Help me figure out this quote by DH Lawrence!

[spite519]

Hey guys, I'm new to this place but I'm hoping someone is willing to take a few moments to think about something that's been troubling me for some time now.

I'm into quotations and reading up on old litterature and what not and I happend to stumble upon this quote by DH Lawrence:

"There's always the hyena of morality at the garden gate, and the real wolf at the end of the street."

Now I can't really figure out the symbolism or meaning.. I take it "garden gate" is literally the porch to someone's home.. but that's really as far as I've got it.

An hyena is (from wiki): "Many cultures, including those in Africa, have historically viewed the hyena negatively, associating them with gluttony, uncleanliness and cowardice." And of course it's a scavenger.. not very intellectual but very "program", so to speak.

Now it's an "hyena of morality"... Lawrence lived a long time ago and morality at the time was probably synonymous with religious dogma meaning "morality" would follow you around like an hyena, not necessarily dangerous but definitely annoying and a nuisance..

Anyway the point is I'm stuck and I would very much like if someone could help me out? :)

[MarkBastable]

The hyena is a scavenger - not a killer, but a kind of second-hand predator. Wolves are actual killers.

So I'd say that DHL means that the morality that's most obvious, most immediate tends to be a second-hand, derivative morality - but that the real moral stuff, the stuff that'll take you down, is out there, not far away, beyond the immediately apparent.

Incidentally, I'm posting this in several places on the net - just so it's easy to find, should anyone want to check its provenance.

And, by the way, Lawrence didn't live that long ago - he was the product of the industrial Midlands of England, and not particularly hidebound by religious dogma. Though he was, to be honest, an uptight, humourless twit with an overdeveloped sense of his own something or other.


Hey guys, I'm new to this place but I'm hoping someone is willing to take a few moments to think about something that's been troubling me for some time now.

I'm into quotations and reading up on old litterature and what not and I happend to stumble upon this quote by DH Lawrence:

"There's always the hyena of morality at the garden gate, and the real wolf at the end of the street."

Now I can't really figure out the symbolism or meaning.. I take it "garden gate" is literally the porch to someone's home.. but that's really as far as I've got it.

An hyena is (from wiki): "Many cultures, including those in Africa, have historically viewed the hyena negatively, associating them with gluttony, uncleanliness and cowardice." And of course it's a scavenger.. not very intellectual but very "program", so to speak.

Now it's an "hyena of morality"... Lawrence lived a long time ago and morality at the time was probably synonymous with religious dogma meaning "morality" would follow you around like an hyena, not necessarily dangerous but definitely annoying and a nuisance..

Anyway the point is I'm stuck and I would very much like if someone could help me out? :)

[spite519]

Thanks for your quick response!

Let me see if I understand your point.. the obvious moral is just that of a lower-tier than what's to be found elsewhere? If you just look outside you can find a better way of life?

This isn't exactly a school assignment so I'm not too read up on DHL or his times, I got fascinated by the quote and asked around if anyone understood it. :)

[MarkBastable]

Thanks for your quick response!

Let me see if I understand your point.. the obvious moral is just that of a lower-tier than what's to be found elsewhere? If you just look outside you can find a better way of life?


I think he's talking about the way morals tear you to bits, rather than improve you. He didn't choose the hyena and the wolf because he thought they were plushy, wise and kinda Aslan with street-cred.

[Virgil]

I'm kind of stumped myself, and I know Lawrence fairly well. I certainly agree with MarkBastable on the hyena side of the sentence, but I really have no idea what the wolf part is alluding to. Lawrence was kind of two minds when it came to conventional morals. He certainly resented, even despised conventional morals when they were applied to him, but he held them himself when it came to others. I can't exactly tell what that wolf refers to.

Where is that quote from, by the way? I've never seen it before.

