's full meaning. That one had stumped me for sometime. That whole double meaning conversation with Polonius, in that part of the play, always fascinates me. I knew Lawrence's line was something like this line, but now I see not quite the same - here it is 'Northwest'. But, it still describes a temperment or a state of being. Apparently, the term 'Northwest' and the term 'Northeast' is used to indicate a person's temperment, at that particular time. Like someone pointed out, in relation to England, Northeast would be windy and colder. I think that is what he is referring to. Northeasters here are storms so maybe hs is saying that Maggie has been like a storm, 'stormy', the past few days, since Alfred returned.

I agree with Saphire, that Maggie may have shown Alfred the letter and then burned it or destroyed it; or even mentioned that she knows the contents. I think that part is not made very clear and besides we only have the narrators impression of what happened to that letter, after it left his hands. Let me review what she wrote:

Quote by Saphire

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.

"but he never read it." How do you know that - didn't Alfred read French? It was only Maggie and the parents who could not interpret the letter. Perhaps, Alfred saw that letter, but is not letting on he did; playing dumb.

"she... well, we do not know what she does, do we?" Exactly, we don't what she does or what Alfred and her say to each other. We can't know what goes on behind closed doors. Now, I can picture Maggie simply lying to Alfred or stretching the truth and she might say 'I know the truth of this letter'; lead him into admitting his fault. I can easily see this, happening with Maggie. She seems very sly to her filandering husband. I will, of course, have to take a closer look at that part of the text (if we ever get there...*sigh*)...

Quote by Saphire

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 can see it this way, also. I think her affection for the bird intimidates Alfred's manhood and degrades him in his eyes; must have been a huge putdown to know your wife perfers a bird over you! Therefore, he wishes, even needs to eliminate the bird, the object of her admiration. She certainly doesn't admire her husband - that's evident. Should he kill the animal, he would show his male dominance; or so he views it that way. Isn't hunting a male thing and nurturing a womanly thing? He is exerting his maleness very much by striking out at the bird. Also, the bird is connected to Maggie's past. He wishes to sever that tie forever. He definitely wishes to rule the roost, but in the end, it's questionable as to who will do that - the wife or the husband? It's a whole power-play; that's how I see it.

Quote by Virgil

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.

Virgil,You know, in someways this character reminds me of Lawrence's character in "The White Peacock", Frank Annable; however more developed and probably kinder, as well; it's been awhile, since I read the novel; I should read it again; the descriptions are beyond compare in that first novel. I agree with you that he represents the 'ideal man' for Lawrence. He is tied to the earth in a natual way and he is honest about his own sexuality, being fully in tune with the earth's cycles/seasons. Good point, your last statement here!

Quote by Virgil

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.

I can and cannot agree with you on this entirely. I know that statement sounds odd. Sex is not always central to his work. I would agree that exploring comflict, between sexes is, even between same sexes, in some of the works is central. In this story we are primarily interested in that of husband and wife. At this particular time, this was very much an issue with Lawrence, concerning his own marriage. He was not all that trusting of Frieda, when she went off to Germany alone. A lot more was going on there, than mere sex or lust. No, in this way, I disagree. Sex is a huge part of Lawrence's work, but in "Women in Love" , Birkin says, when asked what he wishes for, 'he wants to sit in a field of daisies perfectly happy with the woman he loves'. He does want sex, but it goes far beyond mere sex. He refuses to call it 'Love' at times, abhoring the word, because of it's connotations and restrictions. He feels the coming together is holy and worthy of comparison to two stars in the heavens uniting or facing each other in perfect balance; it's a great mystery not to be solved. Isn't that how it goes, something like that? It's not mere sex that is central to Lawrence's stories; that would make him ordinary and Lawrence was no ordinary author. I see the central theme in this story, as much more than mere sex; I see it as the war background and the alienation of the couple in an unnatural time; barring them from the sensual life, they might have had, had the war not driven them appart. In "Women in Love" I see a sense of letting go and experiencing a true sensualtiy. Sex and sexuality must go hand in hand here and are connected with nature. I guess this could be a whole debate in itself. Leave that for another day, we need to progress with this story.

Hi Nightshade! Glad to have you on board. I am glad too, that you reviewed all the posts and were able to locate the story to read. It's never too late to join in, as you are proving. That study sounds interesting. It would interesting to post that at the end of this discussion so that we can discuss those ideas separately.

We need to move onto more text today. I will post that in my next post.

[Virgil]

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

Thank you. I think that comes more from my writing short stories than my reading Lawrence.

