D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[Janine]

Sapphire, that is a beautiful poem. I have no idea if Lawrence read Yeats but I will try looking that up in the index of my autobiography books. I will come back later this evening to comment more and to post some new text.

Back again - here is the link to the YT poetry reading of Lawrence's "Snake"...it's an interesting poem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vddYmmxdKZo

Here is the next part of the text:

He was not idle, nor was she. There were plenty of things to be done, the house to be put into final repair after the workmen had gone, cushions and curtains to sew, the paths to make, the water to fetch and attend to, and then the slope of the deep-soiled, neglected garden to level, to terrace with little terraces and paths, and to fill with flowers. He worked away, in his shirt-sleeves, worked all day intermittently doing this thing and the other. And she, quiet and rich in herself, seeing him stooping and labouring away by himself, would come to help him, to be near him. He of course was an amateur--a born amateur. He worked so hard, and did so little, and nothing he ever did would hold together for long. If he terraced the garden, he held up the earth with a couple of long narrow planks that soon began to bend with the pressure from behind, and would not need many years to rot through and break and let the soil slither all down again in a heap towards the stream-bed. But there you are. He had not been brought up to come to grips with anything, and he thought it would do. Nay, he did not think there was anything else except little temporary contrivances possible, he who had such a passion for his old enduring cottage, and for the old enduring things of the bygone England. Curious that the sense of permanency in the past had such a hold over him, whilst in the present he was all amateurish and sketchy.

Winifred could not criticize him. Town-bred, everything seemed to her splendid, and the very digging and shovelling itself seemed romantic. But neither Egbert nor she yet realized the difference between work and romance.

Godfrey Marshall, her father, was at first perfectly pleased with the ménage down at Crockham Cottage. He thought Egbert was wonderful, the many things he accomplished, and he was gratified by the glow of physical passion between the two young people. To the man who in London still worked hard to keep steady his modest fortune, the thought of this young couple digging away and loving one another down at Crockham Cottage, buried deep among the commons and marshes, near the pale-showing bulk of the downs, was like a chapter of living romance. And they drew the sustenance for their fire of passion from him, from the old man. It was he who fed their flame. He triumphed secretly in the thought. And it was to her father that Winifred still turned, as the one source of all surety and life and support. She loved Egbert with passion. But behind her was the power of her father. It was the power of her father she referred to, whenever she needed to refer. It never occurred to her to refer to Egbert, if she were in difficulty or doubt. No, in all the _serious_ matters she depended on her father.

For Egbert had no intention of coming to grips with life. He had no ambition whatsoever. He came from a decent family, from a pleasant country home, from delightful surroundings. He should, of course, have had a profession. He should have studied law or entered business in some way. But no--that fatal three pounds a week would keep him from starving as long as he lived, and he did not want to give himself into bondage. It was not that he was idle. He was always doing something, in his amateurish way. But he had no desire to give himself to the world, and still less had he any desire to fight his way in the world. No, no, the world wasn't worth it. He wanted to ignore it, to go his own way apart, like a casual pilgrim down the forsaken sidetracks. He loved his wife, his cottage and garden. He would make his life there, as a sort of epicurean hermit. He loved the past, the old music and dances and customs of old England. He would try and live in the spirit of these, not in the spirit of the world of business.

Go to it Sapphire! hahahaha

[Sapphire]

Snake is indeed an interesting poem it was also quoted while talking about the stories "the Sun" - Lawrence did use this imagery quite a bit In this post {link to 583, last paragraph} you say you are not sure when it was written: either in 1920 or 1923. You state it might be that he wrote it in 1920 in Taormina and then got it published in 1923. Do you think you can check on this: if he wrote it in 1920 he had already written it when he rewrote this story, in 1923 he would have written it after he rewrote this story. So what I mean to say is: I wonder whether the poem influenced the story or the other way around.
Maybe it is neither, probably he just has a thing for snakes He was afraid of them...

And truly I was afraid, I was most afraid, But even so, honoured still more
That he should seek my hospitality
From out the dark door of the secret earth.

