Talk:D. H. Lawrence/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Frieda's relation to the Red Baron

On searching the Internet, I found different information about D.H. Lawrence's wife Frieda von Richthofen. Some said she was sister of Manfred von Richthofen and some said she was a cousin. Others said she was daughter of Manfred von Richthofen, but that's impossible since she was born 1879 and he was born 1892. Den fjättrade ankan 11:38, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The Baron's father and Frieda were fifth cousins, according to German Wikipedia's Richthofen family article, if I read it correctly. --83.253.245.22 (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Mother's occupation

I don't believe Lydia Beardsall Lawrence, D. H. Lawrence's mother, was a teacher. She had aspirations to become a teacher, but she married Arthur Lawrence, who worked in the coal pits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.15 (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2004 (UTC)

She married him without realising that he worked in the pits. He claimed he was employed as a clerk in the mining company. She was a well-educated woman who exerted a strong influence on the young Lawrence, and his background cannot be called working-class, meaning uneducated. 86.144.193.171 (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The horror of categorization

I have deleted the gay writers category from Lawrence as it is misleading. Lawrence may have had bisexual tendencies, but perhaps incestual may be more obvious. Calling Lawrence gay is like callling him Australian as he spent a few months living there, particularly as he was the sort of writer who felt he had to experience the things he wrote about. Also the fact that the article does not back up the categorization makes the category disingenuous. MeltBanana 21:28, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The importance of the categorization is not only whether or not it was significant in the individual's life. It is also useful to people who may be studying a general topic, let's say bisexuality in literature. Why remove facts? There'd be nothing wrong with a category of people who visited Australia if somebody were interested. --Kstern999 20:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion continued at Categorization, continued below --83.253.245.22 (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Editorial work on the Life and Works sections of this article

Hi I'm gradually revising and wikifying the different elements of the D H Lawrence article. The largest single task will be the main biography section('Life') that I've left until last and will work on over the next few weeks. Essentially I'd like to employ the chronology produced by Professor John Worthen and others, found within the Cambridge and Penguin editions of Lawrence's works, as a reliable base text. Reliable detailed references include the 3 volume Cambridge biography, the letters, and the recent single volume life by Worthen (2005)

My feeling is that this could then be grouped into subsections within the article. The most appropriate working titles or draft subheadings would seem to be something like this:

  • The early years (England, 1885-1912)
  • Blithe spirit (Germany and Italy, 1912-1914)
  • The nightmare years (England, 1914-1919)
  • The savage pilgrimage begins(Italy, 1919-1922)
  • New worlds (Ceylon, Australia, New Mexico and Old, 1922-1925)
  • Dying game (Return to Europe, 1925-1930)

Writing a revised biography should be fairly straightforward and should involve recycling much of the existing content within the current wikipedia article.

More difficult will be the revision of the current section describing the works. My feeling is that this should continue to be a concise summary, perhaps grouped by genre, with much of the detailed commentary being added to new or improved internally hyperlinked articles on individual books or other texts/genres.

I'd welcome any thoughts on this proposed scheme of work so that DHL gets the online article that he deserves. Obviously Wikipedia is a collaborative venture and I'd be happy to share the burden of creating the boilerplate text etc. Rmackenzie 22:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It certainly looks like a good strategy and your additions so far have been all to the good. The only problem that might arise is the 44k article size limit. Few other writer's articles have such an extensive bibliography but if it becomes a problem they can be farmed out in the style of List of books by P. G. Wodehouse. Certainly, the works section is important but very tricky to summarise. I can admit to writing much of that but certain phrases are a bit vague and give me a twinge of idiocy "Hardy, whom Lawrence admired", realism the main, and seemingly only, feature of his work and one sentence on poetry. Oh dear me. As for collaborative, this is not the glowing centre of wikipedia but maybe some more hares will sit up. MeltBanana 22:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

DH Lawrence and mythology

Lawrence took a great personal interest in mythology and employed this knowledge in his fiction and other writings. For example, his last poems are saturated with references to the Greek underworld. Similarly, the story entitled The Escaped Cock relates to a number of resurrection myths, such as Christianity and Ancient Egyptian beliefs. The academic term 'myth' is descriptive and does not imply that a story is true or false. --Rmackenzie 00:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but the wording on the article does not make this clear. The wording sounds as if the author of the article feels Christianity is a myth. It could be revised to make the difference clear. Danahuff 00:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The article does not seek to imply that Christianity is a myth in any derogatory sense, but employs the neutral academic term 'myth' in the specific context of Lawrence's rewriting of the resurrection/rebirth story that is to be found throughout his later poetry and prose. Lawrence himself was a self confessed religious man whose work displays a complex relationship to traditional Christianity and other systems of belief. He was certainly not an orthodox believer in any sense, and The Escaped Cock was written by Lawrence in the light of his understanding of (for example) Christianity, ancient Egypt, Greek mythology, Nietzsche's writings, Frazer's anthropology and a study of the burial artefacts to be found within Etruscan tombs. I've amended the wording of the paragraph within the article to clarify this neutral point of view. A useful discussion of this topic can be found in T R Wright (2000) D H Lawrence and the Bible, Cambridge University Press, see especially Chapter 12. --Rmackenzie 01:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
In a critical survey of Lawrence's poetry, Sandra Gilbert talks of 'a revisionary synthesis of myths' from the Bible and ancient Greece and goes on to describe a 'sophisticated and subversive engagement with Christian mythology'. Source: Sandra M Gilbert(1990) Acts of Attention: The Poems of D H Lawrence, Second Edition, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, pp329-331. I hope this helps. --Rmackenzie 01:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Link spam

Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry

  • [http://worldofbiography.com/9181-David%20Herbert%20Lawrence David Herbert Lawrence Biography]

probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jameswatt (talk • contribs) 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The Lawrence biographical entry on this proposed link to the World of Biography is poorly written. The link that you mention is essentially a commercial site or shop window for promoting various essay bank and study guide type products. As such, an external link from Wikipedia would count as 'spam' and should be regarded as a candidate for deletion. --Rmackenzie 13:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

please do not add this to the article, and please read the incident report before giving the go-ahead. This is spam and not link-worthy under WP:EL; the articles contain many distortions, lack citations, and contain nothing that wouldn't fit directly in the wiki article. a link to worldofbiography has been placed on over 70 talk pages by User:Jameswatt. thanks. --He:ah? 20:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Why the Novel Matters

... Does anyone have any insight as to an interpretation ... of the essay Why the Novel Matters, by DH Lawrence? ... [ further request for homework assistance deleted by 83.253.245.22 09:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC) ] ... Ltmk90 02:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

GI Jane

His work self pity was mentioned in the movie GI Jane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.90.169 (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The short poem "Self-Pity" is recited in full ... almost correctly, by a character in the movie. See G.I. Jane#Plot, film clip (Youtube), quote from the film (IMDb), Self-pity#In fiction, film, and music, and Wikiquote. --83.253.245.22 (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Melville revival

Just a thought, but perhaps someone could add to the article some information about Lawrence's part in the Melville revival of the 1920s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.78.140 (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I've now amended the relevant section on Studies in Classic American Literature. I'll add some linked comments on the page devoted to this volume and onto the Melville page when I can find a few moments. --Rmackenzie 06:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Biased or hyperbolic language in the article

Say, isn't it a bit unobjective to say "D. H. Lawrence was one of the most important authors ..."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.33.142.163 (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The biased or hyperbolic language in the article, ex. "brilliant," "radical new work," "great dramatic force," "mean-spirited critics" etc. need to be removed. The Rainbow was a breakthrough for English letters, but "radical" is over-the-top and a more specific, concrete adjective would do justice to describing the work. I sympathize that Lawrence is a hard person to write an article on because he and his work are atypical, but it'd be better if the article was critically matter-of-fact and not impressionistic or subjective in its account of Lawrence's writing. I noticed that "one of the most important and controversial writers" in the Intro section was replaced with "an important and controversial writer." See, that has more verity. Hyperboles betray subjectivity, causing the reader to find the article to be suspect. Just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.111.182 (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure the article could benefit from trimming a little of the gush; certainly brilliant does not seem quite the right word to sum up Lawrence's writing. MeltBanana 00:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Lawrence - realism?!

Wasn't Lawrence's genre more that of naturalism?

As far as I know realism blocks out the ugliness and focuses on unspoilt nature etc. while naturalism actually deals with the problems of working class people and the social changes brought about by the industrialization etc. It is also typical for naturalist writers to employ dialect etc. (and Lawrence did that extensively) while in realism these details are ignored or glossed over. L.S. 14:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The articles say that realism is "realistic", but naturalism is even more so. Although I don't know what mr Lawrence wrote.
  • Note on dialects. In the article, it's mentioned that his writings are "corrupt", i suppose this means that he's written so extensively in dialect, that people who live nowadays would have a real hard time understanding them? It would be interesting to read examples of this, and I suppose people who have studied old languages would like to read his "corrupt" versions.
{Phoenixdolphin} (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Categorization, continued

Continuing from The horror of categorization above

In fact, there’s no proof that Lawrence had a sexual affair with William Henry Hocking or with any other man. What's known for certain is that Lawrence, based on his comments, was what might called in contemporary parlance "bi-curious,” but he never made any comments suggesting that he'd physically acted on his impulses, if that’s what they truly were. His statement about coming closest to perfect love with a young coal miner at sixteen can be interpreted many ways; indeed, part of why he may have considered it so is that it lacked the petty jealousies, desire to control, and bruised feelings that, alas, so often afflict relationships when sex is introduced. Obviously, that’s conjecture, but so is baldly asserting that Lawrence was sexually active with Hocking when, to my knowledge, no biographer so far has been able to definitely place them in the sack together -- and not for trying. It would appear there’s an agenda at work here, just as a similar agenda constantly creeps into Wikipedia articles where the romantic lives of artists and writers are concerned. It really is tiring, and bad history to boot. But I suppose that doesn’t matter much when you’re motivated less by a regard for truth and more by the need to generate propaganda, as would seem to be the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.26.152 (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence was clearly bi; that is accepted historical fact - I don't see why anyone is trying to dispute that. Sex and sexuality are strong themes in much of his work; his orientation is evident from his novels (Women in Love in particular). His bisexuality is very relevant to his work, in addition to it having been so in his personal life - thereby, its inclusion is doubly important to any good biography of him. The fact that we don't know the precise details of what he did with Hocking does not disprove or minimise his orientation - it was over 90 years ago, and homosexual acts were criminal offences then. The categories that are currently present - Bisexual writers; LGBT people from England - are correctly applied to this article. F W Nietzsche (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
In reference to the aforementioned point: Also, the reference to Maddox's book, The Story of a Marriage does not include enough verifiable evidence to support such a statement. (Review of The Story of a Marriage from The New York Times). —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowledgePlease (talk • contribs) 08:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it is absurd and certainly agenda-driven to demand that unless we can "definitely place them in the sack together" we can make no mention of bisexuality at all. We don't know the exact nature of his relationship to this particular man. What we do know is that people who knew him closely thought it likely that he was bisexual and that he himself was attracted to the idea of homoerotic love. To erase even the mention of bisexuality would amount to an ideological manipulation of history. Ilmateur (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I think you missed the point. The discussion was about categories at the end of the article. They can only be placed in the article if inclusion in the category is supported by reliably-sourced text in the article proper. There is currently nothing about his alleged bisexuality explicitly mentioned or supported in the article as such. If reliably-sourced content is added that supports this sexual orientation, then the relevant categories can be added. There is certainly no rule saying it can't be mentioned in the article, though of course such mention would have to be sourced. Yworo (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Lawrence was bisexual but this is a well known verified biographical and historical fact about him. To deny this is biogtry and bisexual erasure. 72.78.234.202 (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Photo of Lawrence

I know this is trivial, but... If someone had asked me who was shown in the photo, I never would have guessed Lawrence. Could someone please add a picture of the older, bearded, and rougher-looking Lawrence. 24.22.132.12 (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Owls"?

What does this mean?: "He would have laughed lightly and cursed venomously in passing at the solemn owls–each one secretly chained by the leg–who now conduct his inquest."[1]. Is it something like, the overserious inhibited people who research the cause of his death? But it's mentioned later that he had those all of his life? {Phoenixdolphin} (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Papuan travel?