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 think Janine answered it well and I'll address it below.

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.

Yes, and I think Janine makes it clearer as to how sex is important to Lawrence. I'll get to that below too.

@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 haven't addressed D-M's comments about the slimyness of this marriage, especially Alfred. I agree with D-M. I don't think any of these characters are supposed to be likable. I think Alfred is supposed to be dispicable. I think Maggie is supposed to be witchy.

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.

I guess I can go along with that, though is it so much morality or the dysfunctionality of the marriage realtionship? They are kind of intertwined.

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

Yes.

[QUOTE=Janine;723999] Hi Quark, glad you returned and glad you read the story. You have been highly missed here.

I agree with you two. Good observation and we have seen many a 'triangle', before in Lawrence's short stories, haven't we?

Well, that's just classic approach to creating conflict. But who in there right mind would have used a peacock as the third party?

That is how I saw it; how I saw the narrator perceive it. I said before, that he was not laughing 'with' the couple, or with Alfred, but at him and the whole scene, sort of like the whole joke was on him at the end, ironic.

We have to look at those laughs. I re-read the story looking for all the laughs and found there were nine references to laughs in there.

I can see it this way, also. I think her affection for the bird intimidates Alfred's manhood and degrades him in his eyes; must have been a huge putdown to know your wife perfers a bird over you! Therefore, he wishes, even needs to eliminate the bird, the object of her admiration. She certainly doesn't admire her husband - that's evident. Should he kill the animal, he would show his male dominance; or so he views it that way. Isn't hunting a male thing and nurturing a womanly thing? He is exerting his maleness very much by striking out at the bird. Also, the bird is connected to Maggie's past. He wishes to sever that tie forever. He definitely wishes to rule the roost, but in the end, it's questionable as to who will do that - the wife or the husband? It's a whole power-play; that's how I see it.

Yes, I think this is right on how we should see Alfred's antogonism toward Joey. His manhood is threatened, and that is a manisfestation of the dysfunctionality of the modern post-war time. Who in there right mind would be threatened by it? But then again who but Maggie would feel such sexual attraction towrd him? The whole situation exudes dysfunctionality.

Quote by Virgil
Virgil,You know, in someways this character reminds me of Lawrence's character in "The White Peacock", Frank Annable; however more developed and probably kinder, as well; it's been awhile, since I read the novel; I should read it again; the descriptions are beyond compare in that first novel. I agree with you that he represents the 'ideal man' for Lawrence. He is tied to the earth in a natual way and he is honest about his own sexuality, being fully in tune with the earth's cycles/seasons. Good point, your last statement here!

Yes, and he reminds me of Tom Brangwen in The Rainbow when Tom has aged.

Quote by Virgil
I can and cannot agree with you on this entirely. I know that statement sounds odd. Sex is not always central to his work. I would agree that exploring comflict, between sexes is, even between same sexes, in some of the works is central. In this story we are primarily interested in that of husband and wife. At this particular time, this was very much an issue with Lawrence, concerning his own marriage. He was not all that trusting of Frieda, when she went off to Germany alone. A lot more was going on there, than mere sex or lust.

When I mean sex, I do not mean lust. You know that Lawrence was against porn and trivial sex. "Sex in the head" is what he called it.

No, in this way, I disagree. Sex is a huge part of Lawrence's work, but in "Women in Love" , Birkin says, when asked what he wishes for, 'he wants to sit in a field of daisies perfectly happy with the woman he loves'. He does want sex, but it goes far beyond mere sex.

Yes, for Lawrence true sexual relations is a transcendence into a spiritual dimension. That is completely lacking in this story. The sexual dynamics that go on ion this story are warped.

He refuses to call it 'Love' at times, abhoring the word, because of it's connotations and restrictions. He feels the coming together is holy and worthy of comparison to two stars in the heavens uniting or facing each other in perfect balance; it's a great mystery not to be solved. Isn't that how it goes, something like that? It's not mere sex that is central to Lawrence's stories; that would make him ordinary and Lawrence was no ordinary author.

We completely agree on this Janine.

I see the central theme in this story, as much more than mere sex; I see it as the war background and the alienation of the couple in an unnatural time; barring them from the sensual life, they might have had, had the war not driven them appart. In "Women in Love" I see a sense of letting go and experiencing a true sensualtiy. Sex and sexuality must go hand in hand here and are connected with nature. I guess this could be a whole debate in itself. Leave that for another day, we need to progress with this story.

I think we agree. *shocking* That is the central theme of the story.

