Print

Print


From: Peter Montgomery

> I suppose another way of looking at it is that Eliot committed THE
> great original sin of the 20th C. by becoming a Christian, which in
> certain ways made him the equivalent of Shelley in the previous
> century who became a pariah because of his atheism. Eliot's punishment
> was less glitzy. He just ceased to be taken so seriously in a quietistic
> kind of way.

Still, compared with what befell Lawrence during his lifetime (censorship,
self-imposed exile, etc.), I think it's hard to paint Eliot as a pariah.
Let's
not forget that Leavis's influence only started to be felt when Lawrence was
already dead.

> The other side of it is, of course, that Lawrence was Freud's
> PR man. He was a populariser of a certain emotional psychology

Lawrence didn't like Freud any more than Eliot did. In fact, Lawrence was
very hostile to psychoanalysis, e.g. in Fantasia of the Unconscious. Freud
was trying analyse the unconscious, which for Lawrence amounted to a
desecration of the 'God in us'. Also, Lawrence didn't believe interpreting
dreams was any way meaningful.
Eliot's objections to Freud had another basis, but neither of them was
Freudian writer (in the sense of subscribing to Freud's theories).

Yours,

RaphaŽl
[log in to unmask]