Did Lawrence and Frieda ever go to Papua New Guinea? Apparently some letters by him were found there in the 1970's. Lgh (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Did Lawrence's full name include "Richards"?

D H Lawrence's full name was "David Herbert Lawrence" and not "David Herbert Richards Lawrence".

It is not acceptable for Wikipedia authors to simply cite sources - not all sources provide reliable information, however reasonable they may at first sight seem - as is the case here. For anyone who wants to check this then they can go to the "freebmd" website and search for "David H Lawrence" born in 1885. The reader will see that the birth of "Lawrence, David Herbert" was registered in Basford registration district in the December quarter of 1885, and the page showing the birth registration can be downloaded. There are no other names. Perhaps (I am not an expert on this author by any means) he added the name "Richards" at some point, but it was certainly not a part of his official name and indeed the author's marriage in 1914 is also registered as "David Herbert Lawrence" (this can also be verified on the same website). Surely, this ought to be obvious anyway - if the author's full name was "David Herbert Richards Lawrence" then he would have been known as "DHR" Lawrence. Johnpretty010 (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

(New topics go at the end of talk pages, not the beginning.) And the "freebmd" website is reliable why? Yworo (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia, FreeBMD (freebmd.org.uk) provides searchability (with some limitation due to incomplete transcription) of the civil registry indexes of England and Wales, by agreement with the General Register Office.
What is searchable and downloadable is only the index pages and not the vital records, and I don't know if each entry in the index is guaranteed to reflect the complete corresponding name (I say "reflect" because on the index pages, given names after the first or second are represented by initials).
What reliable source is there for Richards being part of Lawrence's name? --83.255.59.153 (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
One, rather lowly, source is here: [2]. Maybe not what you would class as very "reliable". And not sure what their source was for this claim - might even have been this article, of course. There's also IMBD [3] - usually trashed by Wikipedia, of course. But there's also this: [4] and John Worthen's biography looks pretty WP:RS to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Lawrence's birth record, found on Ancestry, does not in fact include the name "Richards". Nor does Britannica include it. I've removed it. Zacwill (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Pneumonia

"...a severe bout of pneumonia, reportedly the result of being accosted by a group of factory girls..."

the meaning there is unclear. 63.142.146.194 (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Posthumous reputation and Mailer's defence of Lawrence

Re: "Norman Mailer came to Lawrence's defence in The Prisoner of Sex in 1971" -- this sentence leaves the reader in the air. What was his defence of Lawrence, especially with reference to DHL's women characters? Rwood128 (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Views on dualism and the Trinity?

I propose that the following be deleted because it does not make sense: "His unpublished introduction to Sons and Lovers established the duality central to much of his fiction. This is done with reference to the Holy Trinity" (from "Views"). This has clearly been taken from some unidentified source leaving out the framework of the argument [my error there is a source, though no citation]. It isn't even discussed elsewhere in the article. The subsequent sentence re religion is also is inadequate. Rwood128 (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Rwood128 (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that does sound bizarre. Lawrence tends to be a magnet for cranks with various POVs. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC).

The White Peacock

He then lived for just under a year (mid-1918 to early 1919) at Mountain Cottage, Middleton-by-Wirksworth, Derbyshire, where he wrote one of his most poetic short stories, The White Peacock.

I thought 'The White Peacock' was a novel. Valetude (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the article definitely suggests its a novel. Feel free to make the correction. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
But the dates don't fit either. It's obviously referring to a different work. Valetude (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Subsection on Religion, Philosophy and Politics

The section on D.H. Lawrence's views on religion, philosophy and politics is very selective - it seems to me that all that it is really on is the political views of D.H. Lawrence. I suggest that either more information should be added here, or the sub-heading should be changed. Vorbee (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on D. H. Lawrence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Link works. But source does not seem to support Look! We Have Come Through! being Nominated for the Helen Hayes Award in 1998. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:English proto-fascists

Xxanthippe, if you look at "Category:English proto-fascists", you will note that it is redlinked. That means that the category does not exist. It does not function as a category, because no one has bothered to create it. So long as the category does not exist, it serves no purpose to restore it. Please do not restore the category unless you wish to take responsibility for creating it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. There's no point linking to a non-existent category. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC).
There's an interesting footnote in D.H. Lawrence's Border Crossing: Colonialism in His Travel Writing and Leadership Novels (2007) by Eunyoung Oh, here. It seems rather debatable to label Lawrence as a "proto-fascist". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
There is not necessary an inconsistency between being an anti-colonialist and a proto-fascist. In the last century many naive progressives thought that Lawrence was of their brotherhood (or sisterhood). But Terry Eagleton's analysis show that he was on the ultra hard right of politics. 21:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC). Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC).
Maybe there isn't necessarily an inconsistency. Eagleton's analysis already gets a mention? I don't see that the reader's understanding would be enhanced by using the word "proto-fascist". Is it a word to which Eagleton gives particular prominence? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The descriptor Proto means first or founder. Just as one might say that Edmund Burke was a proto-conservative or that Keir Hardy, Blanqui or even John Ball (priest) were proto-socialists one might say that Lawrence was a proto-fascist. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC).
Yes, one might say such a thing. Eagletone might say such a thing. You really think Lawrence founded fascism? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
No, but neither did Edmund Burke found conservatism. He gave expression to a set of ideas that were swilling around at the time (getting a bit off-topic). Xxanthippe (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC).
Xxanthippe, you make an intelligent point. Just not sure there's enough to justify further expansion in the article or adding a Category. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
It depends on if somebody wants to create a new category. There would be plenty of candidates for it. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC).
I strongly disagree. I think it depends on whether or not Lawrence is seen generally as a "proto-fascist". I don't think he is. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyedit

Just completed a major copyedit, mostly replacing curly quotes per MOS:STRAIGHT. Any issues let me know! — Iadmc♫talk  10:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Additions

I'm a total newbie to Wikipedia editing, so made some additions to the page on Jan 2nd, including some major additions to the 'Philosophy, religion and politics' section, before raising them in this Talk page, which I've now found, so apologies for that. I've seen that User:Xxanthippe has deleted my changes to the above-mentioned section, so I've just re-inserted some text (on Lawrence's attitude to feminism and his writings on Freud) that was in the original wiki that I'd moved into this section. This seems to be in line with what User:Vorbee was suggesting above in April 2016.Mark Shotter (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