[Dark Muse]

I guess I can go along with that, though is it so much morality or the dysfunctionality of the marriage realtionship? They are kind of intertwined.

I think with the figure of the narrator acting as a sort of middle man so to speak both between the reader and the characters as well as between Alfred and Maggie does introduce the idea of mortality within the story. I think the story would be different if it was just a 3rd person way of viewing the relationship between Maggie and Alfred, but the narrator himself has to deal with questions of morality in what to say, or not to say, both to Maggie and to Alfred. Maggie and Alfred do not deal directly with each other in reaguards to the letter, so I would say the narrator's pressence and him being a sort of go between invites one to consider the morality of the issue.

[Virgil]

I think with the figure of the narrator acting as a sort of middle man so to speak both between the reader and the characters as well as between Alfred and Maggie does introduce the idea of mortality within the story. I think the story would be different if it was just a 3rd person way of viewing the relationship between Maggie and Alfred, but the narrator himself has to deal with questions of morality in what to say, or not to say, both to Maggie and to Alfred. Maggie and Alfred do not deal directly with each other in reaguards to the letter, so I would say the narrator's pressence and him being a sort of go between invites one to consider the morality of the issue.

Good point.

[BienvenuJDC]

I think with the figure of the narrator acting as a sort of middle man so to speak both between the reader and the characters as well as between Alfred and Maggie does introduce the idea of mortality within the story. I think the story would be different if it was just a 3rd person way of viewing the relationship between Maggie and Alfred, but the narrator himself has to deal with questions of morality in what to say, or not to say, both to Maggie and to Alfred. Maggie and Alfred do not deal directly with each other in reaguards to the letter, so I would say the narrator's pressence and him being a sort of go between invites one to consider the morality of the issue.

I think that Virgil is right...good point...
But I'm just a little short on getting it completely...not your fault DM...the deficiency is in me. Can anyone elaborate a little? Too many engineer's notes fried my brain today!!

[jinjang]

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.

Welcome to the thread, Nightshade! I thought I was reading BienvenuJDC’s posting because he said something similar. I said this once but it is better to repeat that the different views of the story brought by different people in the discussion is more fascinating for me than the story itself. That is why I think I am drawn to the thread.

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.

This may be also different personal views of the story. Virgil’s view of the story, I mean. He repeats often enough to the point where I am almost convinced but not quite yet.

Maggie and Albert

I think you are like Dark Muse. You just want to hook up Maggie with someone else than Alfred. Here comes a charming prince on a white horse named Albert! Just teasing!

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.

Welcome back! Everyone seems to know you except me. I am new and you must be an old timer (not old but been here longer before me.)
We talked about what “wintry peacock” means for a long time. Please look at the thread on P.187 #2799 and a few following posts

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.

People can be elusive and I think people suffer more over the suspicion than the painful truth itself. What the narrator did can then be deemed as cruel to Maggie. Towards the end of our discussion, I am realizing the narrator was not doing any favor to Maggie.

Exactly, no one is being fooled here. That also could be why the narrator laughs, as he runs home. He realises now, that no one is fooling anyone in the end. Let's look at that text more closely, when we get to it and see what we can discover. I think the timing of the words and conversation between the two men is important, crucial.

Yes, now I can’t wait for the conversation between the narrator and Alfred.

"but he never read it." How do you know that - didn't Alfred read French? It was only Maggie and the parents who could not interpret the letter. Perhaps, Alfred saw that letter, but is not letting on he did; playing dumb.

I do not think Alfred read the letter himself. Isn’t it why Alfred intercepted the narrator to know what is in the letter and what Maggie knows?
Yes, Janine. I think we are all ready for the next part.

[Janine]

I think that Virgil is right...good point...
But I'm just a little short on getting it completely...not your fault DM...the deficiency is in me. Can anyone elaborate a little? Too many engineer's notes fried my brain today!!

Is that why the guy in your avatar looks like that?

[jinjang]

I would say the narrator's pressence and him being a sort of go between invites one to consider the morality of the issue.

I am just talking to myself here:
The narrator is immoral though not as bad as the one in Lolita. The narrator is an observer and mediator forced into meddling into the affair of Maggie and Alfred.

Do we still consider the narrator is the author?

[Janine]

Before we go on, I wanted to just post this part, because I was not sure we discussed it. This is actually, from the last segment of text that I posted earlier, at the end. It's fairly short and after, this I will add on the new part of the text.

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.

