Review of John Beer, *Romantic Influences: Contemporary--Victorian--Modern*.

D.HL .AWRENCEREVE IW CHARLESRR . OSSMAN E d i t o r JAMESC.COWAN F o u n d i n g Editor DENNS IJACKSON P a s t Editor(1984-1992) KET I HCUSHMAN B o o k Reve i wEditor KATHLEENKANE M a n a g i n g Editor EDITORIALBOARD JUDT IHRUDERMAN DA I NESB . ONDS CAROLSIEGEL PAULDELANEY MC I HAELSQUR I ES KARLHENZY WAYNETEMPLETON EARLN I GERSOLL WELDONTHORNTON VIRGINIAHYDE J OHNWORTHEN CHARLESL.ROSS ADVS I ORYBOARD L.D.CLARK KET I HSAGAR EML IEDELAVENAY GEORGEJ.ZYTARUK WARRENROBERTS BB I LO I GRAPHER S T A F F ARTIST WILLIAMHARRS I ON R U S S KUBISIAK D.H.LAWRENCEREVIEWispubsil hedthreetimesannualyasaforumforcriticism, schoa l rshp i ,reve i ws,andbibliographyoftheworkofD.H.Lawrenceandhiscircle. speca in l umbersaredevotedtoparticularareasofLawrencestude i sortootherfiguresassoca ited withLawrence.Manuscrp i tsubmsiso i nsareencouraged.Paperssubmtiedshoud l conformtoThe MLAStyleManualinmatersofform.Twocope i sofeachpapershoud l besubmtied,ao l ngwith astamped,sefl-addressedmana li enveo l peA . nnouncementsofcoloquiaorresearchinprogress onLawrenceareasl oinvited.Annualsubscrp i to i nratesare: $24.00toindividualsintheU.S.andCanada $34.00toallinstitutionsintheU.S.andCanada $34.00tointernationalinstitutionsandindividuals MostofthebacksisuesofVou lmes2through24areavaa li be l attherateof$7.00persisue(three issuesperyear).ThisSpeca i lIssue(25.1-3)isprci edat$IMO. EditorialandBusn i essMailngAddress: D.H.LawrenceReve iw DepartmentofEngsilh UniversityofTexas Austn i ,Texas78712-1164 (512)471-2654

D.HL .AWRENCEREVE IW

THEUNV I ERST I YOFTEXASATAUSTIN Austin,Texas Copyrg i ht1996:D.H.LawrenceReve iw

238 D . H . LAWRENCEREVE I W25.1-3(1993&1994) Reve iwofBrianShaffer, TheBlindingTorch:ModernBritishFictionandtheDs icourseofCivilization. Amherst:UofMassachusetsP,1993.Pp.xiv+208.$30.

