Individualism and Paradox in the Works of D. H. Lawrence :: Biography Biographies Essays

Individualism and Paradox in the Works of D. H. Lawrence When you read roundthing by D. H. Lawrence, you very much end up wondering the same thing does he hate people? Lawrence has a profound interest in us human beings, yet its the fascination of a child picking at a scab that drives him, rather than a kind of scientific or spiritual quest for some mythical social truth. Some of Lawrences works--Insouciance, for example--question mankinds tendencies outright what good is served by a world of white-haired ladies wasting time caring and sounding intelligent and courteous and talking about pretentious, bourgeois issues?(2) But this work is blatant in its negative descriptions of people and their behavior in society. At one point in Insouciance, the narrator--Lawrence--comes right out and pontificates for several paragraphs on the defects of modern society. But for me, it is the more subtle pieces that hold greatest power. When Lawrence hints, insinuates, or implies his views, h e is, in a way, let us discover the kernel of truth, however upsetting or controversial. This process, utilized in Mercury, is of far greater interest than the almost direct missive from Lawrence apply in Insouciance, that flatly states his view of what living unfeignedly is. For not only must we discover the meaning we must also decide whether our interpretation is really Lawrences intent--perhaps we have confused some inadvertent seepage of Lawrences personnel venom with his intended meaning. It is a risk we will have to take as we tumble works such as Mercury. Instead of condemning society in Mercury, Lawrence actually tries to leave it, ascending to the top of the Merkur, where he has a brisk vantage point on the world. He develops some of the same ideas as in Insouciance, but at the end of the work, Lawrence redeems society, or at least apologizes for it, adding refreshed fire to our question. By the end we cannot, with certainty, tell whether Lawrence hates people or not- -and this reflects a sort of internal struggle for Lawrence. One could lessen the scope and dilute the wideness of this topic by suggesting that the Sunday people Lawrence criticizes are not humanity as a whole but rather a specific group--perhaps the vacationing, upper-middle correct Schlegels, perhaps the aspiring, pseudo-intellectual Leonard Basts of the lower middle class, who think culture lies in a misunderstood walk through the woods.