Skip to main content

D.H. Lawrence on Melville

Image result for Moby Dick

Melville was "a great, deep artist, even if he was a rather sententious man. He was a real American in that he always felt his audience in front of him. But when he ceases to be American, when he forgets all audience, and gives us his sheer apprehension of the world, then he is wonderful his book commands  stillness in the soul, an awe.

"In his 'human' self, Melville is almost dead. That is, he hardly reacts to human contacts any more; or only ideally: or just for a moment. His human-emotional self is almost played out, He is abstract, self-analytical and abstracted. And he is more spell-bound by the strange slidings and collidings of Matter than by the things Men do."

What the heck does all that mean?

D.H. Lawrence, who was himself IMHO a "deep artist, even if he was a rather sententious man," did not use the phrase "a real American" as a compliment. Ever. For him, the real American prototype was Ben Franklin, whom he saw as a wealth-obsessed schemer, sort of a P.T. Barnum with an unfortunate smattering of scientist cred.

So Melville, when he felt his audience, was desperate for their approval (on Lawrence's reading), and in effect for their coin. Melville wanted to sell the sort of story that they would like, as exemplified by the success of Richard Dana in TWO YEARS BEFORE THE MAST (1840). MOBY DICK (1851) was meant, then, on what Lawrence understands to be Melville's surface level, to be that sort of yarn.

But there is a deeper level, too deep even to react to human contact, and so in a social sense "almost dead." It is at a symbolic and very intellectualizing level at which Melville's greatness works its way.

It takes Lawrence a long time yet to get around to it, so it isn't in the brief passage above, but what he is saying in this essay is that Melville made both Ahab and the White Whale symbols of the white race. The novel is the allegorical story of how whites as a race are rushing to commit suicide in the struggle with their own elemental nature. The crew is of course multi-racial, starting with Ishmael's bunkmate ... because the whites have brought along other races on this suicidal ride of theirs.

Lawrence is often idiosyncratic -- it is part of his power -- but in this case one is likely to be taken aback by his identification of the abstract with the unconscious. He is saying that Melville has to sink into his unconscious in forgetting the Franklin/American side of himself, but if I read him correctly he is also identifying this unconscious with the abstract and analytical. This is not the way we usually think of these distinctions. The more common take is that abstract and analytical thoughts are precisely achievements of the conscious mind, and that sinking into the unconscious means becoming more concrete. Not, apparently, for Lawrence's Melville.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak