Do People Still Read D.H. Lawrence?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Just wondering. I don't, but he's just one of many writers that I fool myself into thinking that i will read someday when the time is right. Like Thomas Hardy and Henry James. But while i still see references to Thomas Hardy and Henry James all the time in crit and magazines i never hear about Lawrence anymore. I could be imagining things of course. Maybe he's more popular than ever. And I live in the states and i can't be everywhere so maybe he is all the rage elsewhere. Do they still teach him in school or do all the post-mod profs consider him icky and old-hat?

― scott seward (scott seward), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 21:25 (twenty-two years ago)

it's mostly that all
his Freudianism has
been discredited

he leaned heavily
on that crutch; take it away,
he had not much else (?)

― Haikunym (Haikunym), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 21:38 (twenty-two years ago)

that's what i kinda figured. so, is that it for him? into the dustbin of history?

― scott seward (scott seward), Wednesday, 17 December 2003 21:54 (twenty-two years ago)

I read his poetry occassionally. His ott exuberance is refreshing in this cynical era.

Sons and Lovers is still considered central to the canon, and his oeuvre gets tapped by gender studies people.

― otto, Thursday, 18 December 2003 01:33 (twenty-two years ago)

I've read one book by D.H. Lawrence and it is probably one of his most obscure ones: Fantasia of the Unconscious. It's a non-fiction book that relates Lawrence's somewhat quirky take on human psychology and what, for lack of a better term, I'd call spiritual development.

― o. nate (onate), Thursday, 18 December 2003 03:55 (twenty-two years ago)

i read sons and lovers a while ago,in the mistaken belief that it was on my second year english university reading list...
i found it quite interesting,and was quite into it at the time,but it dunno if i'd be that bothered reading anything else by him...

― robin (robin), Thursday, 18 December 2003 20:05 (twenty-two years ago)

At my library Lawerence is quite popular. I check out about 10-15 books everytime I work at the circulation desk.

― brg30 (brg30), Thursday, 18 December 2003 23:09 (twenty-two years ago)

The only Lawrence i have read, aside from poems and one or two short stories is Apocalypse. Genuinely crazed, fascinating book. Here he throws caution to the wind and speculates (or baldly pronounces) on the origin and character of the author of Revelations, John of Patmos, and then makes all sorts of links with deity-worship, cycles in history, and suffering. Wild and wonderful.

― pete s, Saturday, 20 December 2003 02:02 (twenty-two years ago)

two weeks pass...

Sons and Lovers was a bore. And D. H. Lawrence needs to get a grip on the dialect he was dealing with.

― adam michel (adam michel), Monday, 5 January 2004 03:16 (twenty-two years ago)

does anyone read henry miller anymore? he always seemed like the poor man's lawrence.

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Monday, 5 January 2004 03:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Just last week I read Miller's book On Writing. I liked it better than the one piece of fiction of his I've read, Tropic of Capricorn. And to get to your question, I've never thought of him as the poor man's Lawrence or heard him discussed that way. I get it, the sex thing, but I'd say more, for texture, the poor man's Wolfe, or the rich man's (?) Kerouac.

― otto, Friday, 9 January 2004 22:19 (twenty-two years ago)

miller is not the poor man's anybody. he has critical cred up the wazoo right now. if you need further convincing gore vidal's written great stuff about him.

see also: celine.

― vahid (vahid), Friday, 9 January 2004 22:33 (twenty-two years ago)

You're right, Vahid, and I wrote that response too hastily. I'm waiting for the day when I have the time to read S/Pl/Nexus.

― otto, Friday, 9 January 2004 23:44 (twenty-two years ago)

DH Lawrence lost all his academic cred. And Henry Miller is a wanker for tanking Joyce out of jealousy.

― B. Michael Payne (This Isnt That), Thursday, 15 January 2004 18:12 (twenty-two years ago)

i think an important thing to remember is that people will ALWAYS read dh lawrence because he sheds a clear light on a certain mindset (would it be precise enough to call it the bloomsbury mindset?) we read him in college not so much for his merits but for the way the material has dated ... it's a good way to look at some of the bohemian ideals of the early 20 c while also examining their essentialism, etc.

― vahid (vahid), Thursday, 15 January 2004 23:17 (twenty-two years ago)

see also pre and post wwi fascination w/ the sublime, w/ negritude, etc.

we did "women in love", i thought it was fascinating because it has a great (and not-too-thinly-veiled) "rampant bohemianism = eventual and utter destruction" subtext that would seem to run counter to our preconceptions of lawrence.

