D.H. Lawrence's Short Stories Thread

[Virgil]

Virgil, were there two brothers or three? I thought there were 4 siblings. Isn't the other mentioned? I forget now.

Yes, there is also Malcolm, but he's not developed very much. Only reason I can guess for Lawrence to add him is to have a ganging up of three boys to one girl. Lawrence usually works in duelistic polarities. I would have expected two brothers but here he adds a third with minimal characterization.

Well, ok Joe is more contolled then and Fred Henry is a controlling type. Now as to regarding life prior to this crisis of selling their home and the horses, etc. do you think this indicated that the older brother, Joe, was controlled by the younger brother, Fred Henry. Coming from a family of 3 siblings myself I know all too well how different personalities are. Still I am not sure how significant this is to the story. I did not see as much meaning in it as you do.

What I wanted to say was that Lawrence has created another polarity, the consciousness of society (the brothers, with their diversity) and the negation of it by Mabel and the transfiguration into her new consciousness after the drowning experience.

Perhaps it indicates that Fred tried to dominate Mabel. What do you think? Also, the boys may gang up on her and make both dominate her or bully her. The way they spoke to her was not exactly sensitive or kind. Isn't it setting it up that Mabel does not have much choice in her life to come? She is being put out by her brothers - neither of them seem to want her with them, which would make her loneliness even more pronounced.

They definietely do. Funny all I could think as I read that was how Lawrence intentionally or not drove the feminists crazy. He builds this social prison for Mabel, and one would expect that she would break free, and she does, but to another man.

What does he mean when he says:
'Go as a skivvy,' Joe interpolated laconically.
What is a skivvy?

I thought it meant slave in British slang, but this is what i found from a slang dictionary:

A dictionary of slang - "S" - Slang and colloquialisms of the UK.
...skivvies Noun. Underwear, particularly with reference to pants. [Orig. US] skivvy Noun. A servant for menial tasks. Derog. {Informal} skoosh * Noun. 1. A squirt of cream from an aerosol. 2. Something very easy. E.g."That...

http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q...&sp-m=1&sp-s=0
Don't know how that fits.

Then there is this:

skive Noun. An evasion of one's tasks, a period of shirking.
Verb. To evade doing one's work or duties, to truant. E.g."Every Friday afternoon you can guarantee he'll be skiving and getting drunk down the pub."
skive off Verb. Meaning the same as 'skive' (verb).
skiver Noun. A shirker, one who evades doing their work or duties.

http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/s.htm

Doesn't fit either.

[Janine]

Yes, there is also Malcolm, but he's not developed very much. Only reason I can guess for Lawrence to add him is to have a ganging up of three boys to one girl. Lawrence usually works in duelistic polarities. I would have expected two brothers but here he adds a third with minimal characterization.

Ok that makes sense. But I thought there was a third brother. He does not play into the equation of ganging up on Mabel or putting pressure on her.

What I wanted to say was that Lawrence has created another polarity, the consciousness of society (the brothers, with their diversity) and the negation of it by Mabel and the transfiguration into her new consciousness after the drowning experience.

That sound good and true.

They definietely do. Funny all I could think as I read that was how Lawrence intentionally or not drove the feminists crazy. He builds this social prison for Mabel, and one would expect that she would break free, and she does, but to another man.

Yes, how true is that - he sets her up in a social prison to end the story with her trapped with a man, because realistically who knows how that will turn out after the end of the story. She could end up more miserable. It does not seem as though the two of them know each other very well to commit to marriage. I think back to that time and how few choices women had - they did get the rough end of things. For the feminists to read it today they would crucify L for his ideas. Good observation.

I thought it meant slave in British slang, but this is what i found from a slang dictionary:
http://search.atomz.com/search/?sp-q...&sp-m=1&sp-s=0
Don't know how that fits.

Then there is this:

http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/s.htm

Doesn't fit either.

No, it does make perfect sense. I was thinking he was referring to a maid - so the second definition as noun would work "A servant for menial tasks."

Earlier I went to the Lawrence area of this site and I was researching the short stories and links to commentary. Mostly it sends you to enotes which you have to pay for the entire article but I did pick up some stuff there and pasted it in a file. Here is the link to one article about L's short stories in general.
http://www.enotes.com/short-story-cr...m/lawrence-d-h

It is pretty interesting - breaks them up into groups which I like.