Go to it Sapphire!

Well, lets start with the first paragraph you posted

He was not idle, nor was she.

This gets said 2 more times: “he was not idle”. And no, he was not. But he was not doing anything enduring either. But in the big scheme of things, what is enduring? Let’s go philosophical!
I guess the point is that he is not idle, but he might as well have been. He only works for himself: only to be busy. To feel the joy of doing something, creating something. While over time, he does not create anything. He amounts to nothing.
I am not sure what he should have done to avoid this though… Earning money would not exactly have been enduring either, would it? Does “being paid” for a job make that job worthy?

There were plenty of things to be done, the house to be put into final repair after the workmen had gone, cushions and curtains to sew, the paths to make, the water to fetch and attend to, and then the slope of the deep-soiled, neglected garden to level, to terrace with little terraces and paths, and to fill with flowers.

Plenty indeed! At this point in the story I felt like I should step in and lend a hand. Not that I am very handy
We do know, from the beginning of the story, that Egbert succeeds in filling the place with flowers He has to keep attending to the garden, but in my experience even the best gardener has to keep on working to get his/her garden trough the seasons.

He worked away, in his shirt-sleeves, worked all day intermittently doing this thing and the other.

Maybe his work was a bit superficial? Jumping from one job to the next before the first was done?
And I noted the "shirt-sleeves". Am I right to assume that in those days there was something slightly sensual about him being dressed like that? Like when a woman would go with bare arms?

And she, quiet and rich in herself, seeing him stooping and labouring away by himself, would come to help him, to be near him.

Aw… so sweet

He of course was an amateur - a born amateur. He worked so hard, and did so little, and nothing he ever did would hold together for long.

A born rose and a born amateur. I wonder whether those two are automatically connected? Too much of an idealist and a dreamer to ever be practical.

If he terraced the garden, he held up the earth with a couple of long narrow planks that soon began to bend with the pressure from behind, and would not need many years to rot through and break and let the soil slither all down again in a heap towards the stream-bed.

Which would be understandable the first time around, but he should have learned from his mistake and do a better job next time. Apparently not…

But there you are. He had not been brought up to come to grips with anything, and he thought it would do.

Ah… so now it is not only breeding, but also upbringing. I guess those two are connected though Sentences like this make me wonder what family Egbert is from.

Nay, he did not think there was anything else except little temporary contrivances possible, he who had such a passion for his old enduring cottage, and for the old enduring things of the bygone England. Curious that the sense of permanency in the past had such a hold over him, whilst in the present he was all amateurish and sketchy.

Curious indeed, and nicely put. Again: two sides of the medallion, like nord/south and dark/light.

[Janine]

Sapphire, I loved what you wrote but I have to delay until the weekend. I cut two fingers and they are hurting a lot. I wrote you a more detailed note in messages. Stay calm and patient and I will get back to you on the Saturday. Enjoy the rest of your vacation. I am sure by now you have read dozens of commentaries on S&L's, too. I love your enthusiasm for our guy, L. I cherish sharing that with you.

[Sapphire]

I'm really looking forward to start this discussion again
Two months of silence - time to get back into this story

Lets remember where we're at:
In the beginning, we are introduced to a man who's working in the garden - it seems quite idillic, but he's not happy. He can not conquer nature and is "fighting" to cultivate the garden - without hope and pleasure. He thinks back to happier days. Back when he fell in love with his (now) wife, back when this cottage seemed a dream come true, back when being one with nature was enough.
The family of his wife is introduced: a patriarchal father, an artistic mother and 3 daughters. They all have a (second?) house near the cottage. Egbert and Winifred live in the country all the time though - "caught out of the world".

This was where we were before Janine posted a new part of the text (#3226, first post on this page). I commented on the first paragraph (post #3227, 2 posts up). Here, we read about the first cracks in this ideal life. Or at least about something which is not a problem yet, but might become in the future. I did not mention this before, but this working in the garden is also what the story starts with. From the beginning Egberts is presented as a hard working man - as flawed as his works might be.