― vahid (vahid), Thursday, 15 January 2004 23:20 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm confused here. I've always read Lawrence as being contemptuous of Bloomsbury, setting much of his fiction in workng-class Nottinghamshire. Doesn't "Women in Love", amongst larger themes, send up Ottoline Morrel?

― R t V (Jake Proudlock), Friday, 16 January 2004 14:14 (twenty-two years ago)

six months pass...

I've only read Lady Chatterley's Lover by Lawrence, I really like it for its atmosphere and language; but I don't think I'll read another novel by him. A short story perhaps.

― Fred (Fred), Thursday, 22 July 2004 12:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Obvious perhaps to berate Lawrence for his sexism, but Lady Chatterley's Lover contained the first (though not the last) description I ever read of the female orgasm as selfish and deviant, and it didn't really endear me to the author. I like some of his poetry though.

― Archel (Archel), Thursday, 22 July 2004 13:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Geoff Dyer's voyage around the man, 'Out of Sheer Rage', is a funny argument for Lawrence as some kind of vital presence... though Dyer admits himself he doesn't want to read the novels or the theorising; he wants to read the letters, the studies in classic American literature, the travel writing.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Thursday, 22 July 2004 13:48 (twenty-one years ago)

I’ve got a copy of The Rainbow but haven’t ever read it. The book talks to me now and then, though:

The Rainbow: I say, why not pick me up and have a go?
VermontGirl: Uh, cuz I think you’d be too hard to read.
The Rainbow: Pish posh, you little scally-wag! You’re just intimidated.
VermontGirl: Maybe.
The Rainbow: I bet you don’t even know what I’m about…
VermontGirl: … Rainbows?
The Rainbow: No. Well, a little.
VermontGirl: Well then what are you about?
The Rainbow: …
VermontGirl: You don’t even know what you’re about!
The Rainbow: That’s because I’m just a voice in your head, you scamp. If you don’t know, then I don’t know.
VermontGirl: So I’m just talking to myself again?
The Rainbow: Hardly surprising, is it-
Perdido Street Station: Oi! You two wanna cut that out?! I’m trying to be read here.
VermontGirl: Oh yeah. Shut up, you stupid Rainbow. I’m reading.
The Rainbow: …
VermontGirl: … I’m not crazy.
The Rainbow and Perdido Street Station: [laughter]

― Vermont Girl (Vermont Girl), Thursday, 22 July 2004 16:48 (twenty-one years ago)

The Rocking-Horse Winner freaked me out when I was a kid! People will probably always read that one.

― scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 22 July 2004 18:23 (twenty-one years ago)

I just read The Rocking-Horse Winner and I liked it.

― Fred (Fred), Thursday, 22 July 2004 18:49 (twenty-one years ago)

I like his poems about animals.

― isadora (isadora), Thursday, 22 July 2004 21:38 (twenty-one years ago)

eleven months pass...

I'm back to reading Sons and Lovers again after taking a break to read a couple of other books. I think there's a lot to enjoy in his writing. His ability to conjure the milieu of the small English mining town, create memorable characters, evoke lovely images of nature, and dramatize intra- and inter-personal conflicts is quite remarkable. I think it deserves its place on a list of the 20th centuries great novels.

― o. nate (onate), Monday, 27 June 2005 14:33 (twenty years ago)

I haven't read him in ages. I agree your opinion of S&L. I recently heard a Professor who has just published a new biography of L on radio saying that he is no longer taken seriously by academics but is still widely read. When I was at uni he was still ranked along with Joyce as one of the two most important novelists of the century, so it's a pretty fierce decline in reputation.

― frankiemachine, Monday, 27 June 2005 14:58 (twenty years ago)

a LOT of people still read him

in aberdeen, amongst eng.lit students, I couldn't get away from him

I suspect this skews my judgement of his popularity a little

gf swears by his shorts

― c/n (Cozen), Monday, 27 June 2005 16:01 (twenty years ago)

Lawrence seems mostly to have dropped off the academic radar, as a less than reputable figure - not for his depictions of sex, but for the embarassment of his ideas - kind of like a literary version of Reichian 'orgone energy box'. His essay on killing a porcupine may have a sort of sub-vital academic life still.

But he'll revive. He had a big surge in the 1970s. He's essentially a popular writer, so he doesn't need academia to keep him alive. Same as Henry Miller.

