310
EOZIA WEISBERG
virtue of his book is that it is coolly detached from both Lawrence
the personality and Lawrence the prophet, and deals instead with
Lawrence the writer.
Though he begins his study with an acknowledgment of
Lawrence's enormous gifts, Vivas quickly proceeds to wonder why
he wrote so many bad novels. He separates Lawrence the artist
from Lawrence the propagandist and, not unexpectedly, comes to
the conclusion that the novels which are failures are those in which
the pamphleteer triumphed over the writer. More than half of the
book, then, is devoted to an examination of those novels which
are artistic failures. According to Vivas, the novels written after
Women In Love
are mainly raw and undigested autobiographical
material which Lawrence failed to transmute "into the infonned
substance of art." To lend credence to this thesis, the reader
is
in–
vited to share in an exhaustive scrutiny of
Aaron's Rod, Kangaroo,
The Plumed Serpent,
and
Lady Chatterley's Lover,
the novels
that Vivas presents as the prime examples of Lawrence's failure.
This analysis is always informed and intelligent, yet one cannot
help wondering why so much space need 'be devoted to showing
that obviously bad books are bad. Except for Middleton Murry,
who for reasons all too transparent found
Aaron's Rod
"the great–
est of Lawrence's novels," and F. R. Leavis, who for reasons almost
as transparent is extremely indulgent toward the novel, no one
has ever considered either
Aaron's Rod
or
Kangaroo
successful
works of art. Now, surely, it is legitimate to discuss acknowledged
failures if the discussion brings forth new evidence for the failure,
or if it deals with ideas previously overlooked.
If,
for instance,
Aaron's Rod
is to be discussed at length, then it would seem that
the theme of homosexuality has to be confronted. To be sure, this
is
a problem which appears not only in
Aaron's Rod;
it occurs
in
many of Lawrence's novels. But here it receives its most explicit
treatment. Hence, the critic dealing with this work at length sim–
ply cannot behave as
if
the problem were trivial; it is much too im–
portant and recurs in Lawrence's writings with an annoying
persistence. Rupert-Gerald; Lilly-Aaron; Somers-Callcott-these
couplings have to be explained, because until we understand their
significance we cannot know what Lawrence is really saying about
sex and marriage.