I wonder what you all think of that first paragraph of the next text I can not have gotten it right on the first try

I really think the last line is key to Egberts dualism:

Curious that the sense of permanency in the past had such a hold over him, whilst in the present he was all amateurish and sketchy.

I'm really looking forward to start this discussion again

[Janine]

Hi Sapphire, good post summarizing and keeping us up-to-date on the story. You write like a teacher, organized in your mind. Lately I have been so scatter-brained; this really helps to anchor me again. I like the fact you bring up the time element - present and past.
Indeed the past is more comfortable a zone for Egbert to live in. He has no ambition to break out of his routines and he might work hard but the world would look on his work as pointless. I can't help but think that this mimic's Lawrence's own life - the part about not wanting to give oneself over to the world or the norm. Lawrence, as we all know, was very prolithic and productive with his writing and art, but at the time, many thought he was wasting his time and puttering. Lawrence fought the establishment and always traveled his own path. He wanted nothing to do with capitalism and lived frugally, just enough to travel and to support his wife and himself. Unlike Egbert he never truly settled down but he did have 'homes' for periods of time in certain locations which he loved. Oddly enough, Lawrence chose his early nickname, Bert, to form his protagonist's name - Egbert...so there must be some connection there to how he could relate to the character. Lawrence also loved gardens and was ambitious in this way.

Curious that the sense of permanency in the past had such a hold over him, whilst in the present he was all amateurish and sketchy.

Interesting line indeed.

I am also looking forward to picking up from where we left off. Nice to see some action in this thread after all those silent months.

[Sapphire]

Thank you My mind might be organized when it comes to this story, but you should see my room Total dualism there .

I myself like how time is used in this story: we drop in with a disillusioned Egbert, get a look in the past (how it got this way) and then ... but we're not there yet Rembember how I tried to visualise the timeline in post #3165? (bottom of the page, 3 posts got merged) It helps me to keep things organized

The past is more comfortable a zone for Egbert to live in

I agree with this. Those are the days when he lives his romance, when he is not expected to take any responsibility. This is the time when the people who surround him accept him to behave like a newly wed - just enjoying life as it comes with the seasons. He is less comfortable in the present, because people expect him to develop in a certain way - and he refuses But we're not there yet
This all brings me back to high school literature lessons: flat characters and full characters. Flat characters are something like a caricature: they don't change during the story - at least, that is the definition I remember. Egbert is definitely a full character, but he refuses to be one - he refuses to develop. He wants to be a flat character .

I can't help but think that this mimic's Lawrence's own life

Maybe, with the difference that Egbert's work is the labour of the body, he tries to influence the country. Lawrence's work is the labour of the mind, he tries to influence the way people think. Or at least to tell a story which will linger in our thoughts. You're right that they both "do" a lot, while this is but limitedly appreciated during their lifetime. This must have frustrated Lawrence, he must have doubted his own talents... But he stubbornly went on, just like Egbert

NEXT PART OF THE TEXT, the second alinea

Winifred could not criticize him. Town-bred, everything seemed to her splendid, and the very digging and shovelling itself seemed romantic. But neither Egbert nor she yet realized the difference between work and romance.

First I thought Winifred could not criticize him as she sees him as a “higher” being. But the second sentence seems to imply she can not criticize him as she does not know what to do herself either. I wonder whether Egbert is town-bred... maybe he’s city-bred. NOTE: he isn't, we'll learn this soon It is just what I thought at this point.
The last sentence is again a warning, a foreshadowing of what they will learn: the (will to) work (for money) will kill the romance. Right now, work (as unproductive as it is) and romance are one.

[Janine]

Thank you My mind might be organized when it comes to this story, but you should see my room Total dualism there .

Hi Sapphire, Mine, too....you should see how much I have crammed into a small space.....pretty hopeless....

I myself like how time is used in this story: we drop in with a disillusioned Egbert, get a look in the past (how it got this way) and then ... but we're not there yet Rembember how I tried to visualise the timeline in post #3165? (bottom of the page, 3 posts got merged) It helps me to keep things organized

I agree. Not sure what post that is, but I agree with you either way...and you sure are organised on here.

