D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[Virgil]

I found the descriptive metaphors interesting:

Well then, into this family came Egbert. He was made of quite a different paste. The girls and the father were strong-limbed, thick-blooded people, true English, as holly-trees and hawthorn are English. Their culture was grafted on to them, as one might perhaps graft a common pink rose on to a thornstem. It flowered oddly enough, but it did not alter their blood.

And Egbert was a born rose. The age-long breeding had left him with a delightful spontaneous passion. He was not clever, nor even 'literary'. No, but the intonation of his voice, and the movement of his supple, handsome body, and the fine texture of his flesh and his hair, the slight arch of his nose, the quickness of his blue eyes would easily take the place of poetry.

If Winifred's family is "true English" what is Egbert? Holly trees and hawthorn versus a rose. Are these two sides of an "English" character? The rose almost seems to allude to the War of the Roses, the Plantagenet civil war - the house of Lancaster (red rose) versus the house of York (white rose).

The name "Wars of the Roses" is not thought to have been used during the time of the wars but has its origins in the badges associated with the two royal houses, the White Rose of York and the Red Rose of Lancaster. The term came into common use in the nineteenth century, after the publication of Anne of Geierstein by Sir Walter Scott. Scott based the name on a fictional scene in William Shakespeare's play Henry VI Part 1, where the opposing sides pick their different-coloured roses at the Temple Church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses

This story does have a sort of Walter Scott plot and characterization.

[Sapphire]

Luck! see you later - tomorrow your time! ha

You bet ya

I found the descriptive metaphors interesting

Me too I've written something about it in my commentary, which I will post underneath. You say:

If Winifred's family is "true English" what is Egbert? Holly trees and hawthorn versus a rose. Are these two sides of an "English" character? The rose almost seems to allude to the War of the Roses, the Plantagenet civil war - the house of Lancaster (red rose) versus the house of York (white rose).

That war came to my mind too, but I think we're jumping a bit too far here. If that is what the narrator wants to allude too, why does he not talk about red and white roses? He mentions "a common pink rose" vs. "a born rose". I think this is rather pointing towards "common people" vs "noble people", the Marshalls being common and the southern Egbert being of higher breeding. Mind you, I am not too sure about this. After all, it is mentioned nowhere that Egbert is of nobility.
And I do not think that calling the Marshalls "true English" means that Egbert is not (not that you say that). You mention it might be that there are two sides of an "English" character, I think there are different English characters - either North vs South or common vs noble. One thing I do know for sure, is that all characters are "really English". Egbert and Godfrey are even said to be "two real Englishmen, and their instincts were almost the same" towards the end of the story.

This story does have a sort of Walter Scott plot and characterization.

Any special story you have in mind? I actually only know Ivanhoe And I do not see the similarities there.

-------------------------------------------------

Well then, into this family came Egbert. He was made of quite a different paste.

And though Egbert’s paste will be explained, his past will not. We know what house Winifred is from, but we do not know what Egbert’s parents are like. His mother is named later on, but even shorter than Winifred’s mother. He really marries into the Marshall family Compare this to how women become a part of their husbands family… I wonder though: was that the case in England? I think I am comparing to Middle Eastern and Southern Europe families now

The girls and the father were strong-limbed, thick-blooded people, true English, as holly-trees and hawthorn are English. Their culture was grafted on to them, as one might perhaps graft a common pink rose on to a thornstem. It flowered oddly enough, but it did not alter their blood.

“True English”. But if the father is from the North, he’s rather from Wales and thus British instead of English I am sorry, I just had to point that out It is a little pet peeve of me: do not call the Netherlands Holland and do not call the United Kingdom England “North” can of course also just mean “Northern England”, it is not necessarily the extreme north of the British Island. I do think Lawrence just meant the country… it is probably not really important. “ Great Britain, My Great Britain” would just sound stupid for a title, would it not?
“English as holly trees and hawthorn are English”. I never especially linked those two with England. I do connect holly with Christmas, and hawthorn with the start of spring (it is called May-thorn over here). I guess both are native plants?! I see the connection with the Marshalls and especially Godfrey: strong plants, with a tough shell (thorns).
I like the metaphor of the rose. It really helps to explain the point. Though I did need the sentence “it did not alter their blood” to completely grasp its meaning And I do wonder why it has to be a “common pink rose”. All the other roses in the story are white or red, as are the famous symbols of roses in England itself (York and Lancastre). Are wild roses usually pink? I can not say I see those often around, but the huge question for red roses might have changed that over the years.

And Egbert was a born rose.

Completion of the metaphor.

The age-long breeding had left him with a delightful spontaneous passion. He was not clever, nor even 'literary'. No, but the intonation of his voice, and the movement of his supple, handsome body, and the fine texture of his flesh and his hair, the slight arch of his nose, the quickness of his blue eyes would easily take the place of poetry. Winifred loved him, loved him, this southerner, as a higher being. A higher being, mind you. Not a deeper.

Note how it is stressed that he’s the last in a long line of breeding. I almost wanted to say he is of noble heritage, but that is never explicitly stated. I really got that impression - most be the “born rose” part .
While for the Marshalls it is stressed that they’re “true English”, this is not stressed for Egbert in this part of the story. For this moment it is more important that he is “higher” than that he is English. Or wait… “southerner” – that implicates South England. Lets state it is more subtle then .
What is this “higher not deeper” stuff? I kind of grasp it, but I really can not put my finger on it. I see how Winifred puts him above herself in this stage of her life, sees him as a higher and maybe even better being. But what would Egbert have been if he was a “deeper” being? Would he be more grounded, more in touch with the world. Less of a dreamer. Or would it be a matter of knowing himself thoroughly?

And as for him, he loved her in passion with every fibre of him. She was the very warm stuff of life to him.

He needs her to be happy. He not just loves her, he loves her with passion. Is it too much to make the connection: passion – warm – flame?

[Virgil]

That war came to my mind too, but I think we're jumping a bit too far here. If that is what the narrator wants to allude too, why does he not talk about red and white roses? He mentions "a common pink rose" vs. "a born rose". I think this is rather pointing towards "common people" vs "noble people", the Marshalls being common and the southern Egbert being of higher breeding. Mind you, I am not too sure about this. After all, it is mentioned nowhere that Egbert is of nobility.

Yes I agree. It was a thought to consider but I didn't put too much stock in it myself. I think you got it right.

And I do not think that calling the Marshalls "true English" means that Egbert is not (not that you say that). You mention it might be that there are two sides of an "English" character, I think there are different English characters - either North vs South or common vs noble. One thing I do know for sure, is that all characters are "really English". Egbert and Godfrey are even said to be "two real Englishmen, and their instincts were almost the same" towards the end of the story.

