Abstract
This study interprets five fictional works by D. H. Lawrence through his fundamental notions about sexual identity and self-definition. In each essay my argument is based on an integrated analysis of Lawrence’s artistic technique and informing doctrine, with the underlying unity of his poetic intuition and philosophic thought always the prime concern. This organic methodology — an approach surely consistent with Lawrence’s claims as a visionary artist — also expresses two correlative preoccupations that are persistent sub-themes in my criticism: I am interested both in related patterns of feminist misreading of the fiction, and (in more secondary fashion) in several suggestive speculations by Norman Mailer on a recognizable dialectic of love, sex, and ego in Lawrence’s art. While my essays are arranged in the chronological order of Lawrence’s fiction, they are not offered as the interlocking links in a progressively developed thesis; rather, each essay functions as a contributing piece of evidence, employing similar methods of critical investigation and pointing towards a verdict that highlights the profundity of Lawrence’s achievement and the inadequacy of many recent commentaries by his most outspoken detractors.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Lawrence, ‘Why the Novel Matters’, in Edward D. McDonald (ed.), Phoenix: The Posthumous Papers of D. H. Lawrence (New York: Viking, 1972), 538.
J. Middleton Murry, D. H. Lawrence: Son of Woman (London: Jonathan Cape, 1954), 72. Hilary Simpson reaches the same point about Murry’s early ‘feminist’ evaluation of Lawrence, but she is scrupulously non-judgemental about Murry’s conclusions.
Hilary Simpson, D. H. Lawrence and Feminism (Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press; London: Croom Helm, 1982), 13.
Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1968; Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972), 223.
Kate Millett, Sexual Politics (Garden City: Doubleday, 1970; London: Virago, 1977), 257.
An unusual exception is the characteristically blunt Midge Decter, who speaks of Millett’s ‘specific assertions and points of attack’ as radiating ‘a vulgarity almost not to be credited in this age of mass higher education’. In a related long footnote Decter documents the extent of Millett’s faulty and manipulative appropriation of the Adam and Eve myth, in The New Chastity and Other Arguments Against Women’s Liberation (New York: Capricorn Books, 1974), 100.
Mary Ellmann, Thinking About Women (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1968), 16.
Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch (New York: McGraw-Hill; London: Paladin, 1971), 181, 182.
Carolyn G. Heilbrun, Towards a Recognition of Androgyny (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), 102.
Robert Scholes, Semiotics and Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), 140.
Anaïs Nin, D. H. Lawrence: An Unprofessional Study (Chicago: Swallow Press, 1964; London: Black Spring Press, 1985), 27.
Mark Spilka (ed.), D. H. Lawrence: A Collection of Critical Essays (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1963), 1.
Lydia Blanchard, ‘Love and Power: A Reconsideration of Sexual Politics in D. H. Lawrence’, in Modern Fiction Studies 21 (1975), 443.
Charles Rossman, ‘“You are the call and I am the answer”: D. H. Lawrence and Women’, in The D. H. Lawrence Review 8 (1975), 257.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1989 Peter Balbert
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Balbert, P. (1989). Introduction. In: D. H. Lawrence and the Phallic Imagination. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19889-4_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19889-4_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-19891-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-19889-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Literature & Performing Arts CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)