D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[Sapphire]

Yeah! A new part of the story is up. Thank you for keeping track Janine.
BTW I like the idea of "moral make-up"

Hi there NightShade Glad there is another mind to join is in this discussion . Are you familiar with Lawrence's work?

Just one thing before I start commenting on the new text, it is @DarkMuse. I totally agree with Virgil and BienVenu on your comments of the narrator's "function". If we combine Virgil's view of the first person and your DarkMuse's view of him being a part of the story I think we might have everything Lawrence could have aimed for.

The mother came in again, and the talk became general.

I did not notice this so much last time, but doesn't it strike you that the mother has such a small part in it all?! I mean, if Maggie is so close with the parents - couldn't it be she might confine a bit in the mother (but then again, maybe she did)? The older women is left out a bit. She's there, but she could just as well not have been there.
Except for the Father mentioning her to the narrator as not knowing a thing about it: "Mother, 'er knows nowt about it.". (See post #2930 and #2936).
Maybe it is important for the mother to be there, because it brings a little more flavour to the relationship between Maggie and the Father?

@the New Text

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.

Ah, so the peacock is allowed within the house... He might have been seeking for the warmth and comfort of the fire, but the way he nears Maggie it is rather like he was looking for her. Maggie herself acts like she does not observe him, but just before Lawrence writes "Yet in her hulked black forgetting she seemed very near to us.". Does this mean that when she "forgets" about Joey she might be more near to him too?! I think I am looking too much into it though And after all, forgetting is not the same as not observing. Maggie is just lost in her own world

The bird sat silent, seeming to sleep, and the woman also sat hulked and silent, seemingly oblivious.

Well, that bird falls asleep fast - must be the heat of the fire. I feel like this sentence implies again that Maggie and Joey have a special bond together (Virgil), both being distant. Yet, they are not really being together (JinJang) - the bird silent and Maggie 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.

Wait - Alfred wasn't inside yet?! Ah, here it is - when the Father asks him to come in we read "but Alfred turned and disappeared. Not a very nice thing to do when there is a guest, is there?
This entrance must be a bit of a shocker to him... He learns once again that he should not leave his woman alone... Though I have to say, it might seem to him that the bird and Maggie are close, her being oblivious might indicate that he is reading it all wrong.

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.

There's the breeched pockets again. And an awkward moment. And Alfred walks away. He's not really a guy to deal with problems, is he?!

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.

Maggie responds to the narrators leaving but not to her husbands leaving! Now I know again why I did think her a bit of a flirt... Calling it cosy while her husband was not there. And there is the laugh again - with some observations of the narrator that I do not really see the use for Maybe to show that her laugh did not attract him?

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.

Albert out of the door, Maggie hitting on the narrator (OK, I am exaggerating ) and the peacock as a shadow on the background. I wonder why Lawrence did not add the 4th "man" in Maggie's life, this would be a nice moment for the Father to give a wise cracked saying...

'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 narrator is awkward and I do not think he is really planning on going there again. I mean, "one day" is not really how to accept an invitation when you're eager to visit.

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.

Again, Maggie and Joey are put on one line - having the same feelings or such. I am not sure about it... Why are they made so much like one in this part of the story!?
And might it be that the narrator telling about the influence he has on Maggie is relevant for the relation between Albert and Eliza? Just making a big step here, I know. I just don't see an other reason for Lawrence to put so much weight on Maggie's obliviousness. The physical contact when he's there and the forgetting when he's gone...

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.

Yellowish, but no sun. Blue snow?! Interesting... And Maggie has really bewitched the narrator, hasn't she? Him musing on her...

Wow... I did not know such a small part would lead to so many questions

[Quark]

Wow, quite an explosion of posts since I checked last. I like a lot of what Janine and Sapphire said in their last two giant posts, but it's going to take a moment to read through everything and respond.

[Janine]

Wow, quite an explosion of posts since I checked last. I like a lot of what Janine and Sapphire said in their last two giant posts, but it's going to take a moment to read through everything and respond.