I say two sides because Lawrence is known for his dualism. He always seems to think in opposing contrasts: male/female, north/south, industrial/rural.

Any special story you have in mind? I actually only know Ivanhoe And I do not see the similarities there.

No, just the fact that it's historical fiction set in England.

And though Egbert’s paste will be explained, his past will not. We know what house Winifred is from, but we do not know what Egbert’s parents are like. His mother is named later on, but even shorter than Winifred’s mother. He really marries into the Marshall family Compare this to how women become a part of their husbands family… I wonder though: was that the case in England? I think I am comparing to Middle Eastern and Southern Europe families now

Interesting that Egbert's past isn't more defined. Perhaps the story was getting too long. But it does seem like a hole in the story.

“True English”. But if the father is from the North, he’s rather from Wales and thus British instead of English I am sorry, I just had to point that out It is a little pet peeve of me: do not call the Netherlands Holland and do not call the United Kingdom England

I'm so sorry if I did. I did not realize there is a distinction. I find it easier to trype out Holland.

“North” can of course also just mean “Northern England”, it is not necessarily the extreme north of the British Island. I do think Lawrence just meant the country… it is probably not really important. “ Great Britain, My Great Britain” would just sound stupid for a title, would it not?

Yes.

“English as holly trees and hawthorn are English”. I never especially linked those two with England. I do connect holly with Christmas, and hawthorn with the start of spring (it is called May-thorn over here). I guess both are native plants?! I see the connection with the Marshalls and especially Godfrey: strong plants, with a tough shell (thorns).
I like the metaphor of the rose. It really helps to explain the point. Though I did need the sentence “it did not alter their blood” to completely grasp its meaning And I do wonder why it has to be a “common pink rose”. All the other roses in the story are white or red, as are the famous symbols of roses in England itself (York and Lancastre). Are wild roses usually pink? I can not say I see those often around, but the huge question for red roses might have changed that over the years.

Don't know if there is a particular color to wild roses. What do you think Lawrence is alluding to by comparing Egbert to a rose? Delicate? pretty?

Note how it is stressed that he’s the last in a long line of breeding. I almost wanted to say he is of noble heritage, but that is never explicitly stated. I really got that impression - most be the “born rose” part .

Oh that's a possibility too, though we never get his background. That may be why he's so wasteful and not a worker.

What is this “higher not deeper” stuff? I kind of grasp it, but I really can not put my finger on it.

I would associate that with the Nordic. Lawrence associates Nordic with idealism and etheral, more abstract.

I see how Winifred puts him above herself in this stage of her life, sees him as a higher and maybe even better being. But what would Egbert have been if he was a “deeper” being? Would he be more grounded, more in touch with the world. Less of a dreamer. Or would it be a matter of knowing himself thoroughly?

I think the reference is that he is less grounded in hard reality.

He needs her to be happy. He not just loves her, he loves her with passion. Is it too much to make the connection: passion – warm – flame?

Ah yes, lots of flames in the story.

One day Winifred heard the strangest scream from the flower-bed under the low window of the living room: ah, the strangest scream, like the very soul of the dark past crying aloud. She ran out, and saw a long brown snake on the flower-bed, and in its flat mouth the one hind leg of a frog was striving to escape, and screaming its strange, tiny, bellowing scream. She looked at the snake, and from its sullen flat head it looked at her, obstinately. She gave a cry, and it released the frog and slid angrily away.

And here is that passage with the sanke. That littel drama with the frog in the mouth is fascinating. Very suggestive of something, but of what?

[Sapphire]

Hey, a new avatar I hardly recognised you, Virgil I miss the blue, but this white/black contrast is certainly appealing. At first I thought it was abstract, with a big fork featuring in it Now I think it is Moby Dick

Yes I agree. It was a thought to consider but I didn't put too much stock in it myself. I think you got it right.

I say two sides because Lawrence is known for his dualism.

Ah yes. So North/South like two sides of the same medallion.

No, just the fact that it's historical fiction set in England.

Funny thing: I bought myself the book "Sons and Lovers" two days agoo and in Chapter 7 Lawrence himself refers to Mr. Walter Scott

The girl was romantic in her soul. Everywhere was a Walter Scott heroine being loved by men with helmets or with plumes in their caps. She herself was something of a princess turned into a swine-girl in her own imagination. And she was afraid lest this boy, who, nevertheless, looked something like a Walter Scott hero, who could paint and speak French, and knew what algebra meant, and who went by train to Nottingham every day, might consider her simply as the swine-girl, unable to perceive the princess beneath; so she held aloof.

The girl in this paragraph is Marianne from the Willey Farm, and the boy is Paul, a miner's son. I cannot really point out Egbert or Winifred as a hero/heroinne. As for the plot, I do see it: two people fall in love and marry (a bit too easy for Mr. Scott ) and then there is the misery of a wounded child and it all ends with the hero dying. That is a bit like a historical tale, isn't it?

Perhaps the story was getting too long. But it does seem like a hole in the story.

Especially as his mother does come into play a tiny bit. If she would have just been left out we could just assume his parents weren't in the picture anymore - but now they're just not in the part of the story the narrator tells and I do start to wonder...

I'm so sorry if I did. I did not realize there is a distinction. I find it easier to trype out Holland.

Thank you, but it really ... it really is just a pet peeve: many people just say "Holland" when they mean "the Netherlands". I know they do not mean that only the west of our country is important. It is just something which makes me want to explain the matter
I do realise though that lately I start saying "England" rather than "Great Brittain". Especially since it was England that played the World Cup, not Great Brittain or the United Kingdom. In that case it really is England: they use the English flag and everything!

Don't know if there is a particular color to wild roses.

Me neither. In Sons and Lovers there's a wild rose bush with white roses - very usefull as it alludes to virginity in that scene I am not sure what pink refers to... baby girls? I read somewhere that pink is considered a color of good health and life - think of people being "in the pink" or the "freshness" of a newborn baby. I guess that would fit the Marshalls

That may be why he's so wasteful and not a worker.

Maybe

I think the reference is that he is less grounded in hard reality.

Probably, that would make him higher indeed - floating Funny though, in Sons and Lovers Miriam is called deeper because of her religious outtake. As far as I can detect, Egbert does not really have any religious feelings whatshowever... But he is a dreamer, just like Miriam.

Ah yes, lots of flames in the story.

And here is that passage with the snake. That little drama with the frog in the mouth is fascinating. Very suggestive of something, but of what?

PRIMITIVENESS!
Seriously: I have to ponder on that one, but on first thought it might be a lesson of what will be: Joyce who gets her leg hurt, while this is the only part of the frog that stays untouched by the snake. After all, it is not the snake that catches Joyce... It might be a bit farfetched...
I think it is interesting how the snake takes notice of Winifred: apparently, she has some influence on the native world around her. She does save the frog from the haughty snake - that is, it is not told whether the frog survives but otherwise it would be quite futile: denying the snake its dinner.