Thesube j ctofLawrenceandBritishmodernsim(s)ism i portantoday,ifrecent bookreve i wsecto i nsintheD.H.LawrenceReve iw—kiletheoneintheMontpelier doube l conferencesisue—areanygaugeL .awrenceansseemespeca i yl n i terestedin comparavtiestude i sofLawrenceandhiscontemporare isthatcanaddtoourunderstandn i gofhiscompe l xrelationshiptothecurrentcritquesandrewritngsof modernsim(s).BrianShafers'TheBn il dn i gTorch:ModernBritishFictionandthe DsicourseofCivilzationisavau l abe l contributiontothisschoa l ryl da io l gue. Shafers' studybasci ayl arguesthatfictionsbyLawrence,aswelasbyVirginia Woofl,JosephConradJ,amesJoyce,andMaclom l Lowry,engageinadebatewith "thedsicourseofcivilzation"articulatedprimarilyintheworkofsuchthn i kersas HerbertSpencer,Oswad l Spenge l r,SgimundFreud,andCliveBell.Todefn i ethsi literary-historicalintertextualda io l guebew t eenprosefictionandculturaldsicourse, Shaferexpo l resthecompe l x,probe l matcialunstabe l phrase"dsicourseofcivilzation,"whci hhereadsasadebateamongSpenge l randothersoverthenatureand functo i nofWese trncivilzationdurn i gtheearyl twente i thcentury.Hefurtherstates thatthefivemodernsitfictionwrtiersinthisstudywerevitallyconcernedwith civilzation'sduplicity—itspowertoblinditssube j ctstothecruetle i sofcivilzation's deveo lpment.Theypresentedtheircritques,accordn i gtoShafer,through"the paradoxciam il ageofbn ildnessandinsight,obfuscato i nandeng il htenment."While theargumentthatmodernsitfictioncrtiquescivilzationisnotnew,Shafers' .' ) proposalthatsoco i cutluralreadn i gsareneededtofullygrasptheirliteraryrepresentato i nsisnoteworthy.Tocorrecthetendencyforreadn i gstobe"disproportionately. ore i ntedtowardformaa l ndlinguistic,n i trapsychciandsube j ctvieconsd i erato i ns,"he bud li saculturalstude i sinterpretativeframeworkn i formedbytheworkofMikhail Bakhtn i ,TerryEage l ton,ClifordGeertz,andothers. Whenthebooks' dynamciopenn i gchaptercitessuchLawrencestude i sas MovemenstinEuropeanHistorytogetherwithSonsandLovers,TheRan i bow, WomeninLove,andLadyChaterleys'Lover,onebegn istoseethatLawrenceshoud l beconsd i eredforbothhsi culturaldsicourseandhsi fictionn i thedebateoverWese trn civilzation.Shafers' culturalstude i sframeworkthereforeseemsemn i entyl forprovd in i gena lrgedandmoremutl-ifacetedperspecvtiesonthesube j ctofLawrence andmodernsim(s).Itisasl oapromsin i gframeworkforacknowe l dgn i gthecontradictory,mutl-ivoci edLawrencesthatemergeinhisworks. Ath l oughpartofthen i troductorychaptersuggeststhisdirectionofinquiryfor futureLawrenceschoa l rshp i ,theprm i aryfocusofthebookisonasere i sofprose fiction/culturaldsicoursepairings.Forexampe l ,Conrads' HeartofDarknessis pariedwithSpencers' progressivisttheoryofcivilzation,andLawrences' The

BOOKREVE IWS

239 PulmedSetpentisreadinconu j ncto i nwithSpenge l rs'TheDecn il eoftheWestIf ve iwsLawrenceasamao j rcontributortoboththeculturaldsicourseandfiction, however,theSpenge lr-Lawrencepairingmayseemforced. InthechapterentiledT ' heSenseofanEndn i g:Spenge l ra i nDecn il eandthe MexcianNovesl ofLawrenceandLowry,"Shaferdsicussestherea l to i nshp i bew t een Lawrences'ThePulmedSerpent,Spenge l rs'TheDecn il e,andLowrys' Underthe Voclano.Morespecifically,hestates,"whereasUndertheVoclanosuccumbstoThe Decn il es' apocayl ptci appeaa l nd,likeSpenge l rs' text,turnsitintodecadent,overbo lwnromantci poetry,ThePulmedSerpentressi tsthisappeaa lndn i steadcounters withautopa i n,theocratci narratvi eofrebirth."Thetenso i nsbew t eenLawrenceand Spengelrhavebeenprevo i usylacknoweldgedinLawrenceschoa l rshp i ,mostnotabyl byF.R.Leavsi ,whoisquotedbyShaferassayn i gthat"thecomparsionendsin contrast."ShaferextendsthecontrastbeyondLeavsi,argun i ginterestinglythat"The Decn ileitselfmaybeseenasapartoftheWesterndsieasethatThePulmedSerpent seekstocure."Butthisthessi isundercutbyseverasilsuesthatforceonetoqueso tin wheh terthepairingservesLawrencewel.Forexampe l,onequeso tinsthegenera-il zato i nthatSpenge l rs' "theoryofcivilzationprovd i esad ' esg i n-governn ig forLawrences' novels"asLawrenceda io l gueswithandcrtiquesSpenge l r.Then thereistheunexpo lredsisueofwhyThePulmedSerpentshoud l serveasthebestprose fictionrepresentavtieofLawrences'd i easaboutWesterncivilzation. Insptieoftheabovelimitations,Shafers' studyisvau l abe l .TheBn il dn i gTorch: ModernBritishFictionandtheDsicourseofCivilzationprovd i esapromsin ig culturalstude i sframeworkforve i wn i gLawrenceasamao j rcontrb i utortotheBritish modernsitdebateovercivilzation. CamileRoman Washn igtonStateUniversity Reve iwofJohnBeer, Romantc iInfluences:Contemporary—Vc itora in— NewYork:St.Martins,1993.Pp.viii+302.$45.