Here is part of an enotes article also; it might give you some ideas although it cuts off due to the excerpt being free - you pay for the site unfortunately.

Jeffrey Meyers (essay date summer 1989)
SOURCE: Meyers, Jeffrey. “D. H. Lawrence and Tradition: ‘The Horse Dealer's Daughter’.” Studies in Short Fiction 26, no. 3 (summer 1989): 346-51.
[In the following essay, Meyers finds allusions to mythology, literature, and Lawrence's earlier work in “The Horse Dealer's Daughter.”]
“The Horse Dealer's Daughter” (1922) has often been read as a story of resurrection,1 though this does not fully account for its extraordinary mystery and power. Previous critics have not noticed that in this tale Lawrence combines both classical and Christian resurrection myths, draws on literary allusions and transforms analogues in nineteenth-century fiction to express his characteristic themes: revelation of truth through nakedness and touch, release of primitive emotions through ritual and ceremony, self-discovery and return to life through regenerative love. These techniques and themes...

[Virgil]

Janine could you post a link to the Jeffrey Meyers site. Actually I remember that book from when I was working on my thesis. But strange first sentence:

“The Horse Dealer's Daughter” (1922) has often been read as a story of resurrection,1 though this does not fully account for its extraordinary mystery and power.

You mean that resurrection is rather ordinary and does not have mystery and power?

[Janine]

Virgil, it is on this site, Lit Net, in the Lawrence section. I had to probe around to find it; not sure I can find it again. It is off to the right, but not on every page and I lost it once and then found it again - there are links to other sites - mostly enotes sites. This writing is only a small exerpt from the article - to see the whole article on the enotes site you have to join it for about $18.00 a month - forget it. That is interesting that you had the same book by that author for your thesis. I am not familiar with him. Maybe I can find the book on Amazon. I will try to probe back and get the link to that page. I just came on here.

Last night I watched Ken Russell's film version of "Women in Love", stars Alan Bates, Oliver Reed, Glenda Jackson, Jennie Linden. It is strange seeing it again after all my recent readings, but it was extremely helpful. It helped me get into the right frame of mind ( the L frame of mind perhaps). This film really epitomizes Lawrence and his beliefs and ideas, and his question on life and how we should live it. I appreciated the film more than ever. Did you ever see it? It is excellent. I first saw it in Philadelphia years ago at TLM which was on South Street and ran artsy films. I loved it right away. I had just read "Women in Love".

The person I was thinking of was Alan Chambers - he was Jesse's brother and Lawrence was inspired by him to develop the character of George in "The White Peacock". I sure wish you had read that book, since it would give you more early insight into L's early thinking and the foundations of his ideas and thoughts about life and living. George was a farmer and loved it and then forced off the farm by the fact it would be sold. This greatly impacted L, who went there frequently, as it became a second home to him. He even wrote later that the happinest times of his life were spent at Haggs farm with the Chamber's family. Now oddly enough in White Peacock, George settles and marries a woman who runs a pub and he is trapped like so many of L's characters, especially the way he seemed to see men...trapped by woman's "love". Anyway, George later goes into a horse-dealing business, I think with his father-in-law or it might have been her brother...not sure of the exacts. I just thought the parrellels interesting, aren't they? Lawrence revered, almost religiously, the beauty of George (Alan Chambers) and his love of farming. Later when George marries L, as observer in the book, is quite against his having 'given in' to that mere survival and way of life. Just telling you this to show you how he would have felt about the union of the two at the end of the "Horse-Dealer's Daughter". Would that union ultimately be a happy one? Personally I do doubt it, but of course we are not yet to that part of the story to discuss the outcome. Sorry if I jumped ahead.


I just went looking on the site for the link, but cannot find it today. They seem to change those little ads all the time. I see where they have in the main Lawrence subforums the complete book of "England, My England" which comprises 10 of the short stories. I have that book here, too. These stories of course are in the Complete Short Story set. It might be good to pick from this list next time, so if anyone wants to join in they will have access to the texts; of course doubtful - but hey, isn't anyone interested in our genius Lawrence???

I realised I did not answer you question about the two statements in the quote. I am not sure, after reading the entire quote, that he is contradicting himself entirely. It is a litte confusing but I think he means the story is more mysterious and powerful than to simply boil it down to say it is a story of resurrection or transformation/transfiguration. He thinks Lawrence has done more than that apparently. I do too. Now when he sites the ideas of Christianity does he mean a parrellel in the dunking under the water of say, baptism? or cleansing? This is just one aspect of the idea of ritual, but that thought came to me when I read it.