I agree with this. Those are the days when he lives his romance, when he is not expected to take any responsibility. This is the time when the people who surround him accept him to behave like a newly wed - just enjoying life as it comes with the seasons. He is less comfortable in the present, because people expect him to develop in a certain way - and he refuses But we're not there yet

That seems like the 'honeymoon' period. It eventually turns out to be real life with responsibilies and that is why there was so many divorces. Fairytales are nice but they are not realistic....neither is Egbert.

This all brings me back to high school literature lessons: flat characters and full characters. Flat characters are something like a caricature: they don't change during the story - at least, that is the definition I remember. Egbert is definitely a full character, but he refuses to be one - he refuses to develop. He wants to be a flat character .

That's really good. I like the way your teacher described the characters...I never thought in these terms before. Mostly I think I agree with you...in Egbert's case, he is wishy washy and not really thinking of anything to do of great importance. He just muddles along at his own pace, yet his life in his way is full...that is, for a time; then after the child's accident, the dynamics of the family just don't work anymore and he is forced into accepting the quote 'normal' way of life. In other words stark reality settles in. He has lost the magic of his existence when he was forced to see outside his perimeters and his garden project and his so called, idealic life. I think the story has a lot to do with idealism vs. realism, don't you?

Maybe, with the difference that Egbert's work is the labour of the body, he tries to influence the country. Lawrence's work is the labour of the mind, he tries to influence the way people think. Or at least to tell a story which will linger in our thoughts. You're right that they both "do" a lot, while this is but limitedly appreciated during their lifetime. This must have frustrated Lawrence, he must have doubted his own talents... But he stubbornly went on, just like Egbert

It is that but also Lawrence very much liked to putter and work around the house or his ranch in New Mexico. He was never idle or lazy even though he would take breaks from his writing. I think he would have related well to his character in this way. Some of his happiest and most idyllic moments were those spend on a farm or tending a garden. Lawrence indeed was frustrated often with his work because he was simply not accepted in his day as he is now. He fought against so much hypocrisy and unfair criticism.

NEXT PART OF THE TEXT, the second alinea

First I thought Winifred could not criticize him as she sees him as a “higher” being. But the second sentence seems to imply she can not criticize him as she does not know what to do herself either. I wonder whether Egbert is town-bred... maybe he’s city-bred. NOTE: he isn't, we'll learn this soon It is just what I thought at this point.
The last sentence is again a warning, a foreshadowing of what they will learn: the (will to) work (for money) will kill the romance. Right now, work (as unproductive as it is) and romance are one.

Correct. It sounds logical. Lawrence hated 'the love of money'.

Let me know when you want to move onto new text.

[Sapphire]

Not sure what post that is, but I agree with you either way...and you sure are organised on here.

Thank you

That seems like the 'honeymoon' period. It eventually turns out to be real life with responsibilies and that is why there was so many divorces. Fairytales are nice but they are not realistic....neither is Egbert.

Spot on He surely tries to stay in that honeymoon period. He even expects things to stay the same when the children are born... A man can dream
In the biography on DH Lawrence by Mark Kinkead-Weekes, it is mentioned that the first version of this story was mainly about Egbert living in a dream at Crockham - while the later (1922) version turned Crockham much more into a place from the past, the old England.

The first version made Evelyn's garden the beautiful dream of an unworldly man opting out of society - till ... {spoiler, so I deleted it}
But in the rewriting, the garden and the ancient yeoman's cottage in the old 'savage' place become a final and beautiful flowering of a long English history. The spirit of place lingers on primeval, snakes and all, in the ancient setting. The lovers inherit a dark home where generations have loved and coupled before them.

This is also what Virgil has been saying, about this being meant by Lawrence to be a historical story.

He just muddles along at his own pace, yet his life in his way is full...that is, for a time; then after the child's accident, the dynamics of the family just don't work anymore and he is forced into accepting the quote 'normal' way of life. In other words stark reality settles in.