'Philosophy and Politics' Section in DH Lawrence wiki

Earlier this year I inserted the text below over the existing text up to the paragraph beginning 'Lawrence held seemingly contradictory views of feminism...' in the 'Philosophy and Politics' section of the DH Lawrence wiki. However, Xxanthippe deleted the text and reinserted the original text, I would imagine because Xxanthippe disagrees with the thrust of my changes. I would argue for my changes being valid on two accounts: 1. Regarding Lawrence's political views, I think the below clearly outlines Lawrence's long period of antipathy to democracy, but also reflects the fact that his views were often inconsistent and contrary and, like most people's, changed over time. 2. The final paragraph adds detail regarding Lawrence's spiritual philosophy, which (as Vorbee has pointed out previously) is otherwise not covered in this section. Could other contributors read the below and tell me what they think?

"The question of Lawrence’s social/political/spiritual philosophy has generated much heat amongst critics, primarily because he was very inconsistent over time and his core ideas were difficult to pin down to practical measures; Lawrence was essentially contrary by nature and hated to be pigeon-holed.[22] Critics such as Terry Eagleton[23] have argued that Lawrence was right-wing due to his luke-warm attitude to democracy, which he thought would tend towards the levelling down of society and the subordination of the individual to the sensibilities of the ‘average’ man. His one-time ally Bertrand Russell even argued that Lawrence’s ideas verged on fascism, evidenced by a letter to him in which Lawrence wrote,

“You must drop all your democracy. You must not believe in “the people”. ... There must be an aristocracy of people who have wisdom, and there must be a Ruler: a Kaiser: no Presidents and democracies.” [24]

Previous to this though, in his early twenties, he had helped to start a socialist society at his teacher training college, and when discussing ideas for social renewal with Bertrand Russell in 1915 he initially put forward policies more associated with the left, such as nationalisation of, 

“… the land, the industries, the means of communication and the public amusements… Every man shall have his wage till the day of his death, whether he work or not, so long as he works when he is fit. Every woman shall have her wage till the day of her death, whether she works or not, so long as she works when she is fit—keeps her house or rears her children. Then, and only then, shall we be able to begin living.”[25]

In addition to this, despite Lawrence stating hostility to democracy from his late twenties through to his late thirties, close to the end of his life he told his sister he would vote Labour if he was living back in England.[26] However, in general he disliked any organised groupings, and perhaps most telling is his rejection of the overtures of both the fascist ‘Diggers’ and the socialists in his novel based on his time in Australia, Kangaroo. Ultimately he was far too much a believer in a certain kind of individualism, and argued for a new kind of democracy in which, “…each man shall be spontaneously himself – each man himself, each woman herself, without any question of equality entering in at all; and that no man shall try to determine the being of any other man, or of any other woman.”[27] Though Lawrence never embraced any established religious philosophy after becoming agnostic while at university, he became interested in what he termed “Pantheist” beliefs of the indigenous people of the Americas in Taos. Essentially Lawrence’s key philosophical belief was that industrial society and western thought, with their reliance on positivist science and materialism, rather than instinct and spontaneous experience, had brought about a breakdown of the “blood-warmth”[28] relation between people and of their relation to the natural world, a belief perhaps closest to strands of Green thinking and certain pagan belief systems. This is perhaps most clearly illustrated in Pan in America, where he concluded, 

“…life itself consists in a living relatedness between man and his universe: sun, moon, stars, earth, trees, flowers, birds, animals, men, everything - and not in a "conquest" of anything by anything.”[29]"

24. Letter to Bertrand Russell, July 1915 25. Letter to Bertrand Russell, February 12th 1915 26. Maddox, Brenda (1994) The Married Man: A Life of D. H. Lawrence. Sinclair-Stevenson. p. 276 ISBN-13: 978-1856192439 27. On Democracy, Essay in Phoenix: The Posthumous Papers of D. H. Lawrence (1936) 28. ‘A Propos of Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ and Other Essays (1961) Penguin p.122 29. “Pan in America”, Southwest Review, vol. 11, no. 2, 1926, pp. 102–115 www.jstor.org/stable/43461405

Thanks, Mark ShotterMark Shotter (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

To 13 edit WP:spa: The purpose of the talk page is to discuss ways of improving the article with references to reliable secondary sources, not to blog about the topic itself. And the article page is not a proper place for WP:OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC).

To Xxanthippe: Finally got round to a close re-reading of ‘Kangaroo’, which I think you would accept is Lawrence’s most political novel. I think you would also accept (as all critics I’ve come across do) that the Somers character is Lawrence (and that Harriet is Freida). Therefore, while the events that take place in the novel are fictitious, would you not accept that the debates going on in Somers’ head and between Somers and other characters represent Lawrence’s state of political thinking at the time (1922)? Taking this as the premise, it can be clearly seen that Somers/Lawrence rejects the neo-Fascism of the Diggers in his rebuttal of Kangaroo, and of course the Socialism/Communism of Willie Struthers, as I stated in my revision of the ‘Philosophy and Politics’ section of the DH Lawrence Wikipedia that you immediately deleted. Somers/Lawrence in fact states on pages 215-216 that the Italian ‘Fascisti’ “just set your teeth on edge”. Surely if Lawrence was the ‘proto-fascist’ you seem to believe he was, he would have welcomed Italian Fascism while he was living there and would have reflected this in his written works? While I can accept that some of the wording in my revision needs rewriting to avoid the accusation of original research, your statement regarding reliable secondary sources doesn’t stand up; I provide six references to reliable sources within the revision, the principal sources being Lawrence himself. Do you dispute that Worthen and Maddox are reliable sources? As it states it my proposed revision, Lawrence certainly could be accused of objectively pandering to authoritarianism up until the early 1920’s, particularly as evidenced in his letters to Russell. However, do you really believe that a person as restless and intellectually active as Lawrence didn’t change in political outlook over time? The fact that he wrote to his sister in 1928 that he would vote Labour if he was back in the UK demonstrates that 1. he would vote (which he wouldn’t do if he really was opposed in principle to democracy) and 2. that he would vote for a left of centre party. Do you not think his essay ‘Democracy’ (probably written around 1926 critics believe), essentially a grudging but ultimately liberal individualist acceptance of democracy, shows that his ideas had evolved? So what exactly is it about my proposed revision that you actually object to and what is your reasoning? Mark Shotter (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