Hi Quark, haha....I had a giant post? me? I never have those, do I? Was it a page or two back? I check in here too, every afternoon and see a dozen new posts. I almost don't have to comment myself (just post text), but I always read what everyone else has to say, even if I don't comment on all. I do hope you can comment on my 'giant' post and on Saphire's, also. I just read her last one and she presented a lot of interesting questions. Not sure I am up to answering them quite yet; at least, I have read all posts up to date. I have to mull them all over or 'muse on them', like the narrator is 'musing' on Maggie, first before responding, unless someone else beats me to it; probably Virgil will; that's my prediction.

Saphire, fine thought out post above; you are really getting into Lawrence, aren't you? Glad of it and look forward to more discussions with you and jinjang and whoever else from the newbies stops back in.

Check you 'Alfred's'; one 'Albert' worked it's way in there somehow again. Also, glad you noticed the new text and that little guy running frantically back and forth is a riot! Where can I get one of those? I really need, at times of stress, this particular emoticon, which I have in my instant messenger program; it's a guy yanking his hair out.

[jinjang]

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.

We forgive old people more easily than others, especially those who feel completely in line with everything and everyone around them. I am sorry for lingering on why Maggie being flushed and handsome. I wonder now whether Lawrence understood women well, if indeed he is implying Maggie and Alfred had sex the night before. Women usually do not consent to have sex if there is a fight going on between the couple. Women usually shun men out until the problem resolves or until the men make it up somehow.

I will follow Sapphire’s breakdown of the text:

If we combine Virgil's view of the first person and your DarkMuse's view of him being a part of the story I think we might have everything Lawrence could have aimed for.

Yes, definitely the narrator is on the table to be dissected-my term- or being judged- Dark Muse’s term- as well as the others.

I did not notice this so much last time, but doesn't it strike you that the mother has such a small part in it all?! I mean, if Maggie is so close with the parents - couldn't it be she might confine a bit in the mother (but then again, maybe she did)? The older women is left out a bit. She's there, but she could just as well not have been there.

I am wondering about why the mother is gloomy. Is she gloomy because she is excluded from the event around her or because the father flirts with Maggie or he cares too much of Maggie and ignores his wife? I have seen some old couple’s indifference towards to each other, living side by side but not connecting with each other at all. I so wish to know more about the mother. Lawrence left her out with the intention to vex us more.

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.

My interpretation: Joey is a teddy bear or a pet or a minor comfort and so forgettable, even though the peacock symbolizes the manhood as an undercurrent of the story. Joey does not satisfy completely her emotional needs. She is absorbed in her puzzlement over the letter because of the dishonesty of Alfred and the narrator while she can still smell fish deep down.

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.

I simply think that Alfred is mapping out the situation and see if there is a room for him to go near Maggie or to make up with Maggie somehow. But he keeps seeing the bird in the way and so he withdraws temporarily, though he may be thinking of getting rid of the bird when Maggie is not around. He went out only temporarily and hasn’t given up yet.

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 can imagine all the rockets there were just before the narrator showed up with the bird. Maggie wants him around as a distraction and as a means to put the distance between her and Alfred. She is not yet ready to make up with Alfred and so buying her time by keeping the narrator. She may be flirting with him, too, but without much thought to it. Her main thought is still at her trouble with Alfred. That is why I agree with Sapphire here below:

Maggie responds to the narrators leaving but not to her husbands leaving! Now I know again why I did think her a bit of a flirt... Calling it cosy while her husband was not there. And there is the laugh again - with some observations of the narrator that I do not really see the use for Maybe to show that her laugh did not attract him?

A nervous laugh is a sign of Maggie’s lingering troubled thoughts. The suspicion is a terrible thing.

The narrator is awkward and I do not think he is really planning on going there again. I mean, "one day" is not really how to accept an invitation when you're eager to visit.

I would be eager to go away and not come back, too, since the narrator has seen enough troubles and awkwardness around the house.

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.

I believe women are impossible even for Lawrence to figure out sometimes. He could almost figure her out but not quite and Maggie or women in general remains mystery to the author. Maggie loves Alfred, despite his unfaithfulness: I said this because there were parts where she said she wrote a lot of loving letters to Alfred. Even if she does not love him as much anymore, her thoughts are occupied by Alfred and her relationship with him.

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.

Now the narrator is gone and the cloud returns to the house and their skirmishing lives will continue until I do not know what. The narrator is still puzzled by Maggie. Impenetrable women!

[Quark]

Hi Quark, haha....I had a giant post? me? I never have those, do I? Was it a page or two back?

