You seem to look at a passage in its isolation while I
am trying to look at it in a larger context of Eliot’s
understanding of Lawrence. Unless you are aware of
this larger context, I understand it is difficult to
build an argument. I am not sure if you have been
receiving mails regularly from this list (I saw
someone making a note earlier that he has been having
trouble and Rick coming out with a sort of digest),
but if you can read a few earlier postings I made on
this thread itself, that may give you a sense of what
I am talking about. Moreover, I also understand after
my repeated postings in this list on this same subject
that unless the other person is familiar with the
major works of Lawrence, it is extremely difficult to
make meaningful statements.
I actually tried to see if I can retrieve the earlier
exchanges on this subject, some of which were
meaningful, from the archives of this list, but I am
unfamiliar with the way this list works and I gave it
up. As I made a note earlier, if you are really
interested in this issue, a good place to start would
be to read at least the first few chapters of
‘D.H.Lawrence : Novelist’ by F.R.Leavis.
--- Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> At 11:15 AM 2/15/2005 -0800, Vishvesh Obla wrote:
> >I apologize for mixing up the genders. I am not
> >familiar that an 'r' would make a difference as
> that !
> Hmmmm. It's probably not the "r" that makes the
> difference, but little
> matter for the topic at hand.
> >I didn't call Eliot a 'Basher'. Bashing is
> >valid in the world of letters.
> Then it must mean something different than what I
> was thinking. I think
> measured criticism is perfectly valid in the world
> of letters, and when I
> read this:
> One writer, and indeed, in my opinion, the most
> interesting novelist
> in England--who has apparently been somewhat
> affected by Dostoevsky,
> is Mr D. H. Lawrence. Mr Lawrence has
> progressed--by fits and starts,
> it is true; for he has perhaps done nothing as
> good as a whole as Sons
> and Lovers. He has never yet, I think, quite
> surrendered himself to
> his work. He still theorizes at times when he
> should merely see. His
> theory has not yet reached the point at which it
> is no longer a
> theory, he still requires (at the end of Aaron's
> Rod) the mouthpiece
> for an harangue. But there is one scene in this
> book--a dialogue
> between an Italian and several Englishmen, in
> which one feels that the
> whole is governed by a creator who is purely
> creator, with the
> terrifying disinterestedness of the true creator.
> And for that we can
> forgive Mr Lawrence his subsequent lapse into a
> theory of human
> it strikes me as rather measured and at least as
> much praise as criticism:
> "the most interesting novelist in England" and "the
> whole is governed by a
> creator who is purely creator, with the terrifying
> disinterestedness of the
> true creator" etc., seems very high praise. I do not
> know what you mean
> that he does not use such terms in the rest of his
> criticism. He does. See
> his remarks on James, for example, regarding the
> relationships of the
> characters. In any event, there seems nothing in the
> least "cynical" about
> it. Perhaps what we mean by "cynical" is at issue.
> Ken A.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.