To FreeKnowledgeCreator  : I don't understand why you undid my Eagleton quote. I think that the beginning of that paragraph is not completely fair to Eagleton's position in the chapter concerning Lawrence. For instance, when it says that "Lawrence did not formally embrace fascism because he died before it reached its zenith" the sentence seems to suggest that this was said by Eagleton, what is plainly wrong. Yesterday, I reread the chapter and although he says that "we can say that Lawrence wasn't a facist in the same sense that he 'wasn't' a homosexual", his discussion of Lawrence's controversial politics is full of subtleties and caveats. He says, for example, that "Lawrence rejected the movement [fascism] partly because he was too much of an anarchic individualist to submit to the disciplines of a totalitarian state. He condemned Mussolini, and regarded fascism as a spurious solution to the crisis of middle-class civilization." I deleted the sentence "because he died before it reaches its zenith" because Eagleton does not suggest this in the whole chapter. I'm not used to editing wikipedia pages, but I think that if Eagleton has a nuanced view of a controversial subject, the page should at least remark the complexity of his opinion. As the sentence stands, it falls in line with the rather biased and sensationalistic way with which the controversy of Lawrence's supposed fascism is dealt with throughout the page. (for example, many of the mentions to his "fascism" are in italics for no apparent reason but to mislead a reader who might have no knowledge of this thorny issues into develop a preconceived opinion.) The issue of "fascism" in High Modernism is complex and must be addressed, I don't mean to minimize it, but there should be ways of treating it with the nuance it deserves--- written by 177.220.178.194

References

The references for the changes I'm suggesting to the 'Philosophy and Politics' section should read as follows: 22. Worthen, John (2005) D.H. Lawrence: The Life of an Outsider. Allen Lane. p.171 23. Eagleton, Terry (2005) The English novel: an introduction. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 258–260. 24. Letter to Bertrand Russell, July 1915 25. Letter to Bertrand Russell, February 12th 1915 26.Maddox, Brenda (1994) The Married Man: A Life of D. H. Lawrence. Sinclair-Stevenson. p. 276 ISBN-13: 978-1856192439 27. On Democracy, Essay in Phoenix: The Posthumous Papers of D. H. Lawrence (1936) 28. ‘A Propos of Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ and Other Essays (1961) Penguin p.122 29. “Pan in America”, Southwest Review, vol. 11, no. 2, 1926, pp. 102–115 www.jstor.org/stable/43461405 Mark Shotter (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on D. H. Lawrence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on D. H. Lawrence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:BRD

A Wikipedia:Single-purpose account with only nineteen edits, all on the D H Lawrence article, has made major changes to the Philosophy and politics section of this important and well-established biography. The changes seem to have the intention of sanitising Lawrence's extreme political views. Following WP:BRD I have reverted until consensus is obtained that the changes should be made. My view is that the proposed changes are no improvement on the current version. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC).

Philosophy and politics

The passage from his 1908 letter to Blanche Jennings, quoted by Carey, is given without any context. What Lawrence actually wrote is given here by Wothen in his Early Years: "Concerning Daisy Lord I am entirely in accord with you. If I had my way ..." Lord had recently been convicted for murdering her child and the affair had become a cause celebre. Worthen scolds Lawrence for "striking a pose" and being "callow", but there is no suggestion that Lawrence was making a serious suggestion. Indeed his correspondence with Jennings seems to have been characterised by sarcasm. For the article here to then state, quite flatly: "Later, the National Socialist government of Germany put such a plan into operation, although with greater brutality and with dire consequences for six million people" seems to me a little too strong. Where has this editorialising voice come from? Not directly from Carey, who merely describes the passage in the letter as "chilling". I think that section needs a bit of adjustment. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid I couldn't identify your first extract from Wothan. What page is it on? The extract indeed is chilling. The Nazis started their extermination programme with 75,000 of the sick, the halt, the maimed and the mentally deficient. Perhaps it is too large a leap from that to the six million as Lawrence did not specify those. I am not aware of any evidence that Lawrence was anti-Semitic. Best wishes, Xxanthippe (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC).
Sorry, it's pages 205-206 of Worthen. I think it's very easy to look back with hindsight and to manufacture a link between Lawrence's informal, possibly sarcastic, lines in a private letter and Hitler's demonic planned slaughter. In my view, this might even be described as synthesis. There is simply no question that Lawrence itede his remarks to apply to Jews. But we still do have Russell's rather damning testimonay about Lawrence's "proto-German fascism." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. If there is a reliable source that suggests that Lawrence's views were not sincerely held, that could be added. There is no suggestion of a causal link between Lawrence's private letter and the Nazi's Aktion T4, but the letter may give an indication of the way his mind worked. I agree that Russell's verdict is devastating. Further, he was one of the few commentators who had known Lawrence personally. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC). I was amused to read that Lawrence had asked Russell to leave him money in his Will (it seems that Russell did not!). Xxanthippe (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC).
I think any mention of any plan by a later "National Socialist government of Germany", in the discussion of a 1908 private letter is both anachronistic and non-neutral, unless part of an RS quote. This article is meant to be about Lawrence. not the rise of fascism. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The Aktion T4 though, does illustrate Lawrence's prophetic insight into the nature of fascism. I have put it in a footnote. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC).
I'm wholly unconvinced as to Lawrence's prophetic prowess in this regard. But thanks, I think that's a real improvement and makes the section look far more balanced. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

