663
edits
The Mailer Review/Volume 13, 2019/Tremulation on the Ether: Versions of Instinctual Primacy in the Essays of D.H. Lawrence: Difference between revisions
The Mailer Review/Volume 13, 2019/Tremulation on the Ether: Versions of Instinctual Primacy in the Essays of D.H. Lawrence (view source)
Revision as of 10:02, 1 March 2021
, 1 March 2021Fixed citations and formatting.
Jules Carry (talk | contribs) (Began correcting citations, formatting, and typos.) |
Jules Carry (talk | contribs) (Fixed citations and formatting.) |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
A major reason for the success of this eclectic volume resides in Dyer’s decision to forgo the customary organization of an anthology by thematic categories. The essays are arranged in a straight-line chronological order, so | A major reason for the success of this eclectic volume resides in Dyer’s decision to forgo the customary organization of an anthology by thematic categories. The essays are arranged in a straight-line chronological order, so | ||
that a reader’s experience, without the intrusive subject- headings, gradually | that a reader’s experience, without the intrusive subject-headings, gradually | ||
and organically absorbs the repeating preoccupations and stylistic signposts | and ''organically'' absorbs the repeating preoccupations and stylistic signposts | ||
of Lawrence. Subjects and metaphors reappear with meaningful variations | of Lawrence. Subjects and metaphors reappear with meaningful variations | ||
that are inherently connected to Lawrence’s growth through the years as | that are inherently connected to Lawrence’s growth through the years as | ||
writer and man. It is a simple and effective way to organize the table of contents, and it is surprisingly not used by editors often. I must add one major | writer and man. It is a simple and effective way to organize the table of contents, and it is surprisingly not used by editors often. I must add one major concern about Dyer’s introduction. Although clearly an aficionado of | ||
concern about Dyer’s introduction. Although clearly an aficionado of | |||
Lawrence’s work, he writes the following: “As a novelist, it could be argued, | Lawrence’s work, he writes the following: “As a novelist, it could be argued, | ||
Lawrence peaked early, with Sons and Lovers. His former friend John Middleton Murry went further, arguing, in a review of Women in Love, that | Lawrence peaked early, with ''Sons and Lovers''. His former friend John Middleton Murry went further, arguing, in a review of Women in Love, that Lawrence was one of those novelists who appear to have passed their prime | ||
Lawrence was one of those novelists who appear to have passed their prime | long before reaching it.”{{sfn|Lawrence|2019|p=xi}} What argument could possibly support such an | ||
long before reaching | absurd judgement of his work, with those monuments of modernism, ''The Rainbow'' and ''Women In Love'' a few years ahead, not to mention the brilliant novellas and short stories? Dyer also should know that vindictive Murry | ||
absurd judgement of his work, with those monuments of modernism, The | |||
Rainbow and Women In Love a few years ahead, not to mention the brilliant | |||
novellas and short stories? Dyer also should know that vindictive Murry | |||
with his snide comments is the last person to provide persuasive evaluation | with his snide comments is the last person to provide persuasive evaluation | ||
of Lawrence’s work, and especially of Women in Love. | of Lawrence’s work, and especially of ''Women in Love''. | ||
Many of the essays recapitulate, in different ways and with varying urgency, Lawrence’s visionary perception of life. Dyer pertinently quotes a | Many of the essays recapitulate, in different ways and with varying urgency, Lawrence’s visionary perception of life. Dyer pertinently quotes a seminal passage from a Lawrence letter that asserts the limitations of the | ||
seminal passage from a Lawrence letter that asserts the limitations of the | mind in favor of “a belief in the blood, in the flesh, as being wiser than the intellect.”{{sfn|Lawrence|2019|p=viii}} The implications of that perspective reverberate throughout the essays, informing Lawrence’s characterizations and digressions about family, friends, acquaintances and countries, his edgy evaluations of works by Tolstoy, Hemingway,Verga, Hardy, Flaubert and Joyce, as well as his lyrical ruminations on flowers, trees, animals, landscapes, and even inanimate objects. | ||
mind in favor of “a belief in the blood, in the flesh, as being wiser than the | |||
family, friends, acquaintances and countries, his edgy evaluations of works by Tolstoy, Hemingway,Verga, Hardy, Flaubert and Joyce, as well as his lyrical ruminations on flowers, trees, animals, landscapes, and even inanimate | |||
