20
edits
User:JovanRad/sandbox: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
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 fourthdimension,” involving a transcendent perception of “tremulations on the ether” (“Why the Novel Matters,”254). 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” (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 fourthdimension,” involving a transcendent perception of “tremulations on the ether” (“Why the Novel Matters,”254). 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” (255). {{sfn|Lawrence|p=25{{sfn|Lennon|2018|p=25}}5}} 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: | ||
::</blockquote>''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. (“The Novel,”1925,141)'' </blockquote> | ::</blockquote>''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. (“The Novel,”1925,141)'' </blockquote> | ||
| Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
tremulations from the ether that—as The Rainbow so powerfully dramatizes—must energize and humble those who engage this “unknown.” In that | 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 | 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” (15). | upon it ... the vast unexplored morality of life itself, what we call the immorality of nature, surrounding us in its eternal incomprehensibility” (15). {{sfn|Lawrence|1914|p=15}} | ||
Lawrence similarly admires Whitman’s poetry in “Poetry of the Present” | Lawrence similarly admires Whitman’s poetry in “Poetry of the Present” | ||
(1919) for its “sheer appreciation of the instant moment, life surging itself | (1919) for its “sheer appreciation of the instant moment, life surging itself | ||
into utterance at its very well-head” (80). In Giovanni Verga’s fiction about | into utterance at its very well-head” (80). {{sfn|Lawrence|1919|p=80}} In Giovanni Verga’s fiction about | ||
Sicily, he finds comparable reasons for praise: “you can’t read Mastro-don | 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 | Gesualdo without feeling the marvelous glow and glamour of Sicily and the | ||
| Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
(“Introduction to Mastro-don Gesualdo by Giovanni Verga,”1927,339). | (“Introduction to Mastro-don Gesualdo by Giovanni Verga,”1927,339). | ||
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” (“Review of Death In Venice by Thomas Mann 1913,14), 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” (Gesualdo,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 | 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” (“Review of Death In Venice by Thomas Mann 1913,14), 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” (Gesualdo,332). {{sfn|Lawrence|1913|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 wooliness” (179). In “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” (179). {{sfn|Lawrence|1922-23|p=179}} In “The | ||
Novel” (1925) he maintains that War and Peace is marred by Tolstoy’s unpersuasive valorizing of “the fat fuzzy Pierre” (246), a character whom Lawrence regards as a “domestic sort of house-dog” (246). Such a caustic assessment is related to Lawrence’s belief that the portrait of Pierre denies the | Novel” (1925) he maintains that War and Peace is marred by Tolstoy’s unpersuasive valorizing of “the fat fuzzy Pierre” (246), a character whom Lawrence regards as a “domestic sort of house-dog” (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” (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” (246). | fundamental necessity of any character in fiction: Tolstoy “wasn’t true to his own character” (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” (246). {{sfn|Lawrence|1925|p=246}} | ||
Throughout the essays there are moments of luminous insight by | Throughout the essays there are moments of luminous insight by | ||
| Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
wistful, rather nice and helplessly commonplace little fellows who should | wistful, rather nice and helplessly commonplace little fellows who should | ||
be tucked away and left to sleep, like RipVan Winkle, till the rest of the storm | be tucked away and left to sleep, like RipVan Winkle, till the rest of the storm | ||
rolled by” (185). . In “Art and Morality” (1925) he warns of the developing alliance between technological advancements and the blandishments of the | rolled by” (185). {{sfn|Lawrence|1924|p=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, | 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” (223). Indeed, Lawrence perhaps becomes the first and mournful predictor of the epidemic of the iPhone: “Man has learned to | as he increasingly displays “the slowly formed habit of seeing just as the photographic camera sees” (223). Indeed, Lawrence perhaps becomes the first and mournful predictor of the epidemic of the iPhone: “Man has learned to | ||