I have two more scenes from Sons and Lovers which reminded me of this story

In return, they taught him to milk, and let him do little jobs--chopping hay or pulping turnips--just as much as he liked. At midsummer he worked all through hay-harvest with them, and then he loved them. The family was so cut off from the world actually. They seemed, somehow, like "les derniers fils d'une race epuisee"*. Though the lads were strong and healthy, yet they had all that over-sensitiveness and hanging-back which made them so lonely, yet also such close, delicate friends once their intimacy was won. Paul loved them dearly, and they him.
* the last sons of a worn out race.

Again, a family which is cut off from the world - just as the Marshalls are at Cottingham Cottage.

There began a battle between the husband and wife--a fearful, bloody battle that ended only with the death of one. She fought to make him undertake his own responsibilities, to make him fulfill his obligations. But he was too different from her. His nature was purely sensuous, and she strove to make him moral, religious.

Again a marriage in which the one person wants the other to be something he can not be, does not want to be. I think Winifred is a bit too impressed by Egbert to really be like the "she" in this paragraph, but the battle over responsibilities is also aparent in this story.

Does it show that I'm reading the book?

[Janine]

Wonderful! I somehow just knew you were reading the book Sapphire. I think you can find the book read on Librivox as well. I often will listen to a book read after I read it myself. I find I actually notice new things about the story or descriptions. Strange, isn't it? I knew the temptation would be too great for you to resist. Reading S &L's is going to support your ideas of the short stories. Everything Lawrence wrote points to his own personal life and experience. He is a very intimate and personal author. That is what I like about Lawrence. If there is pain, I feel that pain. He makes one feel it. It's as though he paints a vivid picture that goes beyond the canvas into dark regions of the mind.

I am very much enjoying both of your interpretation of this story. I know I haven't taken much of an active role this time but just maybe that is ok, seeing I have done so many of the stories and perhaps I need a change in position - sitting her being the observer and learning a great deal. I appreciate both of your avid interest and enthusiasm for the story. When I pick one I never know if someone else will see what I had seen in it that attracted me enough to pick that particular story. I am happy to know you both liked it and are coming up with such great analysis and fresh ideas.

Hey, keep up the good work Miss. Netherlands and Mr. Virgil!

[Virgil]

Hey, a new avatar I hardly recognised you, Virgil I miss the blue, but this white/black contrast is certainly appealing. At first I thought it was abstract, with a big fork featuring in it Now I think it is Moby Dick

I guess you missed the literary villains weekend. We were to choose a literary villain for an avatar and i chose Moby.

Funny thing: I bought myself the book "Sons and Lovers" two days agoo and in Chapter 7 Lawrence himself refers to Mr. Walter Scott

That is interesting. It's beens so long (15 years or more) since I read S&L that it's become vague in my mind. But that is important to note.

The girl in this paragraph is Marianne from the Willey Farm, and the boy is Paul, a miner's son. I cannot really point out Egbert or Winifred as a hero/heroinne. As for the plot, I do see it: two people fall in love and marry (a bit too easy for Mr. Scott ) and then there is the misery of a wounded child and it all ends with the hero dying. That is a bit like a historical tale, isn't it?

I don't think there's any question that Lawrence envisions this short story to be historical. One cannot get away from the WWI events, and of course there are all those English historical allusions.

Especially as his mother does come into play a tiny bit. If she would have just been left out we could just assume his parents weren't in the picture anymore - but now they're just not in the part of the story the narrator tells and I do start to wonder...

I agree. Unfortunately short stories are usually published with length restrictions.

Thank you, but it really ... it really is just a pet peeve: many people just say "Holland" when they mean "the Netherlands". I know they do not mean that only the west of our country is important. It is just something which makes me want to explain the matter

Could you be so kind and explain the matter to me? I am not aware of the distinction.

I do realise though that lately I start saying "England" rather than "Great Brittain". Especially since it was England that played the World Cup, not Great Brittain or the United Kingdom. In that case it really is England: they use the English flag and everything!

But I think it's significant in this story. It is definitely not British history but English.

PRIMITIVENESS!
Seriously: I have to ponder on that one, but on first thought it might be a lesson of what will be: Joyce who gets her leg hurt, while this is the only part of the frog that stays untouched by the snake. After all, it is not the snake that catches Joyce... It might be a bit farfetched...

Interesting. I does foreshadow Joyce's injury, and the scyth is a sort of snake like object. But it foreshadows in reverse. The thought that came to me yesterday was that at this stage of the story, we are in an idyllic paradise, where even animals don't kill each other, at least not successfully.

I think it is interesting how the snake takes notice of Winifred: apparently, she has some influence on the native world around her. She does save the frog from the haughty snake - that is, it is not told whether the frog survives but otherwise it would be quite futile: denying the snake its dinner.

Yes, and it suggests Eve and the snake, does it not? Only the snake has not deceived (ensnared?) Eve yet.

I have two more scenes from Sons and Lovers which reminded me of this story

Again, a family which is cut off from the world - just as the Marshalls are at Cottingham Cottage.

Again a marriage in which the one person wants the other to be something he can not be, does not want to be. I think Winifred is a bit too impressed by Egbert to really be like the "she" in this paragraph, but the battle over responsibilities is also aparent in this story.

There are definitely parallels.

Does it show that I'm reading the book?

Yes, you've become quite a Lawrence afficionado.

[Sapphire]

I knew the temptation would be too great for you to resist.

Well, it is still a holiday over here And it is a good way to pass the time

perhaps I need a change in position - sitting her being the observer and learning a great deal.

That is good to hear Do put your opinion in when you find the time though: especially when Virgil and I start to agree too much Commentary does need criticism

I am happy to know you both liked it and are coming up with such great analysis and fresh ideas.

I will try.

Hey, keep up the good work Miss. Netherlands and Mr. Virgil!

I see you changed the Mr into Miss

I guess you missed the literary villains weekend.

Yes, sounds like a good idea though I have no clue who I would pick... The other day I saw the movie "A league of extraordinary gentleman" - it was fun to try and identify the characters (I fell in half way). It is not a great movie in itself, but to figure out which characters from novels are portrayed is quite the puzzle Ishmael is in it, but I did not identify him One of the villains is Dorian Gray, and I think I would choose him as an avatar-villain

It's beens so long (15 years or more) since I read S&L that it's become vague in my mind. But that is important to note.

Maybe it was there, somewhere in your unconscious, when you made the comment .

I don't think there's any question that Lawrence envisions this short story to be historical. One cannot get away from the WWI events, and of course there are all those English historical allusions.