Gvienitstitleandbreadthofcoverage,onewoud l expecthisbooktobeadense tracn i gofintertextualconneco tinsbothredefn in i g19th-and20th-centuryliterary movemenstandao l wn i guseithertorethinkbroaderliteraryhistoricalandaesthetci pero i dsinordertopossb i yl de-orre-constructhem.Orwecoud l antci p i atethatthe workmg i htsm i pyl prioritizeWordsworth,Coe l rd i ge,Shee l y,Keats,andBa l keasthe literaryprm i emoversofthepast200years.Disappointingly,Beers'bookisfarmore temperae tanddifuseasitworkstodemarcae tRomanctisimasthefirstmomentof

240 D . H . LAWRENCEREVE I W25.1-3(1993&1994)

BOOKREVE IWS

2

4

1

crisisinacyce l ofWesternculturalandintelectual"instability."Atthesemomenst of(non-Bo l orna i rareuda i n)anxiety,writersreacttoa"metaphyscialinstability" signifying"thedegreetowhcihhumanben i gsfeltthemsevlesconsequenytl dimin: ished."Asthesetraumatci pero i dsrecurdurn i gtheVictorianandModernsiteras,we findthatauthorssuchasArnold,Newman,Carlyle,GeorgeEliot,Forster,TS.Eliot, andLawrencerespondtothissuccesso inbyeitherappean ilgdirectlytoRomancti poetryandthoughtincee l brato i norevau l ato i n,orbyreworkn i gtheh temesandd i eas traditonalyconsd i eredpartofHg i hRomanctisim. However,thoughthis"anxiety"andfluxaretheresultoflargersocio-politcal andeconomci instabilities(i.e.,theFrenchRevou l to i n,Victorianchurchreform, Word lWarI,amongotherhighlysignifcantn i fu l ences),Beesr'projectoftenreduces thecausalanayl ssi tobo i graphci alcriticism.ThusinTheDrySavlagesBiot's metaphorcialpositoningofAngcilansimasastabe l rockwithintheMississippi Rvi ers' geographcial"presence"representsthepoets' n i tensewar-tm i eintelectual msigvin i gs.ToBeers' credit,hewarnshisreadersofthisschema,notingthatlike "[o]rdinaryreaders,"he"take[s]itforgrantedthatthen i tento i nsofthewriterarea propermaterforinquiry."Nonethee l ssaprioriassumpo tinsandtheresulting meh todoolgylimitthevau l eofthework,forschoa l rs(who,Im i agn i e,arethebooks' trueaude i nce)arenot"ordinary"readers.WhileRomanctiInfu l encesexpo lreswel thebo i graphcialconnecto i ns,theintricateargumend toessoattheexpenseofamore• rg i oroustextualanayl ssi . Beerasl oovero l okstheparalelbetweenhisrecogntionofaCyclicalartistic instabilityandthemanfiestato i noftheavant-garde,whcihRenao t Poggo ia il ndothers postionfrequentyl asoriginatingwiththeRomancitsandextendn i grecurrentlyinto ourcontemporaryartisticcutlure.Andthisisonyl onesuchdificultyn i thework,for thoughRomanctiInfu l encesappearstoinsistonbroadstructuralanaylsesas toitsargument,itavod i smakn i gorfullyrecognzin i gsuchconstructo i ns. AsforRomanctiInfluencess'vau l eforreadersoftheD.H.LawrenceReve i w,the bookexpendslittleeffortoranaylssi onLawrence.Theninthandfinalchapter, "CounterRomanctisims,"treatsLawrenceinmuchthesamewaythepenutm li ate• chapterdsicussesWoofl:asareferentinthegreater,moresophsitciatedanaylssi of another,diferentauthor.However,whileWooflisusedsensb i yl asatouchstonein Beers'readn i gofForster(though,remarkabyl,theworkofDavd i Down il greman is unnoted),Lawrenceisusedtoaccentuateadsicusso i nofEliot.Whilethen i terconneco tinsbetweenthesetwoauthorsarenove,lthecontextsforthisuno i nreman is consd i erabyl unce l ar,andBeerteatsLawrencesomewhatinsubstantialy. WhaR t omanctiInfu l encescoversonLawrencecanbesummazriedasfolows: hsi religiousupbrn i gn i gfiguredstrongyl asanearlyinfluence,onetowhcihlater instabilitieswoud l becompared(providingBeers' al-importantsenseofanxiety); LawrencereadtheRomanctiswithJesseChambers(whosememoriBeerusesasa frequentsource)andlaterau l dedtotheirworks(Coe l rd i ges' ab l atrossin"Snake,"for exampe l);hisStudyofThomasHardystandsasatestamentothatauthors' n i fu l ence