More of the same

To Xxanthippe: Can you provide justifications for why you have deleted my additions to the Philosophy and Politics section? As you can see, VeritasVox in the Request for Comments below has suggested that the section should 'be more nuanced and explictly mention conflicts/issues of interpretation' and Darx9url has commented that Lawrence 'should not be described in terms not usually used by reliable sources to describe him'. In addition, you yourself have stated 'If there is a reliable source that suggests that Lawrence's views were not sincerely held, that could be added' in your discussion above with Martinevans123 and that 'The most prominent commentators should be chosen for a subject of such prominence as Lawrence' in the RfC below. As I think was obvious, my additions were all from highly reliable sources: John Worthen, Brenda Maddox and Harry T. Moore, all highly respected biographers of Lawrence and in John Worthen's case Professor of DH Lawrence Studies at Nottingham University. These additions balanced the two highly tendentious sources you have left in the Politics and Philosophy section, who it seems most biographers of Lawrence (and his wife) would not agree with. You also make a comment about Russell having known Lawrence personally; well surely his wife knew Lawrence the best of all, so why have you deleted my addition of her opinion that to accuse Lawrence of proto-fascist/nazi sympathies was/is 'pure nonsense'? Can you respond to this request for justifications, as simply ignoring my requests for engaging in discussion and deleting my edits is neither useful nor democratic?Mark Shotter (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you Mark. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Here we go again. Mark Shotter is an WP:Spa account that has made 35 edits on Wikipedia.[5] All of them are about D H Lawrence and all of them have been attempts to play-down, diminish, whitewash and obscure the accusations of fascism, sexism and racism that have been made against Lawrence by prominent authorities (like Bertrand Russell), on the basis of Lawrence's own writings. Mark Shotter initiated an RfC on his edits, which resulted in a no consensus. The latest attempt, which cherry picks sources to suit an agenda, is no different. I find the incident to be symptomatic of the infection of Wikipedia culture by the atmosphere of hard-right/alt-right extremism that is growing in the West. As the issue has ramifications, I suggest that Mark Shotter open another RfC on it. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC).
Perhaps you're paranoid? No objection to another RfC. If the result of the last one was "no consensus", that suggests we should proceed with caution? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

To Xxanthippe: Do you therefore believe that Lawrence was a proto-fascist? If so, do you not have an agenda? Rather than attempting to whitewash and obscure the accusations of proto-fascist tendencies by Russell and Eagleton (have you not cherry-picked these sources?), my edits have simply been attempts to balance these accusations with counter arguments put forward by very reliable sources i.e. some of his most prominent biographers (John Worthen being generally recognised as THE most prominent biographer of Lawrence) and his wife Freida. Worthen and Maddox quote from letters Lawrence wrote late in his life saying he would vote Labour and that he believed in “a good form of socialism”; this is factual evidence from Lawrence himself that his ideas had evolved. As I have earlier written in response to you, I agree that Lawrence certainly could be accused of objectively pandering to authoritarianism up until the early 1920’s, particularly as evidenced in his letters to Russell, and I agree this should be reflected in the Philosophy and Politics section, but do you really believe that a person as restless and intellectually active as Lawrence didn’t change in political outlook over time? Your insistence on painting Lawrence as a proto-fascist is simply too crude a picture of him; as User 177.220.178.194 points out above on the talk page, even Eagleton’s critique of Lawrence’s politics is far more nuanced than this. As I’m sure you’re well aware, the principle behind academic study of any subject is to look at all sides of an argument, or at least the two principal positions, wherever there is contention. As it is, the Philosophy and Politics section does not do this, and your recent addition of Russell’s ‘proto-fascist’ accusation into the second of the opening paragraphs to the page both degrades the academic rigour of the page and betrays your agenda I think. As VeritasVox said in the last RfC, the section (and now the second paragraph) “needs to generally be more nuanced and explictly mention conflicts/issues of interpretation”.Mark Shotter (talk) 17:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you open another RfC as suggested. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC).

RfC about the Philosophy and politics section

There is no consensus in this RfC. Some RfC participants recommended a more specific RfC to discuss proposed changes.

Cunard (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could interested editors give their opinion on whether DH Lawrence held extreme right-wing political views throughout his life as User:Xxanthippe seems to suggest or whether Lawrence's views were less easily classifiable and changed over time as I suggest? 78.150.149.48 (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Mark Shotter 13 May 2018

  • Less classifiable (Summoned by bot) Hating the Le Revolution and being a Facist Before Facists ≠ "holding extreme right-wing political views throughout his life". I'm for letting readers draw their own conclusions about this man instead. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment (Summoned by bot) This Rfc is not drafted with sufficient specificity. Please close out this RfC and start up a new one citing specific edits or proposed edits, and/or text within the article. Far, far too vague. Coretheapple (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, a revised question would be helpful.
  • Comment. It is bizarre to demand an RfC about what a user seems to suggest, particularly if that user denies ever having expressed such opinions. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC).
  • He should not be described in terms not usually used by reliable sources to describe him. Darx9url (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That section in general has issues. I think it needs to generally be more nuanced and explictly mention conflicts/issues of interpretation, something like
'D.H Lawrence held political views which have led to a variety of interpretations. On one hand, his hierarchical and elitist views expressed in correspondence to Russell can invite comparison with Fascism in their emphasis on a single leader. However, his specific attack on the values of the french revolution would imply comparison with the Traditionalist school of Rene Guenon and Julius Evola or Reactionary politics. Equally, his seemingly contradictory views on Feminism and the rights of women add to the difficulty of interpretation, inviting both criticism and ridicule.' - naturally this needs to be well-fleshed with the relevant sources.
'Extreme right-wing' or 'radical right-wing' seems too general for this sort of analysis and a bit too leading there, I don't think it's really needed - 'Critic Terry Eagleton has commented on Laurence's hostility to democracy, liberalism, socialism and egalitarianism, despite his lack of formal endorsement for fascism.' would be my suggestion. VeritasVox (talk) 05:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I did not write the Terry Eagleton section, but on reading his chapter on Lawrence (which I recommend to everybody as it contains much more than politics) and encountering phrases like racist, fascist, male supremacist, radical right-wing, perilously close to the fascist creed, I find the extract in the article to represent Eagleton's views accurately. Searching for D H Lawrence on Google gives 81 million ghits, so not everybody who has written an article or PhD thesis on Lawrence can expect to have their work referred to. The most prominent commentators should be chosen for a subject of such prominence as Lawrence, and most of the sources are blue links so they have at least that notability. I should be loath to see the critiques of distinguished feminist critics of Lawrence editorialised away in an attempt to present him as an eccentric but harmless member of the Bloomsbury group. Readers should not be guided towards a particular point of view: that would be WP:Original synthesis. Let the readers of the article see what authoritative sources have to say and then make their own minds up. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC).
'Racist' and 'male supremacist' are surely anachronistic, given he was born in 1885. Equally 'radical right-wing' and 'male supremacist' don't seem to hold water as a pure characterisation when we look at his views on women. Added to that his specific attack of the values of the French Revolution is the hallmark of the Traditionalist school which, while often emanating from fascism, criticised it as being derived from the mechanistic thought processes of revolutionary societies. This isn't a question of whitewashing, it's one of precision: there's more than enough in that section for readers to make their minds up without needless and imprecise labelling. VeritasVox (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