[Virgil]

Virgil, it is on this site, Lit Net, in the Lawrence section. I had to probe around to find it; not sure I can find it again. It is off to the right, but not on every page and I lost it once and then found it again - there are links to other sites - mostly enotes sites. This writing is only a small exerpt from the article - to see the whole article on the enotes site you have to join it for about $18.00 a month - forget it. That is interesting that you had the same book by that author for your thesis. I am not familiar with him. Maybe I can find the book on Amazon. I will try to probe back and get the link to that page. I just came on here.

Jeffrey Meyers is probably the leading Lawrentian scholar today.

Last night I watched Ken Russell's film version of "Women in Love", stars Alan Bates, Oliver Reed, Glenda Jackson, Jennie Linden. It is strange seeing it again after all my recent readings, but it was extremely helpful. It helped me get into the right frame of mind ( the L frame of mind perhaps). This film really epitomizes Lawrence and his beliefs and ideas, and his question on life and how we should live it. I appreciated the film more than ever. Did you ever see it? It is excellent. I first saw it in Philadelphia years ago at TLM which was on South Street and ran artsy films. I loved it right away. I had just read "Women in Love".

No I never have. Was it good as a movie besides it being based on a Lawrence novel?

The person I was thinking of was Alan Chambers - he was Jesse's brother and Lawrence was inspired by him to develop the character of George in "The White Peacock". I sure wish you had read that book, since it would give you more early insight into L's early thinking and the foundations of his ideas and thoughts about life and living. George was a farmer and loved it and then forced off the farm by the fact it would be sold. This greatly impacted L, who went there frequently, as it became a second home to him. He even wrote later that the happinest times of his life were spent at Haggs farm with the Chamber's family. Now oddly enough in White Peacock, George settles and marries a woman who runs a pub and he is trapped like so many of L's characters, especially the way he seemed to see men...trapped by woman's "love". Anyway, George later goes into a horse-dealing business, I think with his father-in-law or it might have been her brother...not sure of the exacts. I just thought the parrellels interesting, aren't they? Lawrence revered, almost religiously, the beauty of George (Alan Chambers) and his love of farming. Later when George marries L, as observer in the book, is quite against his having 'given in' to that mere survival and way of life. Just telling you this to show you how he would have felt about the union of the two at the end of the "Horse-Dealer's Daughter". Would that union ultimately be a happy one? Personally I do doubt it, but of course we are not yet to that part of the story to discuss the outcome. Sorry if I jumped ahead.

Oh I wish I had. Sounds more like a Hardy story than a Lawrentian.

but hey, isn't anyone interested in our genius Lawrence???

They don't know what they're missing.

I realised I did not answer you question about the two statements in the quote. I am not sure, after reading the entire quote, that he is contradicting himself entirely. It is a litte confusing but I think he means the story is more mysterious and powerful than to simply boil it down to say it is a story of resurrection or transformation/transfiguration. He thinks Lawrence has done more than that apparently. I do too.

I guess i got it too, but he could have said it better.

Now when he sites the ideas of Christianity does he mean a parrellel in the dunking under the water of say, baptism? or cleansing? This is just one aspect of the idea of ritual, but that thought came to me when I read it

Perhaps, or just Christ resurrected. But babtism fits in nicely.

[Janine]

Jeffrey Meyers is probably the leading Lawrentian scholar today.

Oh, good to know. Then surely I can find a book of his on Amazon on Lawrence criticism. What do you think?

No I never have. Was it good as a movie besides it being based on a Lawrence novel?

I think it was an excellent movie. Go to Amazon and see what people wrote. There is about 6 good reviews there. Don't take my word alone for it. The Amazon reviewers can say it better than me. I checked out Amazon after watching it last night. I remember seeing the film for the first time on South Street in Philadelphia at the little art theater, the TLA, years ago. It blew me away. I think I had just read "Women in Love". The film has a lot of impact and gives you much to think about. Some of the scenes stay with you forever, like the drowned young couple in the pond, after the water is drained. You have read the book, right? I think this film really epitomises L's ideas. Some people on Amazon said that Ken Russell also did "The Rainbow" but it is not half as good as this film. Alan Bates is amazing in this film. He and Oliver Reed really wrestle (vigorously) nude in the lamplight - quite a scene. Artistically I think it is really beautiful. I don't know if you wife would like the film though; has she ever read L? The mainstream public would probably not like it, they would probably think it weird, but if you like L you will because your understanding is much broader. I have the film if you would like to borrow it. I could mail it to you and then you could mail back...no problem.