[Quark]

Now it's an "hyena of morality"... Lawrence lived a long time ago and morality at the time was probably synonymous with religious dogma meaning "morality" would follow you around like an hyena, not necessarily dangerous but definitely annoying and a nuisance..

Without its context, the line might read like that, but Lawrence was actually referring to the backlash he expected for eloping with another man's wife--something stronger than a nuisance probably. The quotation is from a letter Lawrence wrote in early 1913 that described his anxiety about the future:


I'm wondering what I shall do at Easter. We shall probably be coming to England. Frieda expects to see her children then. You might scan the divorce collumns and tell me if I ever appear as a Co-respondent. Weekly [the husband] talked of divorce, just before Christmas, but God knows how far he'll get with it. It would wear out the heart of a wheel-barrow trundle, as my father would say, this kind of business. Of course one mostly writes letters just when one is pippy. As a rule I'm very happy. There's always the hyena of morality at the garden gate, and the real wolf at the end of the street. But simple faith is more than Norman blood, we are told. The question is, how exactly am I going to manage.

Lawrence barely holds onto a cautious optimism in this paragraph. The coming fiasco clearly worries him, and his response is to universalize the experience and claim that everyone faces this challenge at every moment. It's a bit like if I were facing a terrifying surgical procedure, and I said "There's always the hyena of appendectomy at the garden gate." That might reassure me, since it would make going into the ER seem like any other day. Lawrence means to diminish doubts about his affair by calling them routine. The middle of the paragraph makes it sound almost cliche. Suddenly he gets folksy, and divorce proceedings "wear the heart out of a wheel-barrow trundle." Morality is a "hyena." He even expresses his hopes in terms of a oft-quoted line of Tennyson: "But simple faith is more than Norman blood, we are told." Everything here is designed to deflate anxiety. Instead of a uniquely challenging situation, Lawrence wants Macleod (the guy on the other end of this correspondence) to see this as so ordinary it's cliche.

That's the context. As for the content, it's a little too elliptical for me. We don't know what connection the street has the with garden. We don't know if the predators will ever get the speaker, or whether they're just menacing in the distance. We know what kind of hyena there is at the garden gate (one of mortality), but we don't know what the wolf is exactly. I think MarkBastable is right to point out that wolves are generally more dangerous than hyenas. That fits with how Lawrence uses the word "wolf" or "wolfish" in his fiction. Wolves in Women in Love, for example, embody power, aggression, and aloofness. Hyenas have all these qualities, but in less abundance. Hence, the wolf is the "real" Hyena--or the Hyena elevated to a higher level. That means the garden is under less attack than the street. Street and garden can be thought of as markers of public and private space. The sentence appears to be saying that our private lives--you know, the ones we commit adultery in--are secure, so long as we don't open the garden gate. Once we step out into public life, though, we lose our protection, and the hyena that we saw from our sheltered private life might actually be a wolf. Lawrence seems to be suggesting that we ignore the hyena. That is, we shouldn't let morality ruin our private lives. But, if we're to venture out into society, we should be aware that we might face real dangers. Hence, Lawrence decides to keep the hyena of morality from ruining his relationship with Frieda: "As a rule I'm very happy." But, at the same time, he questions how he to deal with the wolf in public life: "The question is, how exactly am I going to manage."

[Virgil]

Outstanding Quark! Did you google that or did you know that letter? Kudos!

[Quark]

Did you google that

Google Booked it, actually. They digitized thousands of titles, and made them searchable. It's almost as easy to find a phrase with Google's Book database, as it to find porn with their search engine. You can see the letter I was talking about here (don't ask me about the porn):

http://books.google.com/books?id=ONlvUwUnHzEC&pg=PA55&dq=%22wolf+at+the+end+of+the+street%22&cd=4#v=onepage&q=%22wolf%20at%20the%20end%20of%20the%20street%22&f=false

The box at the top allows you to search for different books, and the box on the far left lets you search within a book for a word or phrase. Eventually, the concordance will be a thing of the past. Everything will be online, AND GOOGLE WILL BURN THE LIBRARIES THAT STILL REMAIN. It'll be great.

