文坛凤凰的斑斓色彩
摘要
作为20世纪英国文学史上最有才华、最有争议、最有影响的作家之一,D. H劳伦斯是一位多面手:小说家、短篇小说家、诗人、散文家、戏剧家、评论家、翻译家和画家。但总的来说,他作为小说家的成就最大,最使人心悦诚服。不幸的是,他生前命运多蹇,作品屡遭查禁,颇受诟病。面对贬责和非难,他曾不无失望地说,三百年内没有人会理解他的作品。但另一方面,他又充满自信地说,他将改变这个世界未来一千年的历史进程。幸运的是,他死后仅三十年时间,评论界对他和他的作品的看法就发生了很大的变化。他没有改变世界的历史进程,但确实令全世界的评论家和学者刮目相看。随着越来越多的读者欣赏他的作品,他的小说风靡全球,广为流行,成为英国文学的一个巅峰,世界文学中一道奇特的风景线。我们不妨说,劳伦斯是英国文坛上一位在文学批评的灰烬中死而复生的“凤凰”,他丰富多姿的文学文体犹如五彩缤纷的羽毛,使这位光彩夺目的文坛凤凰显得更加绚丽动人。
就国内外劳伦斯小说研究的现状而言,对其小说思想性的探讨多于艺术分析,道德评判多于审美评判,主题研究多于表现手法和文体研究。在这些有待于进一步研究的问题中,其小说文体较少受到批评家的关注,因此“几乎仍是一个未被批评家们观察研究过的方面”。事实上,劳伦斯不仅在社会批评、心理探索、揭示男女关系方面是一位“伟大的有创造性的天才作家”,而且在小说文体方面也是一位不断进行试验和创新的优秀作家,对此,他自己也颇有感受。劳伦斯小说的现代主义特征体现在小说题材和文体的双重变化上。他在题材上的创新精神首先反映在《儿子与情人》中,但他在文体上的创新精神始于《虹》,演变于《恋爱中的女人》,成熟于《恰特莱夫人的情夫》。他成功地创造出与其小说基本题材相适应的小说文体,成为形式与内容和谐统一的杰出范例,给英国小说的文体带来了巨大变化,为现代主义小说的繁荣与发展起到了推波助澜的作用。
在吸收他人研究成果的基础上,本文通过对劳伦斯四部有代表性的长篇小说和一些中短篇小说的文本解读和剖析,试图对劳伦斯四种典型的小说文体及其演变轨迹进行考察和探讨。
本论文分为六个部分。
导论部分简述了国内外劳伦斯小说的研究现状、本文的选题意义以及研究视角和方法;概括指出,劳伦斯小说有四种典型的文体:即现实主义文体、表现主义文体、象征主义文体和寓言式文体。有趣的是,一部小说中可能有两到三种文体重叠使用,但相互并不排斥且经常彼此交融,但只有一种文体是主流文体、典型文体,因此,论述时只选择其典型文体。
第一章论述了劳伦斯小说的现实主义文体。由于在自然景色描写手法和小说文体方面深受托马斯?哈代和乔治?爱略特的影响,劳伦斯前二部小说在结构和技巧上表现出明显的现实主义倾向,都是用维多利亚女王时代现实主义的手法写成的。此外,劳伦斯关于“小说是唯一光彩夺目的生活之书”的名言构成了他小说的基本点,也反映了他早期现实主义的小说观和创作理念。但后来从第三本小说起,劳伦斯在许多方面都转变为一个现代主义的作家。因此他被认为是英国现实主义小说传统的继承人和现代主义小说的创始人。能表明劳伦斯现实主义文体的最早作品有:《草垛中的爱情》、《菊馨》等短篇小说和《白孔雀》、《儿子与情人》两部长篇小说。它们都有传统的情节和人物,都用几近透明的语言写成的。就创作年代而言,《菊馨》是他现实主义文体和象征主义文体的交汇之作;就文体演变而言,《白孔雀》属于现实主义文体的尝试之作,而《儿子与情人》才是现实主义的“成功之作”,他现实主义的文体在后者中体现得十分明显,非常典型。但将其仅视为现实主义作品,则等于忽视了其文体的丰富性。事实上,在该作品的第二部分,现实主义文体已开始演变,其他文体陆续显现,相互作用彰显作品主题:现实主义是基石,印象主义创造气氛,象征主义表达意义,表现主义提供视角。
第二章探讨了劳伦斯的表现主义文体。作为最有争议的现代主义作家,劳伦斯吸纳了文艺复兴、英国风景绘画、法国印象主义、德国表现主义、意大利未来主义等流派手法,兼收并蓄,形成了他个人的独特视角与手法。在表现主义兴盛之时,他观看过表现主义绘画并留下了深刻的印象,也曾受到凡·高等人的较大影响。因此,他的一些小说,如其代表作《虹》和《恋爱中的女人》,无论在其思想内容上还是在表现手法上都具有明显的欧洲表现主义美学倾向,语言带有浓厚的表现主义色彩。所以,作为现实主义文体演变的产物,表现主义文体成为劳伦斯小说的又一鲜明文体。表现主义手法是抽象的,重视人的主观世界、内在心灵的强烈的呈露。
第三章分析了劳伦斯小说的象征主义文体。作品解读表明,劳伦斯是一个十足的象征主义者。他不仅善用象征来实现其艺术目的,而且还对象征有其自己独到的看法。他的象征主义文体不同于传统的象征主义,主要意蕴在于人类与自然、个体与环境之间的生机关系。此外,劳伦斯的象征主义文体还有一些神话倾向,因此,有些评论家认为他是一个神话象征主义者。劳伦斯创作中期的大多数作品大体上都是用象征主义文体写成的,小说的主题和特征通过象征主义文体得到了充分的表现,当然,也与其他文体有机结合,重叠使用,如表现主义文体等。