objects. | |||
Lawrence’s essential cosmology insists that the world is “open” to be engaged by one’s unfettered instincts and unrepressed emotions, and that such | Lawrence’s essential cosmology insists that the world is “open” to be engaged by one’s unfettered instincts and unrepressed emotions, and that such existential priority remains the imperative for an active and productive life. In this context he maintains that character—in the real world and in fiction—must be fluid, unprogrammed, and inevitably receptive to the disruptions of unpredictable change and growth. In a crucial passage from “Why the Novel Matters” (1925), readers of Norman Mailer will note how precisely Lawrence’s lines (quoted below) anticipate Mailer’s words in ''The | ||
existential priority remains the imperative for an active and productive life. | Deer Park'' about the “law of life” which insists “that one must grow or else | ||
In this context he maintains that character—in the real world and in fiction—must be fluid, unprogrammed, and inevitably receptive to the disruptions of unpredictable change and growth. In a crucial passage from “Why the Novel Matters” (1925), readers of Norman Mailer will note how | |||
precisely Lawrence’s lines (quoted below) anticipate Mailer’s words in The | |||
Deer Park about the “law of life” which insists “that one must grow or else | |||
pay more for remaining the same.” Mailer has generously acknowledged the | pay more for remaining the same.” Mailer has generously acknowledged the | ||
extent of Lawrence’s influence on his own work and outlook. Here is | extent of Lawrence’s influence on his own work and outlook. Here is | ||
| Line 65: | Line 54: | ||
and unchanging, I shall cease to love her. It is only because she changes and | and unchanging, I shall cease to love her. It is only because she changes and | ||
startles me into changes and defies my inertia, and is herself staggered in | startles me into changes and defies my inertia, and is herself staggered in | ||
her inertia by my change, that I can continue to love her. If she stayed put, I | her inertia by my change, that I can continue to love her. If she stayed put, I might as well love a pepper-pot.”{{sfn|Lawrence|2019|p=357}} | ||
might as well love a pepper- | |||
To avoid “change” for Lawrence is to risk sentimentality, a pernicious | To avoid “change” for Lawrence is to risk sentimentality, a pernicious quality that, in effect, insists that one can merely apply established pattern and easy repetition to the rhythms and demands of relationships and circumstances. Thus Lawrence’s prescient review of Hemingway’s first major work, ''In Our Time'', recognizes that the resistance to change functions as the sentimentalist’s primary flaw, a failure, that—as Hemingway demonstrates | ||
quality that, in effect, insists that one can merely apply established pattern | |||
and easy repetition to the rhythms and demands of relationships and circumstances. Thus Lawrence’s prescient review of Hemingway’s first major | |||
work, In Our Time, recognizes that the resistance to change functions as the | |||
sentimentalist’s primary flaw, a failure, that—as Hemingway demonstrates | |||
explicitly about his own father in “Fathers and Sons”—can be destructive | explicitly about his own father in “Fathers and Sons”—can be destructive | ||
to one’s health. Lawrence’s review of In Our Time and its portrait of Krebs | to one’s health. Lawrence’s review of ''In Our Time'' and its portrait of Krebs | ||
recognizes the essence of Hemingway’s aversion, as the British novelist states | recognizes the essence of Hemingway’s aversion, as the British novelist states | ||
it with an unembroidered economy of style that even sounds like Papa: “It | it with an unembroidered economy of style that even sounds like Papa: “It is really honest. And it explains a great deal of sentimentality. When a thing has gone to hell inside of you, your sentimentalism tries to pretend it hasn’t. But Mr. Hemingway is through with sentimentalism. ‘It isn’t fun anymore. I guess I’ll beat it.’ And he beats it, to somewhere else.”<ref>“Review of In Our Time by Ernest Hemingway,” 1927 {{harvtxt|Lawrence|2019|p=303}}.</ref> | ||
is really honest. And it explains a great deal of sentimentality. When a thing | |||
has gone to hell inside of you, your sentimentalism tries to pretend it hasn’t. But Mr. Hemingway is through with sentimentalism. ‘It isn’t fun anymore. I guess I’ll beat it.’ And he beats it, to somewhere | |||