Anyway, what do you think of the interpretation? Kudos to the research, but what of the reading? Lawrence didn't make this easy for the anonymous reader. I keep thinking he must be making some allusion. Is there a Bible passage talking about hyenas and wolves? I don't know.

[Virgil]

That is fabulous Quark. I didn't realize one could do that. Are all books in that data base? I will have to use that all the time.

As to your interpretation, it seems as good as any. Like you say, it's really eliptical, and I can't recall lawrence having any special associations with hyena or wolf.

Now as to your porn...:lol:

[Quark]

I didn't realize one could do that. Are all books in that data base?

No, not all, but most classics are there. As a resource, I give it an 8/10.

By the way, are they any reading groups on LitNet right now? I have a month until I have to go back to school, so I'd love to get in a discussion before then. I checked the Lawrence, Shakespeare, and Poe threads, but they were deserted. Maybe I'll start up a new one. I'm reading a lot of Thomas Hardy right now, and I know there are some Litnetters who enjoy his novels. I wouldn't mind reading The Woodlanders with someone.

[Virgil]

By the way, are they any reading groups on LitNet right now? I have a month until I have to go back to school, so I'd love to get in a discussion before then.

Yes. We are doing The Turn of the Screw by Henry James: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48788. For some reason i can see you enjoying that one.

We should consider a new Shakespeare play.

[Janine]

Hey, you guys - excellent work, especially your post, Quark! Wow, I am impressed. I think you nailed it. Virgil, now you can use this quote for your signature, since it involves a wolf! I think all this information and everyone's ideas will aid the original poster of the question. Welcome to the forum, Spite15. I, too, am a big Lawrence enthusiast and MarkBastable, I didn't appreciate your remark, I can't take that one lying down... because our beloved Lawrence was not a 'twit'. The man suffered from consumption all his life and lived only to be in his 40's, yet produced some of the most amazing work of any author in the 20th century and much of it, too. He was a genius; scholars today all agree on that point.

[Virgil]

And, by the way, Lawrence didn't live that long ago - he was the product of the industrial Midlands of England, and not particularly hidebound by religious dogma. Though he was, to be honest, an uptight, humourless twit with an overdeveloped sense of his own something or other.

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.

[Janine]

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.

Ditto!...exactly my own thoughts.....


Quark, I would be up for a reading/discussion of The Woodlanders. I love that novel.

[Quark]

Yes. We are doing The Turn of the Screw by Henry James: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48788. For some reason i can see you enjoying that one.

I'm actually not that big of a Henry James fan. I might say a thing or two in the thread, though. I think I'm going to hold off on starting a new discussion for a couple of weeks. In the meantime, I'll need something to do.


We should consider a new Shakespeare play.

We should.


I, too, am a big Lawrence enthusiast and MarkBastable, I didn't appreciate your remark

I missed that. Hidebound by religious dogma? I don't think you understand Lawrence at all.

Wow, some fierce reactions. I have to pile on, though. Lawrence did have a sense of humor, and he was pretty radical in his spiritual beliefs. Of course, one could call any early 20th century Englishman humorless and hidebound. They were a pretty uptight bunch.

Oh, and per usual, Janine wins for the most Christmas-y avatar. I shake my Grinch fist, though.

[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 (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=816922#post816922)", 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 (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=816922#post816922)", 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 (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=816922#post816922).

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. (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=817569#post817569)

Me: I said (and I quote) that he was "not particularly hidebound by religious dogma".... (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=818685#post818685)

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 (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=816922#post816922).

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. (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=817569#post817569)

Me: I said (and I quote) that he was "not particularly hidebound by religious dogma".... (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=818685#post818685)

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.