劳伦斯独具特色的象征主义文体有其独特的语言表达效果,其象征形式不易辨识,其象征效果“在于诗歌和戏剧手法的巧妙揉合并用”(利维斯语)。就构成劳伦斯象征主义文体的诸多象征的显现方式而言,可粗略分为下列四类:一、自然景色描写中的象征,如“月影”中伯金的投石击月景。二、对话中的象征,如伯金与厄秀拉对话中的“星式均衡”的两性关系说。三、作为特殊符号或意象出现的象征,如“甲壳虫”和“非洲雕像”。四、作为情节再现的象征,如《恋爱中的女人》中的“湖上灯会”和“一把椅子”。通过这些象征手法,读者被深深引入劳伦斯奇特象征的“丛林”中。
第四章讨论了劳伦斯小说的寓言式文体。劳伦斯的后期小说给我们展现了一种缺乏现实性、颇富虚构性、更富艺术性的叙事体:寓言式文体。这种文体模式关注的是存在于现实世界之外的虚构世界,是一个只有参照平常世界才会有意义的世界,是一个“较为美好、较为引人入胜的世界,在那里,理想重于现实”。这在《普鲁士军官》、《木马优胜者》、《骑马出走的女人》和《死去的人》等作品中都能得到充分的验证。劳伦斯在《死去的人》这部小说中实现了他在现实生活中未能实现的希望和抱负,这对他乐此不疲的乌托邦努力来说恰是一种“客观对应物”。该寓言是对他长期孤独、荒凉漂泊岁月的最后叙述,是他对未来一个更美好世界的最后憧憬,也是他一生哲学和道德观念的总结。难怪在他身心均远离英国故乡的时期写成了这部作品,也难怪他用寓言式文体结束了他的小说创作。
结论部分总结了劳伦斯历时十七年文学生涯中小说文体的演变轨迹:劳伦斯的小说创作始于现实主义文体,异于表现主义文体,娴于象征主义文体,终于寓言式文体和现实主义文体的结合并用。
As one of the most talented, and provocative figures in the history of English culture in the twentieth century, D. H. Lawrence is a many-sided person : a novelist, a short story writer, a poet, an essayist, a playwright, a critic, a translator, and a painter. But he is a novelist first and last. Unfortunately he was often severely undervalued as a novelist during his lifetime. In the face of too much censure and misjudgement, Lawrence disappointedly complained that nobody would understand his works within three hundred years, but on the other hand he confidently expected that he would change the course of history of the world in the next thousand years. Interesting enough, just thirty years after his death witnessed a big change in the evaluation of his works and himself. He hasn’t changed the course of the world history, but has been really treated with new eyes and gained increasing respects from critics and scholars and popularity all over the world. He has eventually created a scenic view in the world literary area attractive for many visitors. Therefore we may say in a sense that Lawrence is“a resurgent bird after death”from the ashes of the criticism—severely undervalued during his lifetime but increasingly appreciated after his death. His varied styles serve as fine feathers and make this renewed“bird”finer.