I'm with you on most, but I don't think the child's accident is when the dynamics of the family stop to work. I would rather put that moment at the birth of the first child - but we'll get there ... Moving slowly

I think the story has a lot to do with idealism vs. realism, don't you?

Yes I think you found a theme there

It is that but also Lawrence very much liked to putter and work around the house or his ranch in New Mexico.

I just thought he wouldn't have time for that anymore, with all the writing he did! Thank you for telling this.
The difference though, is that Egbert is not happy with his work in the garden. Or at least he does not seem to be all that happy at the beginning of the story: being worried about how he doesn't get it quite right.
Maybe I should say he isn't ALWAYS happy to work in the garden. But then again, we all have our "off" days .

Let me know when you want to move onto new text.

Hold on, we still have quite some text to cover

I'll be back

[Sapphire]

Back

On to the NEXT PARAGRAPH of the text

Godfrey Marshall, her father, was at first perfectly pleased with the ménage down at Crockham Cottage.

I had to read this sentence 3 times before I realized it just said “ménage” and not “ménage a trois”. Funny how some words are always connected to others – or at least in my brain .
Notice how this sentence is a warning again, just like the last one in the previous paragraph. It is all positive, but by adding the word “first” the reader immediately knows that the opinion of the father is probably going to change.
This was also the point in the story where I realized I wasn’t reading Egbert his view on things. Until here I did not realize there was a (omniscient) narrator. I thought we were just in Egberts mind while he thought back at days gone by But we do not just learn his point of view, we learn a lot about the ideas and dreams of the father and the daughter too.

He thought Egbert was wonderful, the many things he accomplished, and he was gratified by the glow of physical passion between the two young people.

Notice the part “the many things he accomplished”. What had Egbert accomplished at this point in time?! Concluded his study? Married Winifred? Surely the dad would not look at that last one as an accomplishment – he himself made that possible by giving them the cottage. He does expect Egbert to accomplish things, and that is what drives the two apart in the end… That is why I am so surprised to read here that he thought Egbert had accomplished things…
I think the last part of the sentence might have made some people frown in 1920.

To the man who in London still worked hard to keep steady his modest fortune, the thought of this young couple digging away and loving one another down at Crockham Cottage, buried deep among the commons and marshes, near the pale-showing bulk of the downs, was like a chapter of living romance.

Wow, this is quite a sentence It points a lot of things out again: how mr. Marshall has enough money, but is not rich – he still has to work to provide. How he loves his daughters and is glad one of them has found a partner that loves her. How he is a bit Christmassy: a sucker for a happy ending .
Here we read their life at the cottage is like a “chapter of living romance”. A chapter, not the whole book. And again that word romance, that word which the happy couple can not yet differentiate from “work” (see last paragraph)

And they drew the sustenance for their fire of passion from him, from the old man.

What?! Erm… I’m not really feeling this…

It was he who fed their flame.

Flame again

He triumphed secretly in the thought. And it was to her father that Winifred still turned, as the one source of all surety and life and support.

He stays the responsible one, the patriarch. He likes to be the one in control.

She loved Egbert with passion. But behind her was the power of her father. It was the power of her father she referred to, whenever she needed to refer. It never occurred to her to refer to Egbert, if she were in difficulty or doubt. No, in all the serious matters she depended on her father.

I’m not sure what to say about this last bit, just that it is important Winifred keeps attached to her father, reliant on her father. Egbert does not only not take that responsibility, Winifred does not ask it of him either. “It never occurred to her”.
I am not sure whether marrying somebody means you have to refer to that person in difficulty and doubt. I do think something like that is said in the vows…

[Janine]

Sapphire, I hurt my shoulder; think it's burstitis. It's getting better with rest. I had to take my mother out today and I am exhausted. Hold up a day and don't post anymore and tomorrow hopefully I can answer what you wrote. It's quite insightful and good.

[Janine]

I hope you will understand Sapphire...can't get back to this until the weekend. I seem to be overly busy all week; whereas weekends feel a little more relaxed. Be back soon, unless some earth shattering event happens here...hope surely it doesn't...haha.