It's probably several pages back by now. I did want to bring up one part of that post. I'll talk about it at the bottom of this post--which is probably going to turn into another giant. It seems like that's the only way to communicate in this thread.

I did not notice this so much last time, but doesn't it strike you that the mother has such a small part in it all?! I mean, if Maggie is so close with the parents - couldn't it be she might confine a bit in the mother (but then again, maybe she did)? The older women is left out a bit. She's there, but she could just as well not have been there.
Except for the Father mentioning her to the narrator as not knowing a thing about it: "Mother, 'er knows nowt about it.". (See post #2930 and #2936).
Maybe it is important for the mother to be there, because it brings a little more flavour to the relationship between Maggie and the Father?

Yeah, I agree that the mother does have a role, however slight it might be. If for no other reason, she's there to be a double or opposite to the father. The story is filled with doubles and opposites. The story has two spouses who each have two lovers (if we're counting the peacock). It has two birds. Two colors are dominant through most of the story (either blue and yellow or white and black). It seems natural that there would be two parents who mirror each other in some way, yet are opposites. The father and mother mirror each other in their parental roles, but act in the story as opposites. The father creates a sense of intimacy as he exposes everyone's secrets, but the mother creates distance by enforcing domesticity. She's always (at least in the three or four times she's mentioned) doing some chore or putting a stop to some revealing dialogue.

There's the breeched pockets again. And an awkward moment. And Alfred walks away. He's not really a guy to deal with problems, is he?!

Alfred is not particularly heroic in this moment. The story led me to think that he was going to be more enthusiastic upon arrival, but he just sulks. Is it just because of the letter, or is this just what their relationship is like?

Yellowish, but no sun. Blue snow?! Interesting... And Maggie has really bewitched the narrator, hasn't she? Him musing on her...

"Bewitched" might be too strong of a word, but, yeah, she does stay in his thoughts. The yellow probably is a reference to Maggie's "yellow" face.

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.

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.

I'm a little more sympathetic to the idea of the narrator as a mediator between the wife and husband than as a invitation for the reader to join in the decision making. I do think he is the only conduit for communication the wife and husband have, and the plot really couldn't move forward without him. Yet, I think the story would have just as many ethical dilemma if it were told in the third person.

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.)

I probably should have introduced myself. I have been here for a while, but I was late getting to this story.

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.

That is an important point. I didn't really pick up on it in my first read, but the bird is one of Maggie's last tenuous connections to her past. This is one of Maggie's grievances at the start of the story--that she's lost everything of her former life. I had just written it off as Lawrence trying to make it obvious that the wife was angry, but there is something more to it. The husband does seem to be intentionally destroying her past.


I'll try to get to jinjang's comments in my next post. I can't muster the carpal strength to go at this point.

[Virgil]

I will answer everyone later tonight. But I just wanted to say this thread rocks!! We are having a great discussion. Kudos!

[Janine]

I will answer everyone later tonight. But I just wanted to say this thread rocks!! We are having a great discussion. Kudos!

Hey, that's my birthstone. How did you know? I love those. I even have one of those natural rocks, looks like this. It currently needs dusting; then it really sparkles.

This discussion sparkles too. It's been great this month! Thanks everyone for all your fascinating posts. Keep up the good work!

[jinjang]

Yeah, I agree that the mother does have a role, however slight it might be. If for no other reason, she's there to be a double or opposite to the father. The story is filled with doubles and opposites. The story has two spouses who each have two lovers (if we're counting the peacock). It has two birds. Two colors are dominant through most of the story (either blue and yellow or white and black). It seems natural that there would be two parents who mirror each other in some way, yet are opposites. The father and mother mirror each other in their parental roles, but act in the story as opposites. The father creates a sense of intimacy as he exposes everyone's secrets, but the mother creates distance by enforcing domesticity. She's always (at least in the three or four times she's mentioned) doing some chore or putting a stop to some revealing dialogue.

This is exactly why I get addicted to this thread even with ups and downs. Everyone brings out a different point of view. It is fascinating! No wonder everyone said you were greatly missed. The story is Rorschach inkblot or the story twirls around with ambiguity.

[Virgil]

Janine, I will not get to the new text tonight I'm afraid. There was a bit to respond to. Perhaps later.