As far as the study of Lawrence’s novels is concerned, critics have focused attention more on the themes than the art, more on the morals than the aesthetics, and more on the contents than the styles and expressions. There still remain some problems to be explored and surveyed, of which Lawrence’s fictional style has been paid very little attention to and therefore remains“almost entirely unexamined by criticism.”In fact, Lawrence was not only a“great creative genius”in so-called social criticism and psychological exploration, as well as in depicting the man-woman relationship, but also a fine writer“who continually experimented with fictional style and was eminently conscious (as his letters and expository essays clearly reveal) of what he was doing.”His modernist features have been embodied in the dual change of his subject matter and style. While his originality of subject matter appears in Sons and Lovers, his originality of style starts in The Rainbow and develops in Women in Love, and matures till Lady Chatterley’s Lover. As a result, he has brought about great changes to the style of English novels and facilitated the development and flourishing of modernist novels.
The present dissertation intends to make an approach to the four varied fictional styles in Lawrence’s works, with his four representative novels, such as The White Peacock, Sons and Lovers, The Rainbow, and Women in Love, and some short stories as basic texts. The dissertation falls into six parts.
Introduction first offers a brief review about the current situation of D. H. Lawrence studies both at home and abroad. It then states how and why the title is chosen, and what kind of literary critical stance and perspective might be employed to conduct a stylistic approach to Lawrence’s novels. Broadly speaking, there are four typical styles in Lawrence’s novels: realistic, expressionist, symbolic and fabulous. What interests us is that two or three styles may co-exist or be used simultaneously in one novel, but they are not mutually exclusive and often blur into“composites”. In spite of that, only one of the styles works as the most essential or keynote, which can be regarded as the typical style of a certain novel.
Chapter One approaches Lawrence’s realistic style. Being influenced by Thomas Hardy and George Eliot in terms of the description of his native landscape and fictional style, D. H. Lawrence’s first two novels show a main tendency of realism and naturalism in structure and technique. They are written in the manner of Victorian realism: the omniscient narrator, working with firm control, the facts set forth objectively. His popular saying“the novel is the one bright book of life”can be regarded as his vision of novel and reveals his realistic attitude toward writing. But later on, from The Rainbow, his third novel on, Lawrence turns out to be a modernist in many ways. So he is considered a successor to the traditional English realism as well as one of the creators of modernist English novels. The earliest examples of Lawrence’s realistic mode of style are the short stories“Love Among the Haystacks,”“Monkey Nuts,”“Tickets, Please,”“Odour of Chrysanthemums”and the novels The White Peacock and Sons and Lovers. They have conventional plots and characters and are rendered in a language that is almost transparent. In terms of chronology,“Odour of Chrysanthemums”is the meeting ground of the realistic and the symbolic modes of style. In terms of stylistic development, The White Peacock is just the shallow realistic experiment, while Sons and Lovers has been recognized as a“triumph of realism.”
Lawrence’s realistic mode of style is quite obvious and typical in Sons and Lovers, but to take it as simply“realistic”is to neglect much of the novel’s richness—or expand the concept of realism beyond recognizable limits. As a matter of fact, there is a breakdown of realism in the novel’s second half. Rather than monolithic realism, a fluid interaction of various styles is interrelated and works together to express the central theme of the novel: realism supplies the bedrock, symbolism the significance, and expressionism the vision.
