RELATIONS OF DOMINANCE AND EQUALITY IN D. H. LAWRENCE

4
to be obscure in a text.
I dare say that, instead of
illuminating the text, they complicate it.
This fact seems to
occur exactly because their audience is not the common reader.
Critics tend to ignore this reader.
Sometimes they write "for
the sake of [their] own intellectual well-being", as Eliseo
Vivas (1960) says in the preface of his book .D.H. Lawrence, The
Failure and Triumph of Art.
However, I do not mean that all critics are obscurantists.
There are others who are concerned to present their views of
texts as a way to help us to understand such or such event in a
story.
others.
This is the case of H.M. Daleski, George H. Ford and
There are also critics who are too radical in their
viewpoint.
They belong to the category of people who need to
express their opinions saying this is altogether bad or this is
altogether good.
Kate Millet and Norman Mailer belong to this
category.
In terms of Lawrence these are some of the critics
who sometimes understand him or fail to understand him.
The critics I will analyse in depth in this review are
distributed in four areas:
a. The feminist versus the 'Macho' criticism - Kate Millet
and Norman Mailer.
b. The criticism Which deals with the philosophical
disciples of D.H. Lawrence, specifically Mark Spilka
and Harry T. Moore.
c. The contextual and non-technical psychological criticism
— Eliseo Vivas, H.M. Daleski and R.E. Pritchard.
d. The criticism which tries to discriminate patterns in
D.H. Lawrence's works as a whole — Keith Sagar, George
H. Ford and Graham Hough.