Help me figure out this quote by DH Lawrence!

[MarkBastable]

I missed that. Hidebound by religious dogma? I don't think you understand Lawrence at all. He broke with religious dogma every chance. That is absolutely incorrect. And he was definitely not humorless. People remarked at his sense of humor. He would have people laughing with his impersonations. No you don't know Lawrence at all.

I said (and I quote) that he was "not particularly hidebound by religious dogma", in response to the first poster's suggestion that he might have been. Please don't elide words in your haste to take umbrage.

As to the issue of his sense of humour, I was referring more to the work than the man. I've read all Dave's novels and most of his poetry (which, actually, I prefer to the prose). And it always has struck me as odd that this is a writer who considers his canvas to be the full panoply of human experience and his palette the boundless spectrum of emotion, and yet there's not a healthy laugh, a tickled chuckle or even a wry grin in the entire po-faced oeuvre.

[prendrelemick]

Once again, I come late to a thread and make a specious comment.

I reckon the key is the word "real" as in "real wolves". the Hyenas refer to local tittle-tattle, yipping and yapping at his gate. They aren't the real wolves, the real wolves are silently waiting to bring him down.

Who are they? that old intolerent pack circleing in the background (or at least at the end of the street) "The Establishment"

[Quark]

I said (and I quote) that he was "not particularly hidebound by religious dogma", in response to the first poster's suggestion that he might have been. Please don't elide words in your haste to take umbrage.

As to the issue of his sense of humour, I was referring more to the work than the man. I've read all Dave's novels and most of his poetry (which, actually, I prefer to the prose). And it always has struck me as odd that this is a writer who considers his canvas to be the full panoply of human experience and his palette the boundless spectrum of emotion, and yet there's not a healthy laugh, a tickled chuckle or even a wry grin in the entire po-faced oeuvre.

No, you're right. The main point your were trying to make was good. You were correcting spite504's initial characterization of Lawrence as dogma-oppressed. Spite made it sound a bit like Lawrence was a seventeenth-century dissenter fighting against restrictive church orthodoxy. You're right to point out that Lawrence didn't live that long ago, and was not so concerned with the current dogma--if there was such a thing.

I think what people responded so aggressively to, though, was the rather glib appraisal of Lawrence you offered at the end of your post:

Though he was, to be honest, an uptight, humourless twit with an overdeveloped sense of his own something or other.

Maybe you were trying to refer to the narrative voice or the implied author of his novels, but it sounds like you're talking about Lawrence himself.

I reckon the key is the word "real" as in "real wolves". the Hyenas refer to local tittle-tattle, yipping and yapping at his gate. They aren't the real wolves, the real wolves are silently waiting to bring him down.

Who are they? that old intolerent pack circleing in the background (or at least at the end of the street) "The Establishment"

I gave a slightly different reading, but I think this works, too. I might find a better phrase than "The Establishment" to describe the wolves, though, as it makes Lawrence sound a little paranoid--like the system is out to get him.

[MarkBastable]

Maybe you were trying to refer to the narrative voice or the implied author of his novels, but it sounds like you're talking about Lawrence himself.

Yeah, I can see the confusion. But I think when we speak of authors, we're usually talking about the work really, rather than the person.

So - for the avoidance of doubt - I was talking about Lawrence the author of the books, not about Lawrence the regular at the Three Tuns who'd have everyone in stitches over a couple of pints with his hilarious and uncanny take-off of Mr Lloyd George.

[Virgil]

Ok, but I still find humor in Lawrence's writing. It's not knock out humor, but it's there, subtly.

[MarkBastable]

Ok, but I still find humor in Lawrence's writing. It's not knock out humor, but it's there, subtly.

No, you don't know Lawrence at all.

Thanks for apologising for having a shot about something I never said, by the way.

[Virgil]

I didn't apoligise for anything. I said there is plenty of humor in Lawrence. It's subtly there. You obviously miss it.

[MarkBastable]

Oh, Virgil. Pay attention.

Me: Lawrence was not particularly hidebound by religious dogma.

You: Hidebound by religious dogma? I don't think you understand Lawrence at all. He broke with religious dogma every chance. That is absolutely incorrect. ...No, you don't know Lawrence at all.

Me: I said (and I quote) that he was "not particularly hidebound by religious dogma"....

You: Oh, sorry. I misread what you said. My mistake.



If you check the links you will find that this is verbatim - except the last line, which I was forced to invent.

[mtpspur]

This has been interesting. I have never read Lawrence and beginning to see that just maybe I might be missing something here. Litnet seems ot have a lot of him here so I'll see for myself if he's as funny as Sinclair Lewis or not. Anythings that has high value for Virgil AND gets a fight going is worth a look. By the way I took the hyena/wolf thing as a metaphor for what "religious" people get excited over vs. "real" problems. Simply stated of course. I have my own ideas about what God really considers important as opposed ot what I think is a got to/have to.

[Quark]

Litnet seems ot have a lot of him here so I'll see for myself if he's as funny as Sinclair Lewis or not.

Lawrence doesn't joke as much as Lewis does, but his humor is of that same dark variety. The opening from his "Wintry Peacock" is a good example. A wife is showing a visitor a love letter that her husband just received from another woman. The letter reveals more than just an illicit relationship. Apparently, the letter says that the woman just had a child, and has named it Alfread in honor of man she's having an affair with. The wife says of the discovered letter: "It's a love-letter, I know that ... There's too many 'Alfreds' in it." The visitor responds wryly: "One too many."

A funny line, but it's a little dark.

[Virgil]

Oh, Virgil. Pay attention.

Me: Lawrence was not particularly hidebound by religious dogma.

You: Hidebound by religious dogma? I don't think you understand Lawrence at all. He broke with religious dogma every chance. That is absolutely incorrect. ...No, you don't know Lawrence at all.

Me: I said (and I quote) that he was "not particularly hidebound by religious dogma"....

You: Oh, sorry. I misread what you said. My mistake.



If you check the links you will find that this is verbatim - except the last line, which I was forced to invent.

You can invent whatever you like me to say. It doesn't mean I said it. That was not in reference to Lawrence having humor. I do not apologise for that. I really don't care what you think. I maintain you don't understand Lawrence. I stand by it.

[Janine]

OK, no fighting in the L thread...seems L brings out the worst in people. I have a simple question for MarkBastable....how many of Lawrence's books have you actually read?

[MarkBastable]

OK, no fighting in the L thread...seems L brings out the worst in people. I have a simple question for MarkBastable....how many of Lawrence's books have you actually read?

Many. But why ask that question? The implication is that anyone who's read Lawrence's novels must like them. I have and I don't.

Had I not read them, I'd have no reason to say I didn't like them, would I?

[MarkBastable]

I maintain you don't understand Lawrence. I stand by it.

I understand , and of course I've no problem with you thinking that, which I know is your sincere interpretation of my expressed disaffection with the work of DHL.

But do you also maintain that I said he was hidebound by religious dogma? That's what's irking me, because I said he wasn't hidebound by religious dogma.

[prendrelemick]

I certainly don't claim to understand Lawrence, but Mark has a point about the lack of humour in his books, his main theme seems to be, Relationships = Misery, and the taste of ashes is never far from his characters' mouths.