[mtpspur]

Well I started a story on the net about a church minister who hates his flock and his daughter's interest in a oyung man---The Prussian Officer or something like that. My main interest so far has been the complete lack of Chrisitan behavior on the cleryman's part--this was being while at work--sorry don;t have the title down better. Not rwally sure I'll finish it. Lawrence can write but so fare he hasn;t gripped me. And thank you Quark for your comment on Lewis to me. I have really only read Babbitt which I started--failed to 'get' it then tried again deliberately reading it with a satiric frame of reference and it WORKED.

[Virgil]

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.

Ok, let's make peace. :)

What exactly do you mean by hideboud, constrained? He was constrained by social convention. He ran off with someone's wife. I don't recall he having any argument or rebellion against any particular preacher or church. He had philosophic disagreements with Christianity. He was searching for a particular religion that would resonate with him, and he searched through most of his life. He went from his protestant roots to sympathy with Catholicism (though he never became a Catholic) to a paganism. He created his own religion in his novel The Plumed Serpent. I don't recall biographically he personally having a dispute with the church he grew up with. His mother was religious and he felt a certain guilt leaving her religion, but once she passed on he had no problem moving on and even when she was alive I don't recall he being a regular church goer. Janine knows his early biography better than I. Perhaps she knows the extent of his religious practice.

[prendrelemick]

Virgil: when an Englishman uses the phrase, "he wasn't exactly hidebound" It means he definetely wasn't, infact it is emphasising how much he wasn't, its how we speak over here, its that famous British ironic understatement . So you see, you are both in complete agreement on that point.

[MarkBastable]

Ok, let's make peace. :)

What exactly do you mean by hideboud, constrained? He was constrained by social convention. He ran off with someone's wife. I don't recall he having any argument or rebellion against any particular preacher or church. He had philosophic disagreements with Christianity. He was searching for a particular religion that would resonate with him, and he searched through most of his life. He went from his protestant roots to sympathy with Catholicism (though he never became a Catholic) to a paganism. He created his own religion in his novel The Plumed Serpent. I don't recall biographically he personally having a dispute with the church he grew up with. His mother was religious and he felt a certain guilt leaving her religion, but once she passed on he had no problem moving on and even when she was alive I don't recall he being a regular church goer. Janine knows his early biography better than I. Perhaps she knows the extent of his religious practice.

So - we agree then. He wasn't hidebound by religious dogma. Or, as I put it understatedly, he wasn't particularly hidebound by it. That's what I said and that's what you said, and now we've both said it five times. Neither of us at any point has said that he was hidebound by religious dogma. Not you. Not me. Is that your understanding? If so, we're good.

I do hope so.

[Virgil]

Virgil: when an Englishman uses the phrase, "he wasn't exactly hidebound" It means he definetely wasn't, infact it is emphasising how much he wasn't, its how we speak over here, its that famous British ironic understatement . So you see, you are both in complete agreement on that point.


So - we agree then. He wasn't hidebound by religious dogma. Or, as I put it understatedly, he wasn't particularly hidebound by it. That's what I said and that's what you said, and now we've both said it five times. Neither of us at any point has said that he was hidebound by religious dogma. Not you. Not me. Is that your understanding? If so, we're good.

I do hope so.

:lol: Ok, yes. I guess I'm just not that familiar with the term "hidebound" as Prend points it out.

[Quark]

Well I started a story on the net about a church minister who hates his flock and his daughter's interest in a oyung man---The Prussian Officer or something like that. My main interest so far has been the complete lack of Chrisitan behavior on the cleryman's part--this was being while at work--sorry don;t have the title down better. Not rwally sure I'll finish it. Lawrence can write but so fare he hasn;t gripped me.

I've never read that one, actually. When you're done with it, I'd be curious to know what you make of it.

[Janine]

I've never read that one, actually. When you're done with it, I'd be curious to know what you make of it.