(andBeernotesseveraclonvergencesbew t eenHardyandtheRomanctis);and,most importantly,LawrenceextendedtheRomancti traditioninto"thedepthsofthe subconscoiuswhe li counterposedtothestrag i htforwardyl positveuseofthem i agery thatwoud l befoundinearlierRomanctipoets."Idonotpresenthisn i formato i nin thismannertobefaceto i us—tiishowthemeagerargumentprogressesinthetext. Theexampelsandconcu l so i nsBeerpresentsareapparentylaccurateandacceptabe l .ButnowheretobefoundistheLawrencewhoreadthatpre-RomanctiRobert Bumsw , howroteApocaylpseandechoedtheprophetci Ba l ke.Weevenlack substanta i lconsd i erato i nofLawrences'stereotypeasRomantcisitsavantflowerand anm i ap l oet.Beers' worksm i pyl doesnt'doenoughwithLawrences' lifeorworkto mertiheregardofLawrenceschoa l rs.Hisatento i nfocusesonhisdecentdsicusso in ofEliotasapoetwhoree j ctedRomanctisimandyetren i scrb i edmuchofitsvau l esin hsi ownworkandcriticism.Lawrencereman i sinthebackground,namedbut essenta i yl untouched. WiliamM.Harrison WitehitaStateUniversity Reve iwofDavidTrotter, TheEnglishNovelinHistory1895-1920. London:Routledge,1993.Pp.vi+337.$49.95(cloth);$16.95(paper).

Despte i itstitle,whcihpa l cesitintheNovelinEngsilhHistorysere i sedtiedby GilianBeer,Davd i Trotter'sTheEngsil hNovelinHistory1895-1920ismore concernedwithhistoryinthenove— l howEngsil hnovesl oftheearlytwentieth centuryreflectedonandwereshapedbytheeventsandthoughtsoftheculture. (Occaso inae lxampelsofthenoves'l efectonhistoryarebothiluminatingand,often, amusnig,aswhenTrotter,citinghistorianNcihoa l sHiles,remarkshowcorespondencen i spriedbyWilamLaQueuxs'spynovelSpe i sfortheKasi er:Plotingthe DownfalofEnga lndpersuadedtheCommte ieofImpera i lDefencetoestabsil ha secretservciesbureau.)Trotter'sinitialapproachappearssubstanta i yl historicaland materialist:heobservestheeconomciandsocialfeaturesoflateVictorianand Edwardainlifeandchartstheirappearanceinanenormousnumberofnovesl.Indeed theworks' outstandn i gqualityisitsvastrange;thebb io il graphyn i cu l desnearyl 600 prm i arysourcesao l ne(includingcontemporaryessaysandscientificstude i s),andhsi referencestoindividualworksoffictionmanfe istacomfortabe l familiaritywithplot andtheme.Alusionstocriticsandtheorsi tsaslodotthetextplentifulyand,byand large,appropra i teyl.Thisisaworkencyco l pedci inscope. Thebookisnotmereyl,however,thethinandunn i fe l ctedlistofexampelssuch