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.

D-M, your insights have been outstanding. Yes, of course. The narrator is the only one who knows the full scope of the letter. Perhaps this is why he laughs at the end.

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.

Except if the narrator is unethical himself.

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.

Yes, we are fixed to the narrator's set of morals. But what are they? Like I just said above, he may not have our morals. Afterall, doesn't he side with Alfred?

I did not notice this so much last time, but doesn't it strike you that the mother has such a small part in it all?! I mean, if Maggie is so close with the parents - couldn't it be she might confine a bit in the mother (but then again, maybe she did)? The older women is left out a bit. She's there, but she could just as well not have been there.

There's lots we don't notice the first time. We pick up so much more in these back and forths. To be honest I barely registered the mother. Here's the extent of the mother:

''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.

The father seems to support the son's deviousness, the fooling around with the French girls doesn't seem to bother him. And he keeps the secret from his wife. Very patriarchal and very Lawrence. What caught my eye here was Maggie's flashing "her eyes" at the narrator. Have we talked about the flirting between Maggie and the narrator? Isn't her frustration from getting a sexual response from the narrator the reason for that "dark moth" between her eyebrows? She's happy as a child "attending her father-in-law" and the narrator, but suddenly the darkness, a result I take from getting a sexual response.

Except for the Father mentioning her to the narrator as not knowing a thing about it: "Mother, 'er knows nowt about it.". (See post #2930 and #2936).
Maybe it is important for the mother to be there, because it brings a little more flavour to the relationship between Maggie and the Father?

I would think it serves as a contrast to Maggie.

We forgive old people more easily than others, especially those who feel completely in line with everything and everyone around them. I am sorry for lingering on why Maggie being flushed and handsome. I wonder now whether Lawrence understood women well, if indeed he is implying Maggie and Alfred had sex the night before. Women usually do not consent to have sex if there is a fight going on between the couple. Women usually shun men out until the problem resolves or until the men make it up somehow.

I don't know if they had sex, but the father makes a quip as to having sex. Or they should have and didn't, which would be signifcant contrast between the generations.

I am wondering about why the mother is gloomy. Is she gloomy because she is excluded from the event around her or because the father flirts with Maggie or he cares too much of Maggie and ignores his wife? I have seen some old couple’s indifference towards to each other, living side by side but not connecting with each other at all. I so wish to know more about the mother. Lawrence left her out with the intention to vex us more.

If the father is Lawrence's ideal man, the mother is the ideal woman, suffering and absorbing the male dominance. She accepts the father, though not necessarily happy about it, which contrasts with Maggie and her husband's infidelities.

My interpretation: Joey is a teddy bear or a pet or a minor comfort and so forgettable, even though the peacock symbolizes the manhood as an undercurrent of the story. Joey does not satisfy completely her emotional needs. She is absorbed in her puzzlement over the letter because of the dishonesty of Alfred and the narrator while she can still smell fish deep down.

Agree, Joey cannot satisfy her needs (that is an important point), and let's hope she doesn't try with him.

I simply think that Alfred is mapping out the situation and see if there is a room for him to go near Maggie or to make up with Maggie somehow. But he keeps seeing the bird in the way and so he withdraws temporarily, though he may be thinking of getting rid of the bird when Maggie is not around. He went out only temporarily and hasn’t given up yet.

Yes, I think so. The bird is preventing him from taking his proper place as the male of the family.

I believe women are impossible even for Lawrence to figure out sometimes. He could almost figure her out but not quite and Maggie or women in general remains mystery to the author.

If there is ever a male writer who seems to get inside women, it's Lawrence. I've heard it from so many women how he understands them. Ask janine.

Maggie loves Alfred, despite his unfaithfulness: I said this because there were parts where she said she wrote a lot of loving letters to Alfred. Even if she does not love him as much anymore, her thoughts are occupied by Alfred and her relationship with him.

Now the narrator is gone and the cloud returns to the house and their skirmishing lives will continue until I do not know what. The narrator is still puzzled by Maggie. Impenetrable women!

Good points.

Yeah, I agree that the mother does have a role, however slight it might be. If for no other reason, she's there to be a double or opposite to the father.

Like I said above, I think she contrasts Maggie more, but yes there are all sorts of contrasts going on.