Yes, I definitely think you have a point there. WWI would be a current event for him the first time round, but in 1922 it was (close) history.

Could you be so kind and explain the matter to me? I am not aware of the distinction.

I posted some details on your profile page, but basically the west of the Netherlands ("the low lands") is called Holland, as the south of Great Britain is England.

It is definitely not British history but English.

Yes, otherwise the Irish struggle would have been in there. Didn't they start to revolt around WWI?!

It does foreshadow Joyce's injury, and the scyth is a sort of snake like object.

That is one way to look at it . But in my eyes the point of Joyce's injury is that it was not the primitiveness of the place which did it. She was warned of the snakes a thousand times, but they proof not to be the problem. The scyth was a means to straighten out the primitiveness, and that's what hurt her. Definitely not the snake.

But it foreshadows in reverse.

I am not sure what you mean by that...

The thought that came to me yesterday was that at this stage of the story, we are in an idyllic paradise, where even animals don't kill each other, at least not successfully.

Ok, so you think the part is there to show it is NOT a dangerous place? I can see how you get there, but it does not fit for me. If the frog had not screamed his little lungs out, Winifred would not have come running and the snake would have taken his dinner - what is he to eat if not other animals? It would starve itself to death... Lucky as Winifred's act might be for the frog, the snake had to skip dinner because of it. It was not the snake's will not to kill the other animal. He was made by man not to do it.

Yes, and it suggests Eve and the snake, does it not? Only the snake has not deceived (ensnared?) Eve yet.

I like this idea better I know it still points towards Eden, but it shows more the active role of the woman

There are definitely parallels.

I've read it all now, and there definitely are! But then again, this book was written in 1913, so pretty close to 1915. In 1915 he wrote the Rainbow, and in my (study edition) version of Sons and Lovers it is said that "it shows Lawrence moving on to a more visionary, mystic way of writing". So now I am very curious about that book

Yes, you've become quite a Lawrence afficionado.

Definitely!

It's as though he paints a vivid picture that goes beyond the canvas into dark regions of the mind.

Yes, but I especially like how his characters often do not know why they do what they do either. They just try to figure out life and love

As I've been reading the book Sons and Lovers I have not yet written my commentary on the last 2 paragraphs of the text Janine posted. I think I will not have the time to get into that until tomorrow.

[Virgil]

Yes, otherwise the Irish struggle would have been in there. Didn't they start to revolt around WWI?!

Oh I think it was even before that but it must have been particularly eventful around the war time.

That is one way to look at it . But in my eyes the point of Joyce's injury is that it was not the primitiveness of the place which did it. She was warned of the snakes a thousand times, but they proof not to be the problem. The scyth was a means to straighten out the primitiveness, and that's what hurt her. Definitely not the snake.

That's a good way to read it. You're right. But a scythe is a fairly primitive tool. But I guess it isn't natural but less modern than the war weopons.

I am not sure what you mean by that...

I meant that the frog gets away while Joyce gets severely hurt and Egbert dies. So instead of a foreshadow it's the opposite of death.

Ok, so you think the part is there to show it is NOT a dangerous place? I can see how you get there, but it does not fit for me. If the frog had not screamed his little lungs out, Winifred would not have come running and the snake would have taken his dinner - what is he to eat if not other animals? It would starve itself to death... Lucky as Winifred's act might be for the frog, the snake had to skip dinner because of it. It was not the snake's will not to kill the other animal. He was made by man not to do it.

True, but I think Lawrence is presenting an idyllic place.

I like this idea better I know it still points towards Eden, but it shows more the active role of the woman

I've read it all now, and there definitely are! But then again, this book was written in 1913, so pretty close to 1915. In 1915 he wrote the Rainbow, and in my (study edition) version of Sons and Lovers it is said that "it shows Lawrence moving on to a more visionary, mystic way of writing". So now I am very curious about that book

When you get the chance you must read The Rainbow. It's my favorite of all his novels. I think it's his greatest.

Definitely!

Great.

Yes, but I especially like how his characters often do not know why they do what they do either. They just try to figure out life and love

I agree. No one portrays unconscious actions better than Lawrence.

[Sapphire]

Oh I think it was even before that but it must have been particularly eventful around the war time.

Yes, that is a better way to put it.

But a scythe is a fairly primitive tool. But I guess it isn't natural but less modern than the war weopons.

Yes, I remember an Asterix & Obelix comic book about golden scythes You're right to point that out: not natural rather than not primitive/old.

I meant that the frog gets away while Joyce gets severely hurt and Egbert dies. So instead of a foreshadow it's the opposite of death.

Ah, yes - Winifred can save the frog, but not Joyce or Egbert.

True, but I think Lawrence is presenting an idyllic place.

Very idyllic

When you get the chance you must read The Rainbow. It's my favorite of all his novels. I think it's his greatest.

I'll keep my eyes open for it .

----------------------------------------------

Last part of the text Janine posted.

Wonderful then, those days at Crockham Cottage, the first days, all alone save for the woman who came to work in the mornings.

Nice detail: all alone, but they do have a house cleaner. I bet Mr Marshall paid her wages!

Marvellous days, when she had all his tall, supple, fine-fleshed youth to herself, for herself, and he had her like a ruddy fire into which he could cast himself for rejuvenation. Ah, that it might never end, this passion, this marriage!

"Wonderful" and "marvellous". But it did end, even before one of them died.

The flame of their two bodies burnt again into that old cottage, that was haunted already by so much by-gone, physical desire. You could not be in the dark room for an hour without the influences coming over you. The hot blood-desire of by-gone yeomen, there in this old den where they had lusted and bred for so many generations.

There's the flame again It is a dark house, with dark rooms: it needs a flame to bring some light . Funny how I always tought a haunted house was a bad thing. The two of them seem pretty happy with the physical desire the place is calling for Notice the mentioning of "generations": it has been going on for ages, without any change.

The silent house, dark, with thick, timbered walls and the big black chimney-place, and the sense of secrecy. Dark, with low, little windows, sunk into the earth. Dark, like a lair where strong beasts had lurked and mated, lonely at night and lonely by day, left to themselves and their own intensity for so many generations.

In case we had not noticed it yet: the place is dark and secretive...
I wonder why the strong beasts, which mated in there, are said to be so lonely. Left to themselves. Don't they need to be with at least 2 to be mating? But I guess even beast can be lonely in company... Not sure why it has to be mentioned though. A foreshadowing of what Winifred and Egbert become? They might be happy together now, mating happily - but this will change, as it was for those beasts long ago...

It seemed to cast a spell on the two young people. They became different. There was a curious secret glow about them, a certain slumbering flame hard to understand, that enveloped them both. They too felt that they did not belong to the London world any more.

"They became different". As far as I can make out, the difference is that they are out of this (city, modern) world - they already were passionate, weren't they?