Chapter Two explores Lawrence’s expressionist style. As“the most provocative of modernist authors”, Lawrence draws on sources as diverse as Renaissance art, English landscape painting, German expressionism, and Italian futurism, transforming all into the textures of his own vision and expression. He saw expressionist painting in its heyday and was impressed by it. He was greatly influenced by Vincent van Gogh and Edvard Munch. As a result, some of his novels, like The Rainbow and Women in Love, manifest profound kinship with aesthetics of European expressionism either in terms of ideological contents or in terms of expressive techniques. His language of the unconscious clearly has expressionist overtones. So the expressionist mode of style can be Lawrence’s another striking stylistic feature worth observing in this section with The Rainbow and Women in Love as the breakaway from the realistic style.
The use of expressionist art in Lawrence’s The Rainbow and Women in Love is by no means accidental, but is the natural result of the deep historical background at the time. His most representative novels like The Rainbow and Women in Love were written coincidentally in the years when the expressionism was quite prevailing throughout the Europe. So certain features of expressionism are therefore revealed expectedly throughout his works. For all the connections, The Rainbow remains a prewar novel, and Women in Love—written, like so many of the key works of Modernism, across the war—is a post-war novel, filled with the wound of war and the renewed encounter with disintegration, Lawrence’s wartime experiences enter the story, and the hard expressionist dimension is intensified in his works.
Chapter Three focuses on Lawrence’s symbolic style. A survey of his novels shows that Lawrence is a symbolist by and large. One of the most important ways in which Lawrence convinces us of the reality or the inner non-social world to which his characters have access is by his use of symbolism. He is not only good at using symbols to realize his artistic purposes, but also has his own definition of the“symbol”different from the other symbolist writers. His symbolic style differs from traditional symbolism and refers to the vital relationship existing between the human and the natural as between single individuals and circumambient universe. Besides, there is a mythic tendency in Lawrence’s symbolic style, hence it is also called a mythical symbolism by some critics. The symbolic style, in which most of the middle works of Lawrence are largely written, is often found in combination with other modes of style, for instance, the expressionist style. Lawrence’s symbolic style does not make comments on an event, nor does it merely factually describe a scene; it becomes the event, absorbs it, so that to describe the nature and narrative significance of the event is to describe the nature of the style.
Lawrence’s characteristic symbolic style consists in a special effect of language rather than in the usual forms that are immediately recognizable as“symbolic.”As F. R. Leavis writes, Lawrence’s symbolic effects“work subtly in with the whole complex organization of poetic and dramatic means…and are no more to be brought helpfully under the limiting suggestion of symbolism than the Shakespearian means in an act of Macbeth”.
As far as the occurrence of symbols in Lawrence’s novels is concerned, we may roughly come to the conclusion that there are four categories: 1. symbols are fused into the descriptions of landscape, like Birkin’s moon-stoning scene in“Moony”; 2. symbols are conveyed in the dialogues, like the“star equilibrium”in Birkin-Ursula’s dialogue; 3. symbols occur as particular signs or images, like“the beetle”and“the African statuette”; 4. symbols emerge as plots, like“Water-party”and“A Chair”in Women in Love. Through these kinds of symbolic ways, readers are attractively led into“the wood”of Lawrence’s peculiar symbols.
Chapter Four discusses Lawrence’s use of fabulous style. Lawrence’s later works have brought us to a less realistic and more fictional and more artistic kind of narrative: the fabulous style. This mode of style is concerned with a made-up world that exists deliberately outside the world we inhabit. It must also be admitted that it is a world which finds its meaning only in reference to the everyday world. It is“more shapely, more evocative, more concerned with ideas and ideals, less concerned with things”. This is amply exemplified in works like“The Prussian Officer”,“The Rocking-Horse Winner”, The Man Who Died and so on. The Man Who Died is the fictional embodiment of Lawrence’s hopes and aspirations which could not be fulfilled in his real life—a kind of“objective-correlative”for his intensely enthusiastic utopian endeavors, for his generally prophetic inclinations. The tale is the tribute—the final tribute—to his own long, lonely, often wild, years of wandering, to his strong belief in a better world in the future. It is not surprising that it should have been written at a time when he was far outside—both physically and emotionally—his native England. It is not surprising either that he ends his fiction with the use of the fabulous style.
