Print

Print


From: [log in to unmask]>Vishvesh Obla

The comments made by Eliot in this book are not only nauseating but raise questions as to the very nature of his artistic genius.  He comments on the bringing up of Lawrence in the household of a working class with the kind of ‘piety’ associated with it to have resulted in his ‘ignorance’ that is born out of not being associated with the ‘environment of a living and central tradition’.  It raises first the question as to what Eliot held as the very ‘environment of a living and central tradition’.  Was it the environment of his ‘Cocktail Party’ that Lawrence was not associated with that made him ‘ignorant’ in Eliot’s eyes? 

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

 

R: Eliot didn't mind working-class people as such. He sometimes wrote they were a good sight better than the middle classes (cf the essay on Marie Lloyd). The problem with Lawrence's working-class background is that it was largely dissenting. That, for Eliot, was often an unforgiveable sin, unless one actively rebelled against it (and rebelled by turning orthodox - Lawrence's rebellion made him even more unorthodox).  

 

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

Neither Lawrence nor Leavis were Freudians, though Lawrence was tha! nkful to Freud for pulling

down the idealists to the earth. 

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

 

R: It depends on what one means by 'idealists'. After all, Lawrence did idealize sex in his own way.

 

Yours,

 

RaphaŽl Ingelbien

[log in to unmask]