To User:Coretheapple - Please look at my previous contribution on the Talk page regarding the Philosophy and Politics section where I have outlined a possibly more balaced edit suggestion, though I have since revised this in line with Xxanthippe's critique and will post it again in this discussion if others feel it would be useful. To User:Xxanthippe - My belief that you seem to suggest Lawrence held extreme right-wing views throughout his adult life is based on two things: firstly, your exchange with User:martinevans on the Talk page regarding characterising Lawrence as a proto-fascist, and secondly regarding your resistance to any changes to the Philosophy and Politics section that outline any opinions other than Eagleton's. If you don't actually believe Lawrence held extreme right-wing views throughout his adult life, what is your objection to changes to the section?Mark Shotter (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Painter

The opening to this article says that Lawrence was a poet and novelist, but did not D.H. Lawrence do paintings as well? Vorbee (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he was a minor painter but his fame rests on his writing. This was removed by somebody in a recent edit. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC).

Influences, influenced

These are no longer supported in Template:Infobox writer, so it says: "Please move cited/citable instances into prose." Currently there are no citations at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Why is D.H. Lawrence's bisexuality not mentioned in the article?

D.H. Lawrence was bisexual and this has been a well known fact for decades, so why is this not mentioned in the article? It's a verifiable fact.100.34.143.131 (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

What are your sources? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Lawrence himself said how he was sexually attracted to women and men, and that's bisexuality. Also it was verified in many biographies about Lawrence.100.34.143.131 (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Then you'll need to select a reference to one or more of those many biographies (with appropriate page number(s)) and perhaps with a direct quote from Lawrence himself. You might also need to present a case here that it's a sufficiently notable topic to warrant inclusion in the article. I suspect it's currently not mentioned as no-one has previously thought it was worth mentioning. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
This issue is certainly worth mentioning, so long as there is properly cited information covering the subject. It's important, though, to remember that any addition has to be presented as the opinion of a particular author, rather than as undisputed fact, because this is a controversial area. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Discussion sources may be easy to find. Here's one, for example. But here's another in slightly the other direction. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Second RfC request about differing views on Lawrence's philosophy and politics

In this request for comment:
  1. There is consensus to move the "Philosophy and politics" section somewhere after the "Written works" section.
  2. There is consensus to remove the phrase "proto-German Fascist" from the lead section.
  3. There is consensus to condense or rewrite the "Philosophy and politics" section in a neutral point of view.
— Newslinger talk 09:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do you think that the DH Lawrence Wikipedia page and the ‘Philosophy and Politics’ section in particular should include differing perspectives on whether Lawrence held authoritarian, even ‘proto-fascist’, views throughout his adult life? More particularly, do you think that the views of Bertrand Russell and Terry Eagleton should be counter-balanced by the inclusion of the views of prominent biographers of Lawrence, John Worthen and Brenda Maddox, who quote letters written later in life by Lawrence, and by the inclusion of a quote from Lawrence’s own essay ‘Democracy’? (please familiarise yourselves with the relevant previous discussion on the Talk page) Mark Shotter (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)(Mark Shotter 07/10/2018)

  • Move section and expand and/or rename section. DHL is primarily a writer of prose, poetry and plays - putting 'Philosophy and Politics' before covering his writings (and longer than novels + stories combined !) is bonkers - he is certainly not mainly known as a political writer or figure, except implicitly. He is even less well known for any 'philosophical' beliefs and the section does not cover them anyway - except in the everyday sense of 'attitude' - attitude to women, 'the masses' and to abstracts like 'democracy'. That DHL's portrayal of sex and women seems crude or anachronistic, even mysogynistic to a post-60s critics (notably feminist ones), and he has been criticised for this, could easily go in 'posthumous reputation' - as a subsection. The section has a gem:"Despite the inconsistency and at times inscrutability of his philosophical writings"[clarification needed] actually the only reference on the page to any 'philosophical writings' is in the title of a cited book. If there is to be a section on his politics then obviously a more balanced one is called for, or the present text renamed to 'Criticism of his politics', and/or added to posthumous reputation. Pincrete (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC) .... ps, the inclusion of an editor selected DHL quote, as proposed above, would probably be WP:OR. Pincrete (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Tend to agree. Yes, it might be difficult to agree on a single quite from that essay. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


This is the second RfC raised on this subject this year (the first one is above on this page) by WP:Single-purpose account editor Mark Shotter who has made no edits outside the subject of D H Lawrence. In both the RfCs I am accused of suggesting that D H Lawrence held extreme right-wing political views throughout his life. I have never made any such suggestion. The views of myself or of any other editor about the subject are irrelevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not exist to report the opinions of its editors. All that counts is the balanced reporting of the opinions expressed by authoritative independent sources.

The view of the raiser of both RfCs appears to be that a more nuanced approach should be made to Lawrence's views of politics. The nuancers, a cottage industry of literary interpreters who quibble about what Lawrence really meant by the words he used, seek to nuance away the inconvenient truth that Lawrence gave expression to views that nowadays are regarded as obnoxious, if not abominable. The argument of the nuancers seems to be that because Lawrence embraced every dotty idea that came his way, these ideas somehow cancel each other out and can be ignored. The only critically responsible approach to a biography is to look at the words actually used by Lawrence himself rather than the interpretations of them by interpreters. As acknowledged by many, Lawrence was a writer of great power. But he had his dark side, and until the last few decades many people preferred to ignore it. Lawrence's darker side should be acknowledged plainly and not be nuanced away by Wikipedia.