Oh I wish I had. Sounds more like a Hardy story than a Lawrentian.

Well, the White Peacock is something more like Hardy, very pastoral, and yet the Lawrence stuff starts to come out. Probably he fashioned it after being influenced by Hardy's work - actually I read that to be true in the forward of the book. It is not an immature book and yet it is not fully developed, either. Some passages are stunningly beautiful in their prose - they are poetic. The book goes off track a lot and is massively wordy at times, but there is an early charm there I can't describe to you. It might just be that I am interested in L's early years and what shaped him. The book, after being published, actually was a success. It is just that the more developed and better known books he later produced outshine it completely. I just like going back to the core of things and seeing for myself.

They don't know what they're missing.

They sure don't. Why doesn't the youth read any L?

I guess i got it too, but he could have said it better.

It was a little confusing, plus we don't have the entire article and text to go by. That is a big drawback. But it did get me thinking anyway - you know in that direction.

Perhaps, or just Christ resurrected. But babtism fits in nicely.

I don't know - I do not see that analogy. Can you explain. Maybe I missed words that indicated that thinking or connection.

[Virgil]

Oh, good to know. Then surely I can find a book of his on Amazon on Lawrence criticism. What do you think?

Oh yes, he's there.

I don't know if you wife would like it though - has she ever read L?

I don't know if she has. I doubt it.

The mainstream public would probably not like it, they would probably think it weird, but if you like L you will because your understanding is much broader. I have the film if you would like to borrow it. I could mail it to you and then you could mail back...no problem.

I'll take you up on that. Yes I wouldn't mind borrowing it. Is it a DVD? My Tape player is broken and I don't intned to get another.

Oh, I meant to ask you. We are considering joining Netflicks. Are you a member? Is it worth it?

They sure don't. Why doesn't the youth read any L?

You know Lawrence will be one of the monthly book reads sometime this year. Don't know which book will get selected. I would like to read Women In Love, but I think that its too hard for many of the members who have not been exposed to Lawrence.

I don't know - I do not see that analogy. Can you explain. Maybe I missed words that indicated that thinking or connection

Explain how it relates to Christ? Only superficially in that she rises from the dead.

[Janine]

Oh yes, he's there.

I don't know if she has. I doubt it.

Oh good. I am going to look to buy one of his books, if it is not too expensive. I hope he has one on the short stories on Amazon.

I'll take you up on that. Yes I wouldn't mind borrowing it. Is it a DVD? My Tape player is broken and I don't intned to get another.

Oh, sorry about your tape player. Now I can't live without a tape player, too. I still like my tapes and sometimes, unfortunately, I can't get a rare British film unless it is on a tape. I bought one really cheap. They are cheap now. Yes, actually "Women in Love" is a DVD and it is Region 1 - it is hard to find this film on Region 1 - our region. It is a British film. It is ashame I had two of them - long story - and I gave one to a friend two years ago and I don't think she watched it yet. Her father was a huge Lawrence fan and read everything concerned with his work and left tons of handwritten notes. He left it all to her along with a huge book collection. She has read some L, but not as much as I have. I keep asking her if she watched the film and she did not. I would rather have given it to you...oh well. I can easily mail you mine. I have tons of padded mailing envelopes. I will PM you about it.

Oh, I meant to ask you. We are considering joining Netflicks. Are you a member? Is it worth it?

My son belonged to Netflicks and loved it. They mail it right to your door and you can get as many as you can watch in a month, well one at a time that is. They are suppose to have a big selection. He let me see a couple of his rented films and I mailed them off. It was quite easy. I think it is a good deal.

You know Lawrence will be one of the monthly book reads sometime this year. Don't know which book will get selected. I would like to read Women In Love, but I think that its too hard for many of the members who have not been exposed to Lawrence.