― Aimless (Aimless), Monday, 27 June 2005 17:23 (twenty years ago)

i think his studies in classic american literature is the most colorful and entertaining tour of the american renaissance that i've ever read. very compact, very fun.

― a spectator bird (a spectator bird), Monday, 27 June 2005 18:28 (twenty years ago)

I once read him avidly, but I can't remeber more than a few things now. 'The Rocking Horse Winner' is definitely up there though.

― M. White (Miguelito), Monday, 27 June 2005 21:00 (twenty years ago)

'Aaron's Rod' was a huge influence for a while, when I was a teenager.

― M. White (Miguelito), Monday, 27 June 2005 21:04 (twenty years ago)

search: frank kermode's "fontana modern masters" on lawrence
destroy: ken russell (except lair of the white worm obv)

DHL was early and good on what wz up in the american novel

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 12:00 (twenty years ago)

My high school English teacher used to read aloud from the American Literature book, the "crazy" version. It was great.

― k/l (Ken L), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 14:30 (twenty years ago)

There were a couple of Lawrentians at Aberdeen though - I seem to recollect the Prof there (Draper - prob. since retired) had a book on Lawrence & edited one of those collections of critical essays on him. At least one of the guys on the teaching staff (Milton) wrote his PhD thesis on Lawrence (and Nietzsche). Jesus, the amount of shite I read in my youth and the amount of pointless crap I remember. Nietzschean thought in The Trespasser and The White Peacock.

The short stories are still great, though.

― frankiemachine, Tuesday, 28 June 2005 15:05 (twenty years ago)

There are times in Sons & Lovers when it seems that some unspoken theory is impinging on the narrative. Like the whole long chapter where Paul & Miriam are always alone in these incredibly romantic, intimate little spots staring deeply into each others eyes and never getting it on despite both obviously wanting to - it seems as though Lawrence is trying to prove some theory about abstract ideal love vs. the physical - but he stretches his case to the point of incredulity.

― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 28 June 2005 17:38 (twenty years ago)

The abridged vers. of Lady Chatterley's Trial that just came out is kinda fascinating.

What's this about a "'crazy'" version of the American lit book? I do remember looking it up for some essay and finding it seemingly beyond all rationality and wondering if I'd got the wrong book somehow, so I guess it makes sense.

― tom west (thomp), Wednesday, 29 June 2005 08:36 (twenty years ago)

there is a first and very difft second version but i forget which the "crazy" one is

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 30 June 2005 01:02 (twenty years ago)

I read some of the short stories in college, but just on my own, not for a class. I didn't feel like I completely "got" them.

― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 30 June 2005 03:25 (twenty years ago)

Maybe I should have had said the "mad" version for you brits.

― k/l (Ken L), Thursday, 30 June 2005 12:14 (twenty years ago)

Or perhaps split the difference with the "cracked" version.

― k/l (Ken L), Thursday, 30 June 2005 12:14 (twenty years ago)

five months pass...

"studies in classic american lit" is completely hilarious and classic, every page. esp the "i don't like ben franklin" chapter.

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Monday, 12 December 2005 11:21 (twenty years ago)

Wait, that sounds interesting. What is the deal with the "crazy"-ness? Why doesn't he like Ben Franklin? No tolerance for fart jokes?

― Casuistry (Chris P), Monday, 12 December 2005 11:58 (twenty years ago)

hey, it's online!

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/LAWRENCE/dhlch02.htm

― J.D. (Justyn Dillingham), Monday, 12 December 2005 15:54 (twenty years ago)

I did finally manage to finish Sons and Lovers (the "unexpurgated" version - though there really wasn't anything explicit in it - in fact, it was downright tame by modern standards). There's lots of life in it - class, family dynamics, religion, love, sex, growing up, adolescence, adulthood - and some vivid and lovely writing. At times the psychological insight offered by the narrator seems self-serving, but that wasn't too glaring of a fault.

― o. nate (onate), Monday, 12 December 2005 16:57 (twenty years ago)

Something about being on a barely-formated web page made that rant come off as all the more rant-y.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Monday, 12 December 2005 21:39 (twenty years ago)

There's a re-appraisal of D.H. Lawrence by Benjamin Kunkel (young novelist of the moment) in the current issue of the New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/?051219crbo_books

― o. nate (onate), Tuesday, 13 December 2005 16:02 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.