The conclusion summarizes the change or evolution of Lawrence’s fictional styles during his seventeen-year (1911-1928) literary career: Lawrence’s fiction shows a development that begins with the realistic style, varies with the expressionist style, matures with the symbolic style, and ends with his use of fabulous style in combination with the realistic style.
就国内外劳伦斯小说研究的现状而言,对其小说思想性的探讨多于艺术分析,道德评判多于审美评判,主题研究多于表现手法和文体研究。在这些有待于进一步研究的问题中,其小说文体较少受到批评家的关注,因此“几乎仍是一个未被批评家们观察研究过的方面”。事实上,劳伦斯不仅在社会批评、心理探索、揭示男女关系方面是一位“伟大的有创造性的天才作家”,而且在小说文体方面也是一位不断进行试验和创新的优秀作家,对此,他自己也颇有感受。劳伦斯小说的现代主义特征体现在小说题材和文体的双重变化上。他在题材上的创新精神首先反映在《儿子与情人》中,但他在文体上的创新精神始于《虹》,演变于《恋爱中的女人》,成熟于《恰特莱夫人的情夫》。他成功地创造出与其小说基本题材相适应的小说文体,成为形式与内容和谐统一的杰出范例,给英国小说的文体带来了巨大变化,为现代主义小说的繁荣与发展起到了推波助澜的作用。
在吸收他人研究成果的基础上,本文通过对劳伦斯四部有代表性的长篇小说和一些中短篇小说的文本解读和剖析,试图对劳伦斯四种典型的小说文体及其演变轨迹进行考察和探讨。
本论文分为六个部分。
导论部分简述了国内外劳伦斯小说的研究现状、本文的选题意义以及研究视角和方法;概括指出,劳伦斯小说有四种典型的文体:即现实主义文体、表现主义文体、象征主义文体和寓言式文体。有趣的是,一部小说中可能有两到三种文体重叠使用,但相互并不排斥且经常彼此交融,但只有一种文体是主流文体、典型文体,因此,论述时只选择其典型文体。
第一章论述了劳伦斯小说的现实主义文体。由于在自然景色描写手法和小说文体方面深受托马斯?哈代和乔治?爱略特的影响,劳伦斯前二部小说在结构和技巧上表现出明显的现实主义倾向,都是用维多利亚女王时代现实主义的手法写成的。此外,劳伦斯关于“小说是唯一光彩夺目的生活之书”的名言构成了他小说的基本点,也反映了他早期现实主义的小说观和创作理念。但后来从第三本小说起,劳伦斯在许多方面都转变为一个现代主义的作家。因此他被认为是英国现实主义小说传统的继承人和现代主义小说的创始人。能表明劳伦斯现实主义文体的最早作品有:《草垛中的爱情》、《菊馨》等短篇小说和《白孔雀》、《儿子与情人》两部长篇小说。它们都有传统的情节和人物,都用几近透明的语言写成的。就创作年代而言,《菊馨》是他现实主义文体和象征主义文体的交汇之作;就文体演变而言,《白孔雀》属于现实主义文体的尝试之作,而《儿子与情人》才是现实主义的“成功之作”,他现实主义的文体在后者中体现得十分明显,非常典型。但将其仅视为现实主义作品,则等于忽视了其文体的丰富性。事实上,在该作品的第二部分,现实主义文体已开始演变,其他文体陆续显现,相互作用彰显作品主题:现实主义是基石,印象主义创造气氛,象征主义表达意义,表现主义提供视角。
第二章探讨了劳伦斯的表现主义文体。作为最有争议的现代主义作家,劳伦斯吸纳了文艺复兴、英国风景绘画、法国印象主义、德国表现主义、意大利未来主义等流派手法,兼收并蓄,形成了他个人的独特视角与手法。在表现主义兴盛之时,他观看过表现主义绘画并留下了深刻的印象,也曾受到凡·高等人的较大影响。因此,他的一些小说,如其代表作《虹》和《恋爱中的女人》,无论在其思想内容上还是在表现手法上都具有明显的欧洲表现主义美学倾向,语言带有浓厚的表现主义色彩。所以,作为现实主义文体演变的产物,表现主义文体成为劳伦斯小说的又一鲜明文体。表现主义手法是抽象的,重视人的主观世界、内在心灵的强烈的呈露。
第三章分析了劳伦斯小说的象征主义文体。作品解读表明,劳伦斯是一个十足的象征主义者。他不仅善用象征来实现其艺术目的,而且还对象征有其自己独到的看法。他的象征主义文体不同于传统的象征主义,主要意蕴在于人类与自然、个体与环境之间的生机关系。此外,劳伦斯的象征主义文体还有一些神话倾向,因此,有些评论家认为他是一个神话象征主义者。劳伦斯创作中期的大多数作品大体上都是用象征主义文体写成的,小说的主题和特征通过象征主义文体得到了充分的表现,当然,也与其他文体有机结合,重叠使用,如表现主义文体等。