Crockham had changed their blood: the sense of the snakes that lived and slept even in their own garden, in the sun, so that he, going forward with the spade, would see a curious coiled brownish pile on the black soil, which suddenly would start up, hiss, and dazzle rapidly away, hissing.

This is quite a long sentence I thought "the sense of the snakes" was a phrase which would be repeated in this story, but "ctrl+f" made clear that this is the only place in the story where it is used. It sounds familiar though...
Egbert, while working in the garden, disturbes these snakes. Just like Winifred denies one of them dinner . Those snakes must have been pretty annoyed with the pair

ah, the strangest scream, like the very soul of the dark past crying aloud. /.../ and screaming its strange, tiny, bellowing scream.

I can not really imagine what that sounds like: a screaming frog. It must be frightful.

That was Crockham. The spear of modern invention had not passed through it, and it lay there secret, primitive, savage as when the Saxons first came. And Egbert and she were caught there, caught out of the world.

Again, the primitiveness of the place is mentioned. Lawrence really stresses this point to annoyance
And being this primitive, it is not really in the “now” – in the world itself. And people who live there loose touch with the world “outside”. So Egbert and Winifred are “caught” there. Is it me, or is there a slightly negative connection to that word? I read it a bit like “trapped"... Which is odd, for I do get the idea that the narrator likes the “being out of the world”-feeling.

BTW is there anybody who has an idea what "Crockham" might mean? As far as I know, it is only the cottage of Winifred and Egbert which is called that way, so I do not think it is the name of the hamlet.

[Janine]

Well, it is still a holiday over here And it is a good way to pass the time

Maybe you will finish it before your holiday ends. It's a great read and a great book. It provides a lot of insight into Lawrence's early developmental years and his strange and close, thought suffocating relationship to his mother.

That is good to hear Do put your opinion in when you find the time though: especially when Virgil and I start to agree too much Commentary does need criticism

I will try to and when Virgil goes to Europe again I will have to try and make a better effort to be more interactive. For now I am enjoying reading what you two write each day. I got quite busy asside from internet stuff but I will definitely not let the thread trail off to nothing. I am always determined to finish each story. Whenever you two want me to post more of the story - just give a yell and let me know. I have it marked off from where I left off and a copy on my desktop.

I will try.

I don't think you have to; commentary seems to come naturally to you Sapphire. You are very perceptive and smart about the stories. Keep up the good work.

I see you changed the Mr into Miss

You are quick - didn't think I got caught. Yes, definitely a typo on my part - sorry about that.

Yes, sounds like a good idea though I have no clue who I would pick... The other day I saw the movie "A league of extraordinary gentleman" - it was fun to try and identify the characters (I fell in half way). It is not a great movie in itself, but to figure out which characters from novels are portrayed is quite the puzzle Ishmael is in it, but I did not identify him One of the villains is Dorian Gray, and I think I would choose him as an avatar-villain

Wow, Dorian would be a great one. I love that story. I didn't even notice the avy change thread or I would have come up with someone - probably Iago from Othello.

Maybe it was there, somewhere in your unconscious, when you made the comment .

haha....Virgil doesn't believe in the subconscious; not sure about the unconscious. I seem to be in a state of that lately - fatique getting the best of me most nights.

Yes, I definitely think you have a point there. WWI would be a current event for him the first time round, but in 1922 it was (close) history.

Good observation. Was this story actually published after 1922 and did the war end earlier?

I posted some details on your profile page, but basically the west of the Netherlands ("the low lands") is called Holland, as the south of Great Britain is England.

Gee, I never knew this. Thanks for the geography lesson. I am sorry if I mistook you for living in Holland. I didn't realise a difference in terms.

Yes, otherwise the Irish struggle would have been in there. Didn't they start to revolt around WWI?!

I am not sure but I am always so fascinated with the Irish revolts. I think it was during or after the war it began. I just know that from some films I have seen...one being "Ryan's Daughter" by David Lean...a really fine film.

That is one way to look at it . But in my eyes the point of Joyce's injury is that it was not the primitiveness of the place which did it. She was warned of the snakes a thousand times, but they proof not to be the problem. The scyth was a means to straighten out the primitiveness, and that's what hurt her. Definitely not the snake.

Seems these elements are always so present in L works - snakes, primativeness, war beneath the surface, discord in families. The scyth is an interesting device and you are right in saying it was the tool to tame the wilderness. I see it as the only control that Egbert had when working on his path and garden. The scyth might represent this and then it is spoiled once the child is injuried.

Ok, so you think the part is there to show it is NOT a dangerous place? I can see how you get there, but it does not fit for me. If the frog had not screamed his little lungs out, Winifred would not have come running and the snake would have taken his dinner - what is he to eat if not other animals? It would starve itself to death... Lucky as Winifred's act might be for the frog, the snake had to skip dinner because of it. It was not the snake's will not to kill the other animal. He was made by man not to do it.

Interesting take on that. I think I agree.

I like this idea better I know it still points towards Eden, but it shows more the active role of the woman

Good point.

I've read it all now, and there definitely are! But then again, this book was written in 1913, so pretty close to 1915. In 1915 he wrote the Rainbow, and in my (study edition) version of Sons and Lovers it is said that "it shows Lawrence moving on to a more visionary, mystic way of writing". So now I am very curious about that book

Good book and then you will want to read "Women in Love"; Virgil's favorite is the first and mine the second. WIL was the first L book I ever read and I was hooked after that.

Yes, but I especially like how his characters often do not know why they do what they do either. They just try to figure out life and love

This is what I like about Lawrence too and I think it's because it mimics real life. Most of the time humans do not consciously know why they act as they do. Lawrence captures this perfectly. People are always seeking, or so is Lawrence.

As I've been reading the book Sons and Lovers I have not yet written my commentary on the last 2 paragraphs of the text Janine posted. I think I will not have the time to get into that until tomorrow.

[/QUOTE]

Take your time. I will keep reading along.

[Sapphire]

You've found the time to post

Maybe you will finish it before your holiday ends.

I have

It provides a lot of insight into Lawrence's early developmental years and his strange and close, thought suffocating relationship to his mother.

I know that is a main theme, but somehow it did not stand out that much to me Maybe because I knew it would be there Oedipus definitely came to mind a couple of times

Whenever you two want me to post more of the story - just give a yell and let me know.

Well, I am ready - post #3219 was on the last part of the text you posted Not sure whether Virgil is though - he must be busy planning his trip

commentary seems to come naturally to you Sapphire. You are very perceptive and smart about the stories. Keep up the good work.

Thank you.

You are quick - didn't think I got caught. Yes, definitely a typo on my part - sorry about that.

No worries, made me smile

Wow, Dorian would be a great one. I love that story. I didn't even notice the avy change thread or I would have come up with someone - probably Iago from Othello.

