Talk:D. H. Lawrence

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

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" 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.

"bi-curious" in the terminology of today

All Wikipedia articles are written for today's readers. The phrase "in the terminology of today" is superfluous and I will delete it.

Phersh (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Biased

This article is biased. It acknowledges that there were many people who were highly critical of him, but they are all waved aside, so that everyone who ever said anything *good* about him can be highlighted. The impression given (though not explicitly stated) is that lots of people hated his work, but they were all idiots and should be ignored, and the minority who liked him were the smart ones, so let's talk about them. To be balanced, the explicit complaints of the detractors should be cited. I'm particularly interested in this, because I find him to be the single worst writer I've ever been forced to read, and so I'd like to learn more about other critical views of him. And this article gave me *none* of that (except, perhaps, that some people were bent out of shape by the explicit sexuality (which, by the way, is NOT my complaint). I find it hard to believe that that was the only complaint. But if it in fact were, the article should say *that*). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.186.24.68 (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I echo the above sentiments. I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor, so I'm not going to make the requisite edits at this time, but someone please visit the following link and see if some edits are in order. The author makes a good case for why D.H. Lawrence had some very unsavory views which would be considered racist in 2019. Many people did back then, but if kids are going to read and be influenced by his work, the public should know that he thought very low things of other races. https://www.bookforum.com/print/2604/d-h-lawrence-s-stunning-indefensible-essays-23766

and here is a discussion on Hacker News (reputable forum run by Y Combinator, a top startup incubator) linking to that blog post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21625061

Let's be careful not to romanticize past figures, including via omission.

There has been much debate about such matters in the RfCs above. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC).

Please give some quotes of D .H. Lawrence

Quote 2409:4052:4E0B:D3B6:68F3:DD5F:2F70:115 (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)