劳伦斯独具特色的象征主义文体有其独特的语言表达效果,其象征形式不易辨识,其象征效果“在于诗歌和戏剧手法的巧妙揉合并用”(利维斯语)。就构成劳伦斯象征主义文体的诸多象征的显现方式而言,可粗略分为下列四类:一、自然景色描写中的象征,如“月影”中伯金的投石击月景。二、对话中的象征,如伯金与厄秀拉对话中的“星式均衡”的两性关系说。三、作为特殊符号或意象出现的象征,如“甲壳虫”和“非洲雕像”。四、作为情节再现的象征,如《恋爱中的女人》中的“湖上灯会”和“一把椅子”。通过这些象征手法,读者被深深引入劳伦斯奇特象征的“丛林”中。
第四章讨论了劳伦斯小说的寓言式文体。劳伦斯的后期小说给我们展现了一种缺乏现实性、颇富虚构性、更富艺术性的叙事体:寓言式文体。这种文体模式关注的是存在于现实世界之外的虚构世界,是一个只有参照平常世界才会有意义的世界,是一个“较为美好、较为引人入胜的世界,在那里,理想重于现实”。这在《普鲁士军官》、《木马优胜者》、《骑马出走的女人》和《死去的人》等作品中都能得到充分的验证。劳伦斯在《死去的人》这部小说中实现了他在现实生活中未能实现的希望和抱负,这对他乐此不疲的乌托邦努力来说恰是一种“客观对应物”。该寓言是对他长期孤独、荒凉漂泊岁月的最后叙述,是他对未来一个更美好世界的最后憧憬,也是他一生哲学和道德观念的总结。难怪在他身心均远离英国故乡的时期写成了这部作品,也难怪他用寓言式文体结束了他的小说创作。
结论部分总结了劳伦斯历时十七年文学生涯中小说文体的演变轨迹:劳伦斯的小说创作始于现实主义文体,异于表现主义文体,娴于象征主义文体,终于寓言式文体和现实主义文体的结合并用。
As one of the most talented, and provocative figures in the history of English culture in the twentieth century, D. H. Lawrence is a many-sided person : a novelist, a short story writer, a poet, an essayist, a playwright, a critic, a translator, and a painter. But he is a novelist first and last. Unfortunately he was often severely undervalued as a novelist during his lifetime. In the face of too much censure and misjudgement, Lawrence disappointedly complained that nobody would understand his works within three hundred years, but on the other hand he confidently expected that he would change the course of history of the world in the next thousand years. Interesting enough, just thirty years after his death witnessed a big change in the evaluation of his works and himself. He hasn’t changed the course of the world history, but has been really treated with new eyes and gained increasing respects from critics and scholars and popularity all over the world. He has eventually created a scenic view in the world literary area attractive for many visitors. Therefore we may say in a sense that Lawrence is“a resurgent bird after death”from the ashes of the criticism—severely undervalued during his lifetime but increasingly appreciated after his death. His varied styles serve as fine feathers and make this renewed“bird”finer.