The story is filled with doubles and opposites. The story has two spouses who each have two lovers (if we're counting the peacock). It has two birds. Two colors are dominant through most of the story (either blue and yellow or white and black). It seems natural that there would be two parents who mirror each other in some way, yet are opposites. The father and mother mirror each other in their parental roles, but act in the story as opposites.

Exactly. Lawrence is always using doubles and opposites. I think one critic refered to Lawrence as having a binary view of the world: male/female, light/dark, mind/passion, earth/sky, and so on. He is always after a dialectic.

The father creates a sense of intimacy as he exposes everyone's secrets, but the mother creates distance by enforcing domesticity. She's always (at least in the three or four times she's mentioned) doing some chore or putting a stop to some revealing dialogue.

Yes she is, and this is another example of how the feminists critics absolutely hate Lawrence. The older generation present an ideal in this story for Lawrence and see how the mother is delegated. Now perhaps you can see where I was coming from when I suggested that Maggie and the post war women have altered the social norms of England.

[Dark Muse]

Yes, we are fixed to the narrator's set of morals. But what are they? Like I just said above, he may not have our morals. Afterall, doesn't he side with Alfred?

It was my first instinct to think that narrator sides with Alfred but perhaps not, the ending of the story could be seen in another way. Though it may still be questionable his misleading Maggie in changing the letter but in the same way he does also mislead Alfred. Just as he does not tell Maggie the truth of what is in the letter, when Alfred questions him he leads Alfred to belive that Maggie is ignorant, but the narrator knows that Maggie did not buy anything he said and completely beleives that the child is Alfred's but the narrator does not let this on to Alfred, he lets Alfred go on thinking he got away with something.

Maybe that is the joke? The fact that the narrator is laughing at Maggie and Alfred in equal parts because the mess of their lieves which they have gotten into.

[Virgil]

It was my first instinct to think that narrator sides with Alfred but perhaps not, the ending of the story could be seen in another way. Though it may still be questionable his misleading Maggie in changing the letter but in the same way he does also mislead Alfred. Just as he does not tell Maggie the truth of what is in the letter, when Alfred questions him he leads Alfred to belive that Maggie is ignorant, but the narrator knows that Maggie did not by anything he said and completely beleives that the child is Alfred's but the narrator does not let this on toe Alfred, he lets Alfred go on thinking he got away with something.

Maybe that is the joke? The fact that the narrator is laughing at Maggie and Alfred in equal parts because the mess of their lieves which they have gotten into.

Perhaps so. We'll have to see when we get to it. I intend to quote all nine places in the story where someone laughs. We'll have to come to some understanding as to why laughing gets repeated (a leitmotif) through the story. I haven't figured it out.

[BienvenuJDC]

Irony is the root of so many works of literature...

[Janine]

It was my first instinct to think that narrator sides with Alfred but perhaps not, the ending of the story could be seen in another way. Though it may still be questionable his misleading Maggie in changing the letter but in the same way he does also mislead Alfred. Just as he does not tell Maggie the truth of what is in the letter, when Alfred questions him he leads Alfred to belive that Maggie is ignorant, but the narrator knows that Maggie did not buy anything he said and completely beleives that the child is Alfred's but the narrator does not let this on to Alfred, he lets Alfred go on thinking he got away with something.

Maybe that is the joke? The fact that the narrator is laughing at Maggie and Alfred in equal parts because the mess of their lieves which they have gotten into.

Yes, Dark Muse, this is how I perceived that ending on first reading and I don't think I have changed my thoughs on it after repeated readings. I agree with Bien, there is a certain dry irony at the end of this story. I think the narrator is laughing at the obsurdity of the whole situation and how it turned out. He didn't know he would return to the farm when he read that letter initially. That all depended on the fate of finding the 'wintry peacock' and saving him and having to return him. He might never have met up with Alfred at all had it not been for that one twist of fate.

[Janine]

Perhaps so. We'll have to see when we get to it. I intend to quote all nine places in the story where someone laughs. We'll have to come to some understanding as to why laughing gets repeated (a leitmotif) through the story. I haven't figured it out.

That would be cool; quote to your heart's content, Virgil! Should be interesting to review that.

[Virgil]

That would be cool; quote to your heart's content, Virgil! Should be interesting to review that.

I guess when we get to the ending laugh.