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

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