Within this context of sentimentalism and its inherent opposition to | Within this context of sentimentalism and its inherent opposition to growth, one could maintain, concerning Lawrence’s much admired memoir of Maurice Magnus (included in this collection), that Magnus’s death is intrinsically connected to an indefatigable and obstinate reluctance to adjust the habits of his life to the new “realities” that tragically pursue him. In Lawrence’s incisive understanding of the intricacies of personality, Magnus is content to keep playing the same hustle and scam as food for his relentless yet vulnerable ego. Like all sentimentalists, he is the last to know when | ||
growth, one could maintain, concerning Lawrence’s much admired memoir of Maurice Magnus (included in this collection), that Magnus’s death is intrinsically connected to an | the game is over: “But there you are—there was his power to arouse affection and a certain tenderness in the hearts of others, for himself. And on this he traded. One sees the trick working all the way through the Legion book.”<ref>“Memoir of Maurice Magnus,” 1921–22, {{harvtxt|Lawrence|2019|p=355}}</ref> | ||
Lawrence’s incisive understanding of the intricacies of personality, Magnus | |||
is content to keep playing the same hustle and scam as food for his relentless yet vulnerable ego. Like all sentimentalists, he is the last to know when | |||
the game is over: “But there you are—there was his power to arouse affection and a certain tenderness in the hearts of others, for himself. And on this | |||
he traded. One sees the trick working all the way through the Legion | |||
The essays demonstrate Lawrence’s insistence on the value of instinctual | The essays demonstrate Lawrence’s insistence on the value of instinctual primacy and its ultimate connection to what he variously calls “the fourth-dimension,” involving a transcendent perception of “tremulations on the ether.”<ref>“Why the Novel Matters,” {{harvtxt|Lawrence|2019|P=254}}</ref> In a critical section of that essay, he privileges the genre of the novel for its intrinsic ability to embody such relevant synthesis of immanence and transcendence, and thus the novel for him is “the one bright book of life,” for only “the novel as a tremulation can make the whole man alive tremble.”{{sfn|Lawrence|2019|p=255}} Lawrence’s commitment to his visionary emphasis on the “gleam” in life extends even to inanimate objects. The following passage remains too easy to caricature, but it represents Lawrence’s unqualified adherence to the perceptions of instinct and the messages of tremulation: | ||
primacy and its ultimate connection to what he variously calls “the | |||
{{quote|We have to choose between the quick and the dead. The quick is God-flame, in everything. And the dead is dead. In this room where I write, there is a little table that is dead; it doesn’t even weakly exist. And there is a ridiculous little iron stove which for some unknown reason is quick. And there is an iron wardrobe trunk, which for some still more mysterious reason is quick. And there are several books, whose mere corpus is dead, utterly dead and non-existent. And there is a sleeping cat, very quick. And a glass lamp, alas, is dead.<ref>“The Novel,” 1925, {{harvtxt|Lawrence|2019|p=141}}</ref> }} | |||
It is a short distance from the God-flame of immanence radiating from inanimate objects to Lawrence’s instinctual imperative. The following words are from “The Novel and the Feelings” (1925), and again they conspicuously prefigure Mailer’s own existential perspectives: “We’ve managed to keep clear of the darkest Africa inside us, for a long time. . . . But there it is, a strange dark | It is a short distance from the God-flame of immanence radiating from inanimate objects to Lawrence’s instinctual imperative. The following words are from “The Novel and the Feelings” (1925), and again they conspicuously prefigure Mailer’s own existential perspectives: “We’ve managed to keep clear of the darkest Africa inside us, for a long time. . . . But there it is, a strange dark continent that we do not explore, because we do not even allow that it exists. . . .Yet unless we proceed to connect ourselves up with our own primeval sources, we shall degenerate.”{{sfn|Lawrence|2019|pp=262, 263, 264}} | ||
continent that we do not explore, because we do not even allow that it exists. . . .Yet unless we proceed to connect ourselves up with our own primeval | |||
sources, we shall | |||