The Prussian Officer is a great shorts story; it was one of the first ones we disgused in length in the D.H.Lawrence Short Story thread. I would recommend it but there are many more I like even better...Witch a la Mode is a good one.
I think the whole religious dogma question is too complicated to disguss lightly. If you know Lawrence well (and I don't profess to myself but only scratched the surface - I did however read many autobiographies and letter), then you know he thought of himself as a sort of Priest of love and he wasn't what I would call totally alien with church teachings or beliefs. If anything he felt the stories were more allegorical than actual. He still maintained an emotional tie to his religious belief but in a totally unconstructed and new form. He looked for this all his life; I don't believe he ever truly established it. His visits to the Etruscan tombs were one of his last studies of a very religious culture who believed in an afterlife. So, to me it is neigther here nor there that Lawrence was religious minded or not.

I only asked you MarkB about how many of the books/works you had actually read, to see if you got a good cross-section of what Lawrence is all about. Why did you read so many if you found the author so distasteful? I am just curious and that is more a direct personal question than one to start a contraversy. Many people read Lawrence and totally miss his points or misunderstand the author.

A general question I might ask most of you is: Why must Lawrence write humorously? I am just curious again concerning the humor issue. Not all authors write with humor or even with witty lines or phrases or satire. I can name a zillion who also write tragically or with no humor.

[MarkBastable]

I only asked you MarkB about how many of the books/works you had actually read, to see if you got a good cross-section of what Lawrence is all about. Why did you read so many if you found the author so distasteful?

The first time, I read so many because The Rainbow was part of my course work, and at the school I went to, you were required to read more than just the book on the syllabus. So I read all the Midlands books, a couple of other novels and a whole raft of poetry. (I also read all Shakespeare's comedies and tragedies, and all Hardy's Wessex novels in support of studying Midsummer Night's Dream and Tess of the D'Urbervilles. They didn't pussyfoot around at my school.) When I was older - in my thirties, I guess - I took another shot at Lawrence, just to see whether the years might have changed my appreciation of his work.


I am just curious and that is more a direct personal question than one to start a contraversy. Many people read Lawrence and totally miss his points or misunderstand the author.

And, honestly, many people read Lawrence and don't miss his points and don't misunderstand, but simply don't rate him as a writer. That is a tenable position.


A general question I might ask most of you is: Why must Lawrence write humorously? I am just curious again concerning the humor issue. Not all authors write with humor or even with witty lines or phrases or satire. I can name a zillion who also write tragically or with no humor.

Actually, my problem isn't that his authorial voice is devoid of wit. It's that no one he writes - none of his major characters - show any sense of humour.

I mean, in the real world, some people are very serious. Lots of people take themselves completely seriously. But no one in Lawrence's universe shows any sign of humour, any tendency to self-mockery, any spark of interpreting the world as absurd. It's a perspective that's missing from the experience of all DHL's characters.

And, for me, the absence of that perspective undermines the credibility of Lawrence's take on how human beings work. Because that colour is missing from his palette, I can't accept the shades in which he paints the world and the people in it.

So I'm not blithely saying that DHL is no good. I've thought about this, and - yeah - in the end that's an objective analysis of a subjective view, so you can say it's all down to personal taste. But I can justify my position, I think.

On the other hand, perhaps I shouldn't have expressed it in a DHL thread. That might have been a bit provocative. Apologies.

[baconmfr]

The hyena is an easy one, when you think of one of his most important influences: Friedrich Nietzsche. Hyena could be thought of as a priest or any moralist who tries to intrude on your personal freedom. The wolf is more difficult and I can see only four possible explanations . Looking at the whole letter he could be referring to what Morrissey called the 'black dog of depression' as Lawrence suffered frequently from depression. The second could be lawyers as, in the letter Lawrence talks about Frieda's impending divorce case. The third could be the state, given that at the time he was persecuted by the British state. The most probable explanation is that he is referring to 'money', alluding to the expression 'money keeps the wolf from the door'.