Great! All day today I was just thinking how I would love to read "Women in Love" again. Actually that has always been my favorite book of L's. I only read it once, years ago. I think the common language ('heart language', as Lawrence called it, ex:father's type speech) in "Sons and Lovers" would be very hard to read for those who don't speak English, as their native tongue. I think "The Rainbow" would be too long and drawn out for them. I was even confused reading "The Rainbow" at times. If I vote it will be for "Women in Love". They are not ready for "Lady Chatterly's Lover" either. It won't be easy - I don't think youth have enough experience in life to appreciate Lawrence yet.

Explain how it relates to Christ? Only superficially in that she rises from the dead.

Oh - ok, I understand.

Do you want to discuss any more about the brothers? What significance do you think they play in the story? Shall we soon go onto Mabel herself?

[Quark]

Is Women in Love more like Sons and Lovers or more like The Rainbow? I saw Women in Love in a used bookstore and weighed my appreciation for Sons and Lovers against my dislike for The Rainbow. Sons and Lovers was a great read filled with feeling and complexity, but The Rainbow exhausted me with its deep introspection into the psychologies of characters who I didn't care about. I couldn't decide whether to buy it or not, because I wasn't sure which D.H. Lawrence I would get: the L who is a master of subtle characterization or the overly abstract L. Which can I expect?

[Janine]

Is Women in Love more like Sons and Lovers or more like The Rainbow? I saw Women in Love in a used bookstore and weighed my appreciation for Sons and Lovers against my dislike for The Rainbow. Sons and Lovers was a great read filled with feeling and complexity, but The Rainbow exhausted me with its deep introspection into the psychologies of characters who I didn't care about. I couldn't decide whether to buy it or not, because I wasn't sure which D.H. Lawrence I would get: the L who is a master of subtle characterization or the overly abstract L. Which can I expect?

Hi Quark,
Personally, I preferred "Women in Love" and I feel it closer to "Sons and Lovers" in writing style. It is the story of 4 people and their relationships, which of course are complex. Also, the four main characters all have much different views on what a relationship should be or should not be, which is a key part of the book. I read both books you mentioned, but I got quite lost in "The Rainbow". It gets wordy at times, which is a fault of Lawrence's, so some critics say. I found the book long and hard to tackle. "Women in Love" kept my attention when I read it. It had a definite plot and yet it explored Lawrence's ideas and theories on love and life and sensuality. It went one step further in contrasting the classes; there is a distinct division between the working class and the coal miners, and the upper classes who own the coal minds and run them, in this book. This element is a key factor in the book, as well. But the big emphasis is on the characters and the relationships in this novel. I think it is a fine novel with a good amount of plot and interesting characters. I like the film adaptation very much so, as you may have read in my previous post.
You must understand that "Sons and Lovers" is an early book of L's and more pastoral. Also it is autobiographical and encompasses his youth. Later work became more developed and so did his books with his unique ideas in them. If you object to his ideas you may not like his novels past "Sons and Lovers". I would try reading "Women in Love", since you found it at a used bookstore and probably won't have to pay highly for it. It really has always been my favorite Lawrence novel, but it is not mainstream writing. Lawrence had a keen sense of the physcology of human beings and his writing is something quite unusual and unique.
I hope that Virgil can add to this in some way. Hope what I said helped you decide.

[Schokokeks]

Schokokeks, I hope you are going to join our Lawrence thread. That would be so great. The stories are short and interesting - lots to discuss there.

Sadly, I don't know half as much about DH Lawrence as you and Virgil (in fact, the only thing I know is that he lived at the beginning of the 20th century, was British and wrote a novel called Sons and Lovers. That's about it . I'd love to join, especially being offered such excellent company as you and Virgil, but I don't think I could find the time. But I'm looking forward to reading Ethan Frome with the Book Club .

Schokokeks, you and Virgil flatter me way too much.

Nay, we don't flatter you nor do I mean to. It's holding up a mirror for you to see yourself I find you are a very eloquent and knowledgeable lady .

S, I just stumbled on this in your profile - favorite book - A Prayer for Owen Meany - John Irving I have this book and want to read it. I got it free at my library. I saw the film it was based on "Simon Birch" and I loved it. Did you see it by any chance?

No, I haven't seen it yet (I'm quite illiterate concerning movies ).
Oh, do read the book, it is so wonderful . One could attack its subject-matter for being, even within the realm of fiction, too far-fetched, but I found both the style and the story fantastically heart-warming, and the characters stay with you long after you've finished the book.
In general, I'm a huge fan of Irving's older novels, but Owen Meany is quite his peak .

