D. H. Lawrence (Magill's Literary Annual 1991-2005)
Many will approach John Worthen’s massive study of D. H. Lawrence’s early life believing that they already know a great deal about its subject. After all, Sons and Lovers (1913) is the Lawrence novel one probably reads first, and everybody realizes that its fictive location, Bestwood, is Lawrence’s Eastwood and that the Morel family is Lawrence’s own. Like his contemporary Thomas Mann, Lawrence used his life to create his art; yet Sons and Lovers resembles Mann’s Buddenbrooks (1901) only insofar as they are both autobiographical novels. Though both novels represent the same chronological period, Mann surveys his early life from the relatively comfortable vantage point of the German burgher middle class; Lawrence, on the other hand, has a solidly working-class perspective. Judged by its original point of view alone, as a novel about a coal miner’s family by the son of a collier, Sons and Lovers emerges as distinctively more original, though considerably more uneven and less learned, than its German counterpart.
This comparison made, it is important to note that Worthen does not indulge in similar speculations. He is concerned, however, with Lawrence’s formation as an artist, and he perceives that Lawrence’s background is essential to that formation. Learning to find the nonintellectual stance that characterizes all Lawrence’s best-known works was a major obstacle Lawrence had to overcome, and Worthen succeeds in demonstrating that the aesthetic distance between Lawrence’s first novel, The White Peacock (1910), and third, Sons and Lovers, lay primarily in the decision to drop the middle-class veneer that had characterized virtually all Edwardian fiction published before it. The American expatriate Ford Madox Ford, author of the similarly pioneering novel The Good Soldier (1915), counseled Lawrence to approach fiction in this way and in so doing hastened Lawrence’s development as a recognized author.
It is likely, too, that Ford’s bohemian relationship with Viola Hunt hastened development of the Lawrence persona as high priest of love. Unlike Mann, who also had read Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche but who never had abandoned his class or its standards, Lawrence was virtually forced into his credo that humanity was all of a piece and by nature nonintellectual. He felt that he could never marry Jessie Chambers, a woman of his own social class and his intellectual equal; that he could marry Louisa (“Louie”) Burrows, who was of his own class but his intellectual inferior; but that he had to marry Frieda von Richthofen Weekley, of German nobility and already married with three children. What made the situation even less socially acceptable was the fact that Frieda’s husband, Professor Ernest Weekley, had been Lawrence’s languages tutor at Nottingham University and had become Lawrence’s trusted friend.
Leaving one’s children for a man six years her junior, following him through France, Switzerland, and Italy, and living the life of exiles from Edwardian England would be daring and socially unacceptable even by the standards of the late twentieth century; in 1912, it was virtually inconceivable for a wife and mother to have done such things. This bold action forced Lawrence even more deeply into his mythic persona. In his painting, an avocation he had begun in childhood but continued throughout his life, he portrays himself as Pan crucified, combining the ascetic associations of Christ with the sensuality of the Greek goat-man deity. His most famous poem of his years in Italy, “Snake” (1923), similarly indicates his preference for the sensual and his simultaneous awareness of what the civilized world demands. Mann used myth as a metaphor for his aesthetics; fifteen years after Lawrence’s death, the American playwright Tennessee Williams would use it as...
(The entire section is 1589 words.)
Want to Read More?
Subscribe now to read the rest of this article. Plus get complete access to 30,000+ study guides!
D. H. Lawrence (Magill Book Reviews)
John Worthen’s D.H. LAWRENCE: THE EARLY YEARS, 1885-1912 observes that Lawrence was the only Edwardian author from the working class who wrote about the working class. Popular fiction of the early twentieth century had remained almost exclusively the province of solidly middle-class writers such as Thomas Hardy, Rudyard Kipling, and Joseph Conrad. Lawrence was thus writing against prevailing taste. His subject matter itself, not to mention his frank treatment of it, was shocking in the extreme.
Paradoxically, Lawrence had escaped the working class by the time he had begun to write about it. He escaped the working class by the time he had begun to write about it. He escaped the possessive love of his mother, Lydia Beardsall Lawrence, only after her death in 1910, and perhaps not even then. It took at least five love affairs (with Jessie Chambers, Louise Burrows, Helen Corke, Alice Daz, and ultimately with Frieda Weekley), all independent, exceptional women, for Lawrence to adopt the notorious persona most associated with him. Worthen discusses each of these women and shows how they influenced Lawrence’s writing and personal outlook.
The years covered by this volume are those during which Lawrence wrote and three times thereafter rewrote SONS AND LOVERS, the autobiographical novel which describes his unhappy childhood home. His mother, too, had wished to escape, from the mining town of Eastwood and from a loveless marriage to Arthur John Lawrence, a collier. Frieda Weekley, who disregarded social convention when she left her husband Professor Ernest Weekley and her three children in order to marry Lawrence, was the only one of the women in his life bold enough to take such a step. Still, it was Jessie Chambers who suffered most, since Lawrence essentially rejected her selfless love. Frieda was, doubtless, the woman most responsible for the notorious Lawrence the world came to know, and Worthen’s study concludes as this formative relationship begins.
Sources for Further Study
Booklist. LXXXVIII, September 15, 1991, p. 113.
Kirkus Reviews. LIX, June 15, 1991, p. 781.
Library Journal. CXVI, July, 1991, p. 98.
New Statesman and Society. IV, August 30, 1991, p. 46.
The New York Times Book Review. XCVI, September 22, 1991, p. 26.
The Observer. August 11, 1991, p. 51.
Publishers Weekly. CCXXXVIII, August 2, 1991, p. 56.
The Spectator. CCLXVII, September 7, 1991, p. 29.
The Times Literary Supplement. September 13, 1991, p. 12.