I really like that story too I always thought I never liked Oscar Wilde's work, but last year that somehow changed I have no clue what happened Just yesterday I bought "the greatest works of Louis Couperus", a Dutch writer who apparently inspired Oscar Wilde with one of his stories/novelles. There are said to be some similarities in style between his work "Footsteps of Fate" and "the Picture of Dorian Gray". I need to get into that when I find the time.
Iago is a great choice indeed!

I seem to be in a state of that lately - fatique getting the best of me most nights.

Aw... take good care of yourself and try to get your energy back! Don't force it too far because you think you have to post something here.

Was this story actually published after 1922 and did the war end earlier?

It was published first in 1915 (during the war), but the edition we're reading is from 1922 and he rewrote the whole thing until it became twice as long. It is from the beginning of 1922 and as WWI ended 11/11/1918 I would say the war was over for 3 years when this story was published.

I am sorry if I mistook you for living in Holland. I didn't realise a difference in terms.

I thought about it again and I think "Holland" is also an accepted term in the English language. Like saying "America" when you mean the USA. Basically it is not the right term, but everybody knows what you mean and only the nitpicks (like me ) notice So really, no need for appologies!

I am not sure but I am always so fascinated with the Irish revolts. I think it was during or after the war it began. I just know that from some films I have seen...one being "Ryan's Daughter" by David Lean...a really fine film.

I think it is as Virgil says: Ireland has an history of "struggling for independence" and how far they've come really depends on where you stand in history. In 1916 there was the "Easter Rising (1916)" which was pretty major, but as this story plays from 1903 to 1915 it can not be featured. I think I see what you mean with "fascination": I've had the same thing ever since I heard "Sunday, Bloody Sunday" by U2. Just the thought that there is a region of this much tension so nearby... Europe is not that peaceful: both world wars started here. I think me realising that started with that song...

Ryan's Daughter" by David Lean...a really fine film.

The other day I watched an interview with Paul Verhoeven (Basic Instinct etc.) and he talked about his admiration for David Lean. There's always a connection, isn't there? I checked the movie out on wiki (a classic, I know ), and it says there that it was loosely based on Madame Bovary by Flaubert. I think this was very loosely, for the summary I read does not resamble that book at all. I do think I need to see it for myself before I judge: it is a classic. And it says there's a reference to Lawrence of Arabia in it, which I think to be one of the greatest movies ever . Which brings us to T.E. Lawrence and back to D.H. Lawrence .

The scyth is an interesting device and you are right in saying it was the tool to tame the wilderness. I see it as the only control that Egbert had when working on his path and garden.

Well, there's his spade which he uses when the snake hisses away:

the sense of the snakes that lived and slept even in their own garden, in the sun, so that he, going forward with the spade, would see a curious coiled brownish pile on the black soil, which suddenly would start up, hiss, and dazzle rapidly away, hissing.

A spade could also have made a good "injury" weapon. I myself tried to do some gardening when I was about 10: I used a "grown up" spade while I was barefoot... Almost cut my heal of :banghead

Good book and then you will want to read "Women in Love"

I've added it to my list

This is what I like about Lawrence too and I think it's because it mimics real life. Most of the time humans do not consciously know why they act as they do. Lawrence captures this perfectly. People are always seeking, or so is Lawrence.

Nicely said.

This story does make us talk about all sort of stuff

Note: my last "direct" commentary is in post #3219, under the dotted/striped line.

[Janine]

You've found the time to post

Sort of; didn't write my usual long epic posts though. I was late when I posted and only one eye was still open. I just looked at when you posted this and it 8:30 this morning - Yikes, I don't even have one eyelash open at that time.

I have

Fantastic! Good for you. You must be one of those fast readers! I read it twice. I wasn't as impressed first time around but then on second reading I saw the genius in it. First time I tried it I didn't realise it was Lawrence's story with the names changed. That made all the difference to me in the world. I must love prying into other's lives since I loved all the biographies I read on L as well and loved the travel book because the experience of mentally traveling elbow's length from our Lawrence was amazing and so intimate. By the end of the three books on his travels I felt I actually knew the man personally.

I know that is a main theme, but somehow it did not stand out that much to me Maybe because I knew it would be there Oedipus definitely came to mind a couple of times

People always say so and point out the Oedipus thing but I think it went beyond that. Many parents latch onto children for comfort in a bad marriage. I don't think that is necessarily a matter of Oedipus complex; people get carried away with that term as they do in "Hamlet"...I personally have never seen Hamlet's jealousy and suspicion of his mother that way. At any rate a lot more is going on in S&L, don't you think? It's a coming of age story and it chronicles the Lawrence family dynamics well. I loved the book. I hope to listen to the narration soon. I have a film adaptation done not long ago which is quite good but basically is altered some from the novel - they always are. I still think it's a fine film - a miniseries - so they were able to expand on the finer points of the novel. The young man playing Lawrence is quite good. I have watched it many times now and enjoy it each time. So sad when the brother died.

Well, I am ready - post #3219 was on the last part of the text you posted Not sure whether Virgil is though - he must be busy planning his trip

Ok, I will do so soon; either tonight or tomorrow - ok? Yes, Virgil must be soooo busy and excited about the trip as well to reunite with his little boy.

Thank you.

No need to blush because it is true. Hey, Sapphire I think you have blossomed and matured in the past few years; I can imagine you are quite good at your studies.

No worries, made me smile

It did me as well.

I really like that story too I always thought I never liked Oscar Wilde's work, but last year that somehow changed I have no clue what happened Just yesterday I bought "the greatest works of Louis Couperus", a Dutch writer who apparently inspired Oscar Wilde with one of his stories/novelles. There are said to be some similarities in style between his work "Footsteps of Fate" and "the Picture of Dorian Gray". I need to get into that when I find the time.

I was lucky that my father introduced us to Oscar Wilde's children's fairytales at a young age. I loved them all and thought they went beyond the ordinary. I loved the one about the giant building a wall around his estate and not letting the children in to play. I also loved the one about the Prince and the little bird. They have such deep meanings; I suppose are more intended for adults. Interesting about that other author's novels. I will keep them in-mind.

Iago is a great choice indeed!

He is puzzling and evil, isn't he? I like at the end when he says he will speak no more...something like that.

Aw... take good care of yourself and try to get your energy back! Don't force it too far because you think you have to post something here.

I won't; I can't. I am having some health issues and they haven't improved with medications. I hope soon they find out specifically which antibiotic will work. Thanks for being understanding.

It was published first in 1915 (during the war), but the edition we're reading is from 1922 and he rewrote the whole thing until it became twice as long. It is from the beginning of 1922 and as WWI ended 11/11/1918 I would say the war was over for 3 years when this story was published.