Oh, I read somewhere you've been ill and hope you are feeling better by now, Janine.

[Virgil]

Sadly, I don't know half as much about DH Lawrence as you and Virgil (in fact, the only thing I know is that he lived at the beginning of the 20th century, was British and wrote a novel called Sons and Lovers. That's about it . I'd love to join, especially being offered such excellent company as you and Virgil, but I don't think I could find the time. But I'm looking forward to reading Ethan Frome with the Book Club .

You don't have to join, the conversation, Schoky. If you want to get a feel for Lawrence's writing, check out the short story we are currently discussing, "The Horse Dealer's Daughter." It's only about 15 pages long and it's here on lit net under Lawrence's England, My England stories. And then you can read back this thread to see what we say about it. The story is no more than an hour read.

Also Lawrence was selected as one of the monthly book forum writers to read. I don't know which month he's up, but we will get to read him then. Perhaps you can join that one. Lawrence has been ranked up with Joyce as the great writers in English of the 20th century. Sadly he has fallen out of favor with today's critics mostly because he was anti-feminist and pretty much feminists rule the lit departments these days. But his writing is superb; I can't think of a more gifted prose writer. And his poetry is not bad either.

[Virgil]

Is Women in Love more like Sons and Lovers or more like The Rainbow? I saw Women in Love in a used bookstore and weighed my appreciation for Sons and Lovers against my dislike for The Rainbow. Sons and Lovers was a great read filled with feeling and complexity, but The Rainbow exhausted me with its deep introspection into the psychologies of characters who I didn't care about. I couldn't decide whether to buy it or not, because I wasn't sure which D.H. Lawrence I would get: the L who is a master of subtle characterization or the overly abstract L. Which can I expect?

I don't know if Women In Love is like either. It seems to have it's own personality. Unlike you and Janine, I prefer The Rainbow. To me that is one of the truely great novels of english literature. I found Women In Love a little tedious and long. I had to read it for an english lit class and I'm not a fast reader. But it is a good novel. Actually we had to read The rainbow and Women In Love back to back. They are both about 500 page novels and I must have gotten exhausted by the middle of Women In Love. I think most people do prefer Women In Love. I should re-read it.

Actually all four of Lawrence's major novels: Sons And Lovers, The Rainbow, Women In Love, and Lady Chatterly's lover are different and have their own personality. And don't forget his short stories. They are among the best.

[Schokokeks]

You don't have to join, the conversation, Schoky. If you want to get a feel for Lawrence's writing, check out the short story we are currently discussing, "The Horse Dealer's Daughter." It's only about 15 pages long and it's here on lit net under Lawrence's England, My England stories. And then you can read back this thread to see what we say about it. The story is no more than an hour read.

Thanks for the suggestion, I shall look into it once I find a quiet hour.
I'm looking forward to discussing a longer Lawrence read with the Book Club . Two of his works, Sons and Lovers and Women in Love, feature in my department's reading list.

Sadly he has fallen out of favor with today's critics mostly because he was anti-feminist and pretty much feminists rule the lit departments these days.

It's the same here at my university, but I've experienced that they do include writers who didn't express themselves in favour of women in order to demolish and denounce them, much to the amusement of the students .

[Virgil]

It's the same here at my university, but I've experienced that they do include writers who didn't express themselves in favour of women in order to demolish and denounce them, much to the amusement of the students .

I had a teacher in grad class on modern english novel who had to reluctantly teach a Lawrence novel (you can't not include him, he's that important) but she made it clear that she did not like him. Plus I did my term paper on Lawrence's The Rainbow and I think I wound up with a lower grade than I should have. Now she was a radical for sure.

I did my master's thesis on Lawrence and my thesis advisor also a woman and while I did know her outlook per say she must have been sympathetic to feminism at the least (hey, I'm sympathetic to feminism when it's not radical) but she understood Lawrence and accepted his writing for who he was. She thought my thesis was very good.

Now there you have two teaching approaches. Lawrence is a great writer, whether you agree with him or not. I don't agree with him on many things, probably more disagree than agree. He's got some kooky notions. So do lots of other writers. Yeats has some kooky notions. Unless they are advocating killing people you judge their art, not their thoughts. Do we judge Shakespeare because he may believe in divine right of kings? That today would be a kooky idea.