However, the nuance view was common in the last century, for example with Graham Hough (1956), and deserves to be noted in the article. I agree with Pincrete that the last paragraph in the section beginning "Despite the inconsistency and at times inscrutability" is out of place and could be transferred elsewhere or removed. It might be replaced with something like "Some commentators, such as John Worthen, point out that Lawrence held many views during his career, some of them contradictory, and hold that the interpretation of his views should be approached with caution."

I agree with Pincrete that the Philosophy and politics section (2) might be moved to later in the article. I should like to see the section expanded to give more attention to the racist views expressed by Lawrence. I will dig out Harrison's book which deals with them. As for Frieda Lawrence's opinion, uttered when the full enormity of Fascism had become apparent, - MDRA. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC).

  • Totally redo section. I suggest that a section on Lawrence's thought should flow out of his published works. It's rightly pointed out that his ideas were current at the time, but did he further these ideas in his writing? ... that's the critical question. I note that Terry Eagleton is a professed Marxist, and so his opinion of Lawrence may not be impartial enough for inclusion, at least as a lead. And then comes a quote from a private letter, that shows he held ideas current at that time. I think the section on his philosophy should flow out of his published works, and be more closely related to his public reputation gathered from his works. Jzsj (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

To Xxanthippe, I couldn’t agree with you more that, as you say, “All that counts is the balanced reporting of the opinions expressed by authoritative independent sources.” The whole point is that at present the Philosophy and Politics section does not do this and that you keep deleting any attempt to introduce any balanced reporting by authoritative independent sources. As it is, the section suggests that Lawrence was a ‘proto-German fascist’, which you have re-enforced by recently including Russell’s accusation in the second introductory paragraph of the article. If the article is to be balanced, the opinions of two authoritative biographers of Lawrence, John Worthen and Brenda Maddox, should be included at the very least; what is your objection to this? To again quote what you have said in earlier posts, “Let the readers of the article see what authoritative sources have to say and then make their own minds up.” To Pincrete, I have tried to include more aspects of Lawrence’s philosophical and religious thought in the section (see my suggested edit in earlier discussion of the section), but Xxanthippe deleted it. To Jzsj, I totally agree. Lawrence certainly never expressed support for fascism in his published literary works. Yes, as Xxanthippe would respond, he expressed support for authoritarian views in his letters to Russell, but in his novel ‘Kangaroo’ the character based on Lawrence (Somers) rejects the advances of both the neo-fascist diggers and the socialists. Later Lawrence wrote his essay ‘Democracy’ in which he argued for a new kind of democracy in which, “…each man shall be spontaneously himself – each man himself, each woman herself, without any question of equality entering in at all; and that no man shall try to determine the being of any other man, or of any other woman.” Late in his life, he told his sister in a letter he would vote Labour if he was living in England. All this, including the authoritarian views expressed to Russell, should be reflected in the section I believe, which should be started with something along the lines of “Lawrence held many views during his career, some of them contradictory.” Mark Shotter (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The section under debate does not suggest that Lawrence was a 'proto German fascist'. It reports that Bertrand Russell said that he was. As Russell was one of the pre-eminent intellectuals of his era, and had received a Nobel Prize for literature, which Lawrence did not, his views deserve to be noted in Wikipedia. His statement in the lede is followed by a statement of a well-known Lawrence authority F R Leavis to give counterbalance. Above I have made specific suggestions for editing the article in a way consistent with some of the points made in the two RfCs. It may go far enough for some, maybe not far enough for others. That is the essence of compromise. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC).
By including only the views of Russell and those with a similar PoV, and by placing these views before any discussion of DHL's writings, and devoting disproportionate text to the subject - the imference is that DHL being a 'proto-fascist' is received opinion - not one distinct minority opinion. Pincrete (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Second Pincrete's opinion strongly and stand by my analysis in the first RfC. 'Proto-fascist' is nebulous terminology at best (particularly in regards to his views on women) and at worse an essentially meaningless characterization that could apply to any reactionary, anti-democratic thinker prior to the rise of actual fascism. Also given that the actual quote is "proto-German Fascist" the waters are further muddied, as it almost sounds like Russell is suggesting he's a primitive german who is also a fascist. It's an extremely weak quote that's been shoehorned into an inexplicably prominent position in the lede and I support its removal entirely. VeritasVox (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Some of the comments expressed in this RfC seem to be in the nature of a riff on the users' personal opinions of Lawrence, like editorializing or WP:Original synthesis. This may be appropriate for a secondary source WP:Secondary, such as a book of critical article on the subject, but not for a tertiary source WP:Tertiary like Wikipedia. The essential feature of a Wikipedia article is to contain balanced views of reliable sources about the subject. Xxanthippe (talk).
Once again I have to stress that Xxanthippe is the one preventing a balanced view being put across in the article by deleting any attempt to put in views from reliable sources other than Russell and Eagleton on Lawrence’s political and philosophical opinions. Xxanthippe still has not answered my question as to whether they accept Professor John Worthen as a reliable source; it certainly seems that the academic world would accept him as a reliable source given that he was made Professor of DH Lawrence Studies at Nottingham University. So what is Xxanthippe's objection to including Worthen’s critique of Russell’s opinion? Is it that it contradicts Xxanthippe's own personal opinion? Further, Xxanthippe's comment about the statement from FR Leavis providing counter-balance is disingenuous, as it doesn’t specifically relate to Russell’s accusation of ‘proto-German fascism’.

Can editors other than Xxanthippe and myself input their opinions please, as this should be the real purpose of an RfC. Mark Shotter (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

In my contribution of 9 October 2018 I suggested changes to the article that would address the issues raised in this second RfC, including another reference to John Worthen, who is already cited eleven times in the article. Does anybody object to trying the changes I propose? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC).

John Worthen, who is already mentioned 11 times in the article, is one of the vast multitude of scholars who have written about Lawrence. In contrast Terry Eagleton gets 2 mentions in the article and the very prominent figures Bertrand Russell and F R Leavis get only 5 each. Are Worthen's views being overrepresented in the article? Does single-purpose editor Mark Schotter have any professional, personal or geographic link with Worthen that could lead to a perception of WP:Conflict of interest? I have no connection with Lawrence scholarship myself. If it became apparent that the contribution of a scholar to a field were being inflated on Wikipedia, it could reflect on the reputation of that scholar. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:D._H._Lawrence/Archive_1&oldid=1165494991"