Lawrence’s notoriously pungent reviews of other writers—included | Lawrence’s notoriously pungent reviews of other writers—included through many essays in the volume—are shrewd, revisionist, and often reflective of his own visionary priorities. He is especially drawn to Thomas Hardy’s fiction because the protagonists, despite their many flaws of character, are “struggling hard to come into being.”<ref>''Study of Thomas Hardy'', 1914, {{harvtxt|Lawrence|2019|p=25}}.</ref> Lawrence regards their essential struggle as consistently revealing those tremulations from the ether that—as ''The Rainbow'' so powerfully dramatizes—must energize and humble those who engage this “unknown.” In that same essay, Lawrence clarifies this arena of the transcendent: “a great background, vital and vivid, which matters more than the people who move upon it . . . the vast unexplored morality of life itself, what we call the immorality of nature, surrounding us in its eternal incomprehensibility.”{{sfn|Lawrence|2019|p=15}} Lawrence similarly admires Whitman’s poetry in “Poetry of the Present” (1919) for its “sheer appreciation of the instant moment, life surging itself into utterance at its very well-head.”{{sfn|Lawrence|2019|p=80}} In Giovanni Verga’s fiction about | ||
through many essays in the volume—are shrewd, revisionist, and often reflective of his own visionary priorities. He is especially drawn to Thomas | Sicily, he finds comparable reasons for praise: “you can’t read ''Mastro-don Gesualdo'' without feeling the marvelous glow and glamour of Sicily and the people throbbing inside the glow and the glamour like motes in a sunbeam.”<ref>“Introduction to ''Mastro-don Gesualdo'' by Giovanni Verga,” 1927, {{harvtxt|Lawrence|2019|p=339}}.</ref> | ||
Hardy’s fiction because the protagonists, despite their many flaws of character, are “struggling hard to come into | |||
tremulations from the ether that—as The Rainbow so powerfully dramatizes—must energize and humble those who engage this “unknown.” In that | |||
same essay, Lawrence clarifies this arena of the transcendent: “a great background, vital and vivid, which matters more than the people who move | |||
upon it ... the vast unexplored morality of life itself, what we call the immorality of nature, surrounding us in its eternal | |||
Lawrence similarly admires Whitman’s poetry in “Poetry of the Present” | |||
(1919) for its “sheer appreciation of the instant moment, life surging itself | |||
into utterance at its very well- | |||
Sicily, he finds comparable reasons for praise: “you can’t read Mastro-don | |||
Gesualdo without feeling the marvelous glow and glamour of Sicily and the | |||
people throbbing inside the glow and the glamour like motes in a | |||
Lawrence excoriates several much-admired writers for what he regards as intrinsic failures of characterization, texture, and power, inadequacies that he discusses, of course, in the context of his own stipulations about fiction. While recognized as a brilliant and unorthodox literary critic, Lawrence at times overstates his personal biases in ways that too cavalierly diminish the works under consideration. Although he praises the complex artistry of Thomas Mann, he criticizes Death In Venice because the work has “none of the rhythm of a living | Lawrence excoriates several much-admired writers for what he regards as intrinsic failures of characterization, texture, and power, inadequacies that he discusses, of course, in the context of his own stipulations about fiction. While recognized as a brilliant and unorthodox literary critic, Lawrence at times overstates his personal biases in ways that too cavalierly diminish the works under consideration. Although he praises the complex artistry of Thomas Mann, he criticizes ''Death In Venice'' because the work has “none of the rhythm of a living thing,”<ref>“Review of ''Death In Venice'' by Thomas Mann,” 1913, {{harvtxt|Lawrence|2019|p=14}}.</ref> and he faults ''Madame Bovary'' because he discerns a major problem with its “realistic method,” arguing in an Aristotelian manner that “individuals like Emma and Charles Bovary are too insignificant to carry the full weight of Gustave Flaubert’s profound sense of tragedy.”{{sfn|Lawrence|2019|p=332}} In “The Future of the Novel” (1922-23) he gleefully attacks two modernist exponents of radical fictional techniques because he believes the works are boring and overrated. Here he uses an elongated trope of fabric and mummification to turn consensus notions of their talent and importance virtually inside-out. In effect, he “dresses” them to take them apart: “Through | ||
thousands and thousands of pages Mr. Joyce and Miss Richardson tear themselves to pieces, strip their smallest emotions to the finest threads, till you feel you are sewed inside a wool mattress that is slowly shaken up, and you are turning to wool along with the rest of the | thousands and thousands of pages Mr. Joyce and Miss Richardson tear themselves to pieces, strip their smallest emotions to the finest threads, till you feel you are sewed inside a wool mattress that is slowly shaken up, and you are turning to wool along with the rest of the wooliness.”{{sfn|Lawrence|2019|p=179}} In “The Novel” (1925) he maintains that ''War and Peace'' is marred by Tolstoy’s unpersuasive valorizing of “the fat fuzzy Pierre,” a character whom Lawrence regards as a “domestic sort of house-dog.”{{sfn|Lawrence|2019|p=246}} Such a caustic assessment is related to Lawrence’s belief that the portrait of Pierre denies the fundamental necessity of any character in fiction: Tolstoy “wasn’t true to ''his own character''.”{{sfn|Lawrence|2019|p=246}} What is such “truth” to Lawrence? He returns to a version of the tremulation metaphor and the doctrine of change: “Character is a curious thing. It is the flame of a man, which burns brighter or dimmer, bluer or redder, rising or sinking or flaring according to the draughts of circumstance and changing air of life, changing itself continually, yet remaining one single, separate flame, flickering in a strange world.”{{sfn|Lawrence|2019|p=246}} | ||