[Sapphire]

No worries Take all the time you need - there are no deadlines

[Janine]

Thank you

Well, I found it more difficult than I predicted to get back here again...but better late than never. Anyway, I meant what I said. You think clearly and write well expressing yourself about the story.

Spot on He surely tries to stay in that honeymoon period. He even expects things to stay the same when the children are born... A man can dream

Yes, so true. He is rooted in the soil which comprises his little quiet fantasy world. He is very comfortable - it's his comfort zone, so to speak. When the children come along reality does alter; things get more real and he is forced to face reality. He's very much a dreamer I believe.

In the biography on DH Lawrence by Mark Kinkead-Weekes, it is mentioned that the first version of this story was mainly about Egbert living in a dream at Crockham - while the later (1922) version turned Crockham much more into a place from the past, the old England.

And that is so Lawrence...looking at the old England in contrast to a new one. Lawrence is always about opposites. Looking at his early life one can see why.

This is also what Virgil has been saying, about this being meant by Lawrence to be a historical story.

Definitely so. I think everything that Lawrence writes is historical or autobiographical in a sense. His work is so intimate and personal. This is what always draws me to the author and his words.

I'm with you on most, but I don't think the child's accident is when the dynamics of the family stop to work. I would rather put that moment at the birth of the first child - but we'll get there ... Moving slowly

You are probably right. It begins before that when the child comes into the picture. The dynamics between he and his wife change as they natually do in most instances in life. Egbert fights against any change so that his whole fantasy world is then disrupted and that is dramatic for him; even more so when he is blamed for the child's injuries.

Yes I think you found a theme there

Hopefully...haha.

I just thought he wouldn't have time for that anymore, with all the writing he did! Thank you for telling this.

You kidding, surprisingly Lawrence seemed to have time to do a lot of unusual things. I sometimes wonder when he slept. He was so prolithic a writer/artist but he also was a regular man and liked simply living and taking part is joyous things in life, like baking bread. He was quite extraordinary. He loved living on a ranch and back then, that meant a lot of work, like hauling your own water. I have a movie version of Lawrence in Australia and he loved being a part of a group working the land. Well, the character is not really based on Lawrence, but somehow one gets the sense, that a lot of the character is Lawrence. I think this closeness to nature and land gave his work the richness it has.

The difference though, is that Egbert is not happy with his work in the garden. Or at least he does not seem to be all that happy at the beginning of the story: being worried about how he doesn't get it quite right.
Maybe I should say he isn't ALWAYS happy to work in the garden. But then again, we all have our "off" days .

True. Not sure if that was not due to some sense of being a perfectionist or an idealist in whatever the work in the garden entailed or his vision of what is should become. L and the character, remember, had that artistic temperment.

Hold on, we still have quite some text to cover

How true. Well, I will only answer this one tonight and do the other soon. I am so darn busy. Wish I wasn't, but it's going to get worse with the construction taking place in our house. I am starting to get stressed about that...it may involve more than I anticipated.

I'll be back

I see you did come back by the entry below. Don't answer yet and I will get to that one, too...promise.

[trypsin]

i never predcited that the thread about D.H. LAWRENCE could last such long, but i really him, and his writing, i gotta read this thread from the very beginning~

[Janine]

i never predcited that the thread about D.H. LAWRENCE could last such long, but i really him, and his writing, i gotta read this thread from the very beginning~

Welcome trypsin, I hope you can join us; although not much action is happening presently. One person dropped out of the site for a time and I am awfully busy with home improvement projects and the impending holidays; but pay no mind to that. I am sorry I only just now noticed you here. Yes, indeed this thread has run a long time and we have discussed many a great L story. I am an avid fan of the author and proudly say I have read most of all he wrote; although some has still eluded me since he was such a prolithic author. Take you time reading back and enjoy yourself. Sapphire very kindly copied everything in PDF format for eternity; so, if you need a copy it is possible you can get one or read along online.

Hope my 'welcome' didn't come too late and you stick around the site. It's a good one and this thread has been very rewarding.