Both EM Forster and FR Leavis were of course far more complimentary.
 
Many of us baby-boomers in UK were raised on Sons and Lovers at school and Lady Chatterley outside its confines. And who can forget Ken Russell's idiosyncratic but so dramatic and memorable films of DHL's works ?
 
Hard, I think  to evaluate someone so embedded in the national consciousness !!
 
 
Regards
 
David

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Peter Montgomery <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
A footnote to our earlier abortive discussion of Lawrence --
thanks to the ever vigilant and generous Rickard's perspicacity
I am now in possession of the following 1st edition:
 
D. H. Lawrence & Human Existence
by Fr. William Tiverton
NY: Philisophical Library, 1951:

FOREWORD by T. S. ELIOT (vii-viii)
 
No big surprises here. The bottom line is not very complimentary to Lawrence,
but a bit more to his work. He had to write a lot poorly in order to write some well.
Not very disciplined. Often ignorant and ill informed, esp. about Christianity
but at bottom, religious.
 
It is all still a puzzlement to me. In the '60s, long after his own time, he was an icon
of sexual liberation, an heroic figure who gave society the finger. An explorer and
experimenter somewhat akin to Huxley. Yet in this book he comes across as
almost pathetic, a person to be pitied.
 
Curious.
 
P.