There is one of those 'laughs', Virgil, which you referred to. I also, want to say, I read everyone of your posts today and yesterday, even if I failed to comment on all. I am happy to see all this enthusiasm. Everyone seems to be drawn to this thread and actually having a great time. This story can't be that bad, since we have posted tons of pages of commentary. I am very happy to see that. This is a very lively group, with lots of great ideas and new spins on the story. I didn't answer posts individually for this evening, because I will never get the new part of this text posted. It was difficult to figure out where I left off. So here goes....


Next Part of Text

Same paragraph continued

The door having been opened, the peacock came slowly in, prancing calmly. He went near to her and crouched down, coiling his blue neck. She glanced at him, but almost as if she did not observe him. The bird sat silent, seeming to sleep, and the woman also sat hulked and silent, seemingly oblivious. Then once more there was a heavy step, and Alfred entered. He looked at his wife, and he looked at the peacock crouching by her. He stood large in the doorway, his hands stuck in front of him, in his breeches pockets. Nobody spoke. He turned on his heel and went out again. I rose also to go. Maggie started as if coming to herself. 'Must you go?' she asked, rising and coming near to me, standing in front of me, twisting her head sideways and looking up at me. 'Can't you stop a bit longer? We can all be cosy today, there's nothing to do outdoors.' And she laughed, showing her teeth oddly. She had a long chin. I said I must go. The peacock uncoiled and coiled again his long blue neck, as he lay on the hearth. Maggie still stood close in front of me, so that I was acutely aware of my waistcoat buttons. 'Oh, well,' she said, 'you'll come again, won't you? Do come again.' I promised. 'Come to tea one day--yes, do!' I promised--one day. The moment I went out of her presence I ceased utterly to exist for her--as utterly as I ceased to exist for Joey. With her curious abstractedness she forgot me again immediately. I knew it as I left her. Yet she seemed almost in physical contact with me while I was with her. The sky was all pallid again, yellowish. When I went out there was no sun; the snow was blue and cold. I hurried away down the hill, musing on Maggie.

After this is discussed I will post the last section of text; which is will take us to THE END....

hahah...yes, that is Saphire Blue type...

[BienvenuJDC]

I am just talking to myself here:
The narrator is immoral though not as bad as the one in Lolita. The narrator is an observer and mediator forced into meddling into the affair of Maggie and Alfred.

Do we still consider the narrator is the author?

I don't know if I would say IMmoral, though he may not have the highest standard of morality. He...as we might choose to assume...has been faithful in his own relationship....if we take it that he is married. My own definition of IMmorality is to be against morality. He doesn't condemn, nor condone the events, although he himself bears some guilt of sin.

[jinjang]

I don't know if I would say IMmoral, though he may not have the highest standard of morality. He...as we might choose to assume...has been faithful in his own relationship....if we take it that he is married. My own definition of IMmorality is to be against morality. He doesn't condemn, nor condone the events, although he himself bears some guilt of sin.

Excuse me for being short on the meaning of the word "immoral."
Can I say he was unethical to hide the truth?

Wait! The dictionary says the meaning of "immoral" as follows:
not moral ; broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles

I am okay to say what I said, right?

[Dark Muse]

I am just talking to myself here:
The narrator is immoral though not as bad as the one in Lolita. The narrator is an observer and mediator forced into meddling into the affair of Maggie and Alfred.

Do we still consider the narrator is the author?

While the narrator does not directly pass judgement and his own ethics can be questioned, there is a very specific reason why a narrator is used within this story and why the letter falls into his pocession more or less. Between Alfred and Maggie he is the only one that knows what it truly says, not matter what the others may susepct or think.

The only way the story could be told from a completely amoral way would be to simply have some unknown non-exisitent 3rd person, view of Maggie and Alfred, but the story is looked through the eyes of another preson active wihtin the story. This does sort of invite the readers into thier private lives.

Rather than viewing the story form a more distant stance of a 3rd person narration. In a way the narrator can be seen as creating a more interactive role betwene reader and the characters, as we can see the letter through is eyes, and also see the way he reinterpts the letter later.

[Janine]

Can we now discuss the new part of the text, which I just posted? If it flips to the next page, then you will all disregard it again and I will have to repost it. It took me a half hour to find out where I left off, another 15 minutes to post it. Can we just move on and later on anyone who wants to dispute the moral makeup of the author/narrator, can do so at the end; because otherwise, we will just be going in circles again. I am more interested in getting on with the story at this point; several of you have requested I post that part of the text, so I did. I have another story in the Chekhov thread, which I want to start and a blog I wish to write.