That makes sense; Lawrence often rewrote his works. I think he was a tortured perfectionist; because most cases, he did this rewriting. Who would think he would produce so much material and have time for all the re-writes? I read a lot of Lawrence but keep discovering more. How did he have time to sleep?

I thought about it again and I think "Holland" is also an accepted term in the English language. Like saying "America" when you mean the USA. Basically it is not the right term, but everybody knows what you mean and only the nitpicks (like me ) notice So really, no need for appologies!

I thought that as well. Good I wasn't totally wrong. I get what you mean. America one thinks of the US; but really the America's encompasses the whole two continents.

I think it is as Virgil says: Ireland has an history of "struggling for independence" and how far they've come really depends on where you stand in history. In 1916 there was the "Easter Rising (1916)" which was pretty major, but as this story plays from 1903 to 1915 it can not be featured. I think I see what you mean with "fascination": I've had the same thing ever since I heard "Sunday, Bloody Sunday" by U2. Just the thought that there is a region of this much tension so nearby... Europe is not that peaceful: both world wars started here. I think me realising that started with that song...

My son is Irish; his great-grandmother (now deceased) lived during those periods. It was sort of family joke, since when I meet her grandson he said she hated the English; and my background was English, Protestant, and Scottish - three strikes against me. However, his grandmother took to me and loved me dearly which was mutual. My ex took my son to Ireland for a visit. I have an Irish last name since it was never changed back. So I feel this affinity to my son's cultural background. I have been watching a lot of plays and movies based on those uprisings and revolutions...they are very interesting. The author Sean O'Casey wrote some good plays and one is "Shadow of a Gunman" which is on YT; it stars a younger Kenneth Branagh and I love the play. Another film I recently bought is "The Wind that Shakes the Barley" about the uprising in the country. It stars Cillian Murphy, a young Irish actor with emense talent. I like the film very much; you get a sense of how it was back then - brothers pitted against each other and all this upheaval in political beliefs.

You are probably right about the tension beginning there at home; not sure but it must have had an influence.

The other day I watched an interview with Paul Verhoeven (Basic Instinct etc.) and he talked about his admiration for David Lean. There's always a connection, isn't there? I checked the movie out on wiki (a classic, I know ), and it says there that it was loosely based on Madame Bovary by Flaubert. I think this was very loosely, for the summary I read does not resamble that book at all. I do think I need to see it for myself before I judge: it is a classic. And it says there's a reference to Lawrence of Arabia in it, which I think to be one of the greatest movies ever . Which brings us to T.E. Lawrence and back to D.H. Lawrence .

Well, there's his spade which he uses when the snake hisses away:

True

A spade could also have made a good "injury" weapon. I myself tried to do some gardening when I was about 10: I used a "grown up" spade while I was barefoot... Almost cut my heal of :banghead

Yikes, glad you didn't! You better stay clear of gardening.

I've added it to my list

Chronologically, " he did write a few early novels - "White Peacock" and "The Trespasser". I read them both and liked them.

Nicely said.

Oh, thank you.

This story does make us talk about all sort of stuff

Best thing about these discussions I believe. Opens many new worlds of thought to us.

Note: my last "direct" commentary is in post #3219, under the dotted/striped line.

Ok, thanks.

[Virgil]

Ah, yes - Winifred can save the frog, but not Joyce or Egbert.

Now that I think of it, Winifred, through her father does save Joyce.

Nice detail: all alone, but they do have a house cleaner. I bet Mr Marshall paid her wages!

Originally Posted by Story
Marvellous days, when she had all his tall, supple, fine-fleshed youth to herself, for herself, and he had her like a ruddy fire into which he could cast himself for rejuvenation. Ah, that it might never end, this passion, this marriage!

"Wonderful" and "marvellous". But it did end, even before one of them died.

That is very sensual writing, with double entendre.

Originally Posted by Story
The flame of their two bodies burnt again into that old cottage, that was haunted already by so much by-gone, physical desire. You could not be in the dark room for an hour without the influences coming over you. The hot blood-desire of by-gone yeomen, there in this old den where they had lusted and bred for so many generations.

There's the flame again It is a dark house, with dark rooms: it needs a flame to bring some light . Funny how I always tought a haunted house was a bad thing. The two of them seem pretty happy with the physical desire the place is calling for Notice the mentioning of "generations": it has been going on for ages, without any change.

I wonder if Lawrence connects the flame with the bombs that kill Egbert? It wouldn't fit logically as far as I can tell, but the thought occurred to me. Generations recalls The Rainbow, which is a novel about generations.

In case we had not noticed it yet: the place is dark and secretive...
I wonder why the strong beasts, which mated in there, are said to be so lonely. Left to themselves. Don't they need to be with at least 2 to be mating? But I guess even beast can be lonely in company... Not sure why it has to be mentioned though. A foreshadowing of what Winifred and Egbert become? They might be happy together now, mating happily - but this will change, as it was for those beasts long ago...

Interesting you should point out the loneliness of the beasts. Lawrence's ideal creature is a flower, which is a solitary being and has the absense of will. Creatures that have mates have a battle of wills between them. I think the solitude suggests a happy state, closer to nature. And yes it does foreshadow as well.

"They became different". As far as I can make out, the difference is that they are out of this (city, modern) world - they already were passionate, weren't they?

I just realized. That flame is a suggestion of a certain spirituality, and that spirituality is rooted in nature, the Eden, and yes out of the modern world.

This is quite a long sentence I thought "the sense of the snakes" was a phrase which would be repeated in this story, but "ctrl+f" made clear that this is the only place in the story where it is used. It sounds familiar though...
Egbert, while working in the garden, disturbes these snakes. Just like Winifred denies one of them dinner . Those snakes must have been pretty annoyed with the pair

It's a beautiful sentence, especially this: "suddenly would start up, hiss, and dazzle rapidly away, hissing." The snakes seem to threaten the hapiness, no? That frog in the mouth suggests their danger.

And being this primitive, it is not really in the “now” – in the world itself. And people who live there loose touch with the world “outside”. So Egbert and Winifred are “caught” there. Is it me, or is there a slightly negative connection to that word? I read it a bit like “trapped"... Which is odd, for I do get the idea that the narrator likes the “being out of the world”-feeling.

"The spear of modern invention..." Ha, a war metaphor tied into the modern world, and the spear is connected to the snakes. The snakes (modern world, war) do threaten their Eden.

BTW is there anybody who has an idea what "Crockham" might mean? As far as I know, it is only the cottage of Winifred and Egbert which is called that way, so I do not think it is the name of the hamlet.

I can't think of any connection with the name.

I will try to and when Virgil goes to Europe again I will have to try and make a better effort to be more interactive.