Novel” (1925) he maintains that War and Peace is marred by Tolstoy’s unpersuasive valorizing of “the fat fuzzy | |||
fundamental necessity of any character in fiction: Tolstoy “wasn’t true to his own | |||
Throughout the essays there are moments of luminous insight by Lawrence that indicate his instinctual grasp of the present and his prescient sense of the future. In “A Letter from Germany” (1942) he virtually predicts the cataclysm that soon will engulf the world. Tremulations are in the air: “But at night you feel strange things stirring in the darkness, strange feelings stirring in the darkness, strange feelings stirring out of this still unconquered Black Forest. . . . Out of this very air comes a sense of danger, a queer bristling feeling of uncanny danger. Something has happened. Something has happened which has not yet eventuated. . . . It is the father of the next phase of events.”{{sfn|Lawrence|2019|pp=191-192}} In “Paris Letter” (1924) he acerbically anticipates a nation’s passivity and appeasement that will manifest itself in the coming war: “Men, particularly Frenchman, have collapsed into little, rather insignificant, rather wistful, rather nice and helplessly commonplace little fellows who should be tucked away and left to sleep, like Rip Van Winkle, till the rest of the storm rolled by.”{{sfn|Lawrence|2019|pp=185}} In “Art and Morality” (1925) he warns of the developing alliance between technological advancements and the blandishments of the ego; he criticizes “civilized man” for his lack of a visual creative imagination, as he increasingly displays “the slowly formed habit of seeing just as the photographic camera sees.”{{sfn|Lawrence|2019|p=223}} Indeed, Lawrence perhaps becomes the first and mournful predictor of the epidemic of the iPhone: “Man has learned to see himself. So now, he is what he sees. He makes himself in his own image.... The identifying of ourselves with the visual image of ourselves has become an instinct, the habit is already old. The picture of me, the me that is seen, is me.”{{sfn|Lawrence|2019|p=225}} | Throughout the essays there are moments of luminous insight by Lawrence that indicate his instinctual grasp of the present and his prescient sense of the future. In “A Letter from Germany” (1942) he virtually predicts the cataclysm that soon will engulf the world. Tremulations are in the air: “But at night you feel strange things stirring in the darkness, strange feelings stirring in the darkness, strange feelings stirring out of this still unconquered Black Forest. . . . Out of this very air comes a sense of danger, a queer bristling feeling of uncanny danger. Something has happened. Something has happened which has not yet eventuated. . . . It is the father of the next phase of events.”{{sfn|Lawrence|2019|pp=191-192}} In “Paris Letter” (1924) he acerbically anticipates a nation’s passivity and appeasement that will manifest itself in the coming war: “Men, particularly Frenchman, have collapsed into little, rather insignificant, rather wistful, rather nice and helplessly commonplace little fellows who should be tucked away and left to sleep, like Rip Van Winkle, till the rest of the storm rolled by.”{{sfn|Lawrence|2019|pp=185}} In “Art and Morality” (1925) he warns of the developing alliance between technological advancements and the blandishments of the ego; he criticizes “civilized man” for his lack of a visual creative imagination, as he increasingly displays “the slowly formed habit of seeing just as the photographic camera sees.”{{sfn|Lawrence|2019|p=223}} Indeed, Lawrence perhaps becomes the first and mournful predictor of the epidemic of the iPhone: “Man has learned to see himself. So now, he is what he sees. He makes himself in his own image.... The identifying of ourselves with the visual image of ourselves has become an instinct, the habit is already old. The picture of me, the me that is seen, is me.”{{sfn|Lawrence|2019|p=225}} | ||
| Line 123: | Line 84: | ||
===Citations=== | ===Citations=== | ||
{{Reflist| | {{Reflist|20em}} | ||
===Work Cited=== | ===Work Cited=== | ||