I'm going to Kazakhstan, which is in Asia not Europe.

haha....Virgil doesn't believe in the subconscious; not sure about the unconscious.

The sub-conscious is mostly B.S.

Seems these elements are always so present in L works - snakes, primativeness, war beneath the surface, discord in families. The scyth is an interesting device and you are right in saying it was the tool to tame the wilderness. I see it as the only control that Egbert had when working on his path and garden. The scyth might represent this and then it is spoiled once the child is injuried.

Yes, this is very classic Lawrence.

This is what I like about Lawrence too and I think it's because it mimics real life. Most of the time humans do not consciously know why they act as they do. Lawrence captures this perfectly. People are always seeking, or so is Lawrence.

I agree. But where I disagree with lawrence is that there is no sub-conscious phenomena behind it.

[Sapphire]

Didn't write my usual long epic posts though.

Trust me, they're long enough And always a treat to read

Yikes, I don't even have one eyelash open at that time.

I do like the morning But also the (late) night

Many parents latch onto children for comfort in a bad marriage. I don't think that is necessarily a matter of Oedipus complex; people get carried away with that term as they do in "Hamlet"

Hamlet an Oedipus complex? First time I heard of it... No, I would not state that And yes, there is a lot more going on - that is probably why it did not stand out to me so much. I did not mean to state Paul has a problem as huge as Oedipus had But he is a mother's boy.
Is the miniseries from BBC? They are quite productive in that department If it is, I should keep an eye on the TV-guide - they might air it sometime soon.

Hey, Sapphire I think you have blossomed and matured in the past few years

And that makes me blush again

I was lucky that my father introduced us to Oscar Wilde's children's fairytales at a young age. I loved them all and thought they went beyond the ordinary. I loved the one about the giant building a wall around his estate and not letting the children in to play. I also loved the one about the Prince and the little bird. They have such deep meanings; I suppose are more intended for adults.

That sounds wonderful! I'll have to check those out. My mother never let us read fairytales: she thought them too gruesome.

He is puzzling and evil, isn't he? I like at the end when he says he will speak no more...something like that.

Yes, he is I always wondered why Othello calls him a "demi-devil". I mean, he's not HALF mean is he? He's quite whole in his meaniness

Demand me nothing: what you know, you know: From this time forth I never will speak word

And then everybody dies, like so often in Shakespeare

I hope soon they find out specifically which antibiotic will work.

Me too.

I think he was a tortured perfectionist; because most cases, he did this rewriting.

Yes, he wrote so much - and then re-wrote almost everything! It must have been both a blessing and a curse...

So I feel this affinity to my son's cultural background. I have been watching a lot of plays and movies based on those uprisings and revolutions...they are very interesting. The author Sean O'Casey wrote some good plays and one is "Shadow of a Gunman" which is on YT; it stars a younger Kenneth Branagh and I love the play. Another film I recently bought is "The Wind that Shakes the Barley" about the uprising in the country.

I can imagine: it comes closer that way, doesn't it? For me geographically, for you familiary ( I don't think that is right regarding the grammar, but I hope you get the point). I think I've heard about both the titles you mention. Especially the movie sounds very familiar.

You better stay clear of gardening.

I'm a born amateur at it Or rather a born destroyer Cutting bushes way too small and tearing out plants which turned out to be beautiful flowers instead of weed...

"White Peacock" and "The Trespasser". I read them both and liked them.

I've read the first, not yet the second. I can not really recall the story anymore though I mix it up with "the Wintry Peacock" all the time

Winifred, through her father does save Joyce.

From death, yes. But not from being a cripple.

That is very sensual writing, with double entendre.

You mean the implication of sex? Very sensual indeed, and in my opinion much stronger than when it would have been explicit.

I wonder if Lawrence connects the flame with the bombs that kill Egbert?

Maybe... but it is not really his passion which kills him, does it? It is rather the fact that he gives in to letting go of his passion and to just take orders. I think to Lawrence flames mean life. But in his dualism life might mean death so death can be connected to flames: phoenix-like.

Generations recalls The Rainbow, which is a novel about generations.

Well, he did write "the Rainbow" while he also wrote this story (1915) .

Interesting you should point out the loneliness of the beasts. /.../ I think the solitude suggests a happy state, closer to nature.

I also think that solitude is connected to happyness - or maybe rather seclusion, and being away from the modern world. But loneliness implies sorrow. You can be alone in a room full of people...

That flame is a suggestion of a certain spirituality, and that spirituality is rooted in nature, the Eden, and yes out of the modern world.

Nicely put. And yet it is fire which the humans took from the gods and which made them think they could act like gods... Creating their own garden...

I can't think of any connection with the name.

Me neither, but it is named so explicitely. We could read it as Crock+ham. Isn't "crock" slang for somebody who's not good on his/her legs, somebody who is broken? And "ham" just means "city/village", possibly from "hamlet". I'm just throwing this out: I have no proof for this idea! Just a dictionary with synonyms .

I'm going to Kazakhstan, which is in Asia not Europe.

I hope you'll have a good trip and wish you and your wife the best with this new stage in your lives!

Ok, this is odd: all my "quotes" are italic! Always! And the quotes in your posts are not?! Sometimes computers dazzle me

[Sapphire]

I just thought of something: We've been talking about Ireland and about Roses, but we did not make the connection. Roses remind of the Wars of the Roses and thus England, but in Irish mythology Ireland is called "Roisin Dubh" or "the dark rose". The roses in this story by Lawrence are not dark, so I do not think there is a connection there, but it did remind me of a poem by Yeats. He could have read it, for it was in a collection called "the Rose" from 1893. Did Lawrence read Yeats?

To the Rose upon the Rood of Timeby

Red Rose, proud Rose, sad Rose of all my days!
Come near me, while I sing the ancient ways:
Cuchulain battling with the bitter tide;
The Druid, grey, wood-nurtured, quiet-eyed,
Who cast round Fergus dreams, and ruin untold;
And thine own sadness, whereof stars, grown old
In dancing silver-sandalled on the sea,
Sing in their high and lonely melody.
Come near, that no more blinded by man's fate,
I find under the boughs of love and hate,
In all poor foolish things that live a day,
Eternal beauty wandering on her way.


Come near, come near, come near—Ah, leave me still
A little space for the rose-breath to fill!
Lest I no more hear common things that crave;
The weak worm hiding down in its small cave,
The field-mouse running by me in the grass,
And heavy mortal hopes that toil and pass;
But seek alone to hear the strange things said
By God to the bright hearts of those long dead,
And learn to chaunt a tongue men do not know.
Come near; I would, before my time to go,
Sing of old Eire and the ancient ways:
Red Rose, proud Rose, sad Rose of all my days.

It has some sense of history and primitiveness which I also find in this story by Lawrence .