As far as the study of Lawrence’s novels is concerned, critics have focused attention more on the themes than the art, more on the morals than the aesthetics, and more on the contents than the styles and expressions. There still remain some problems to be explored and surveyed, of which Lawrence’s fictional style has been paid very little attention to and therefore remains“almost entirely unexamined by criticism.”In fact, Lawrence was not only a“great creative genius”in so-called social criticism and psychological exploration, as well as in depicting the man-woman relationship, but also a fine writer“who continually experimented with fictional style and was eminently conscious (as his letters and expository essays clearly reveal) of what he was doing.”His modernist features have been embodied in the dual change of his subject matter and style. While his originality of subject matter appears in Sons and Lovers, his originality of style starts in The Rainbow and develops in Women in Love, and matures till Lady Chatterley’s Lover. As a result, he has brought about great changes to the style of English novels and facilitated the development and flourishing of modernist novels.
The present dissertation intends to make an approach to the four varied fictional styles in Lawrence’s works, with his four representative novels, such as The White Peacock, Sons and Lovers, The Rainbow, and Women in Love, and some short stories as basic texts. The dissertation falls into six parts.
Introduction first offers a brief review about the current situation of D. H. Lawrence studies both at home and abroad. It then states how and why the title is chosen, and what kind of literary critical stance and perspective might be employed to conduct a stylistic approach to Lawrence’s novels. Broadly speaking, there are four typical styles in Lawrence’s novels: realistic, expressionist, symbolic and fabulous. What interests us is that two or three styles may co-exist or be used simultaneously in one novel, but they are not mutually exclusive and often blur into“composites”. In spite of that, only one of the styles works as the most essential or keynote, which can be regarded as the typical style of a certain novel.
Chapter One approaches Lawrence’s realistic style. Being influenced by Thomas Hardy and George Eliot in terms of the description of his native landscape and fictional style, D. H. Lawrence’s first two novels show a main tendency of realism and naturalism in structure and technique. They are written in the manner of Victorian realism: the omniscient narrator, working with firm control, the facts set forth objectively. His popular saying“the novel is the one bright book of life”can be regarded as his vision of novel and reveals his realistic attitude toward writing. But later on, from The Rainbow, his third novel on, Lawrence turns out to be a modernist in many ways. So he is considered a successor to the traditional English realism as well as one of the creators of modernist English novels. The earliest examples of Lawrence’s realistic mode of style are the short stories“Love Among the Haystacks,”“Monkey Nuts,”“Tickets, Please,”“Odour of Chrysanthemums”and the novels The White Peacock and Sons and Lovers. They have conventional plots and characters and are rendered in a language that is almost transparent. In terms of chronology,“Odour of Chrysanthemums”is the meeting ground of the realistic and the symbolic modes of style. In terms of stylistic development, The White Peacock is just the shallow realistic experiment, while Sons and Lovers has been recognized as a“triumph of realism.”
Lawrence’s realistic mode of style is quite obvious and typical in Sons and Lovers, but to take it as simply“realistic”is to neglect much of the novel’s richness—or expand the concept of realism beyond recognizable limits. As a matter of fact, there is a breakdown of realism in the novel’s second half. Rather than monolithic realism, a fluid interaction of various styles is interrelated and works together to express the central theme of the novel: realism supplies the bedrock, symbolism the significance, and expressionism the vision.
Chapter Two explores Lawrence’s expressionist style. As“the most provocative of modernist authors”, Lawrence draws on sources as diverse as Renaissance art, English landscape painting, German expressionism, and Italian futurism, transforming all into the textures of his own vision and expression. He saw expressionist painting in its heyday and was impressed by it. He was greatly influenced by Vincent van Gogh and Edvard Munch. As a result, some of his novels, like The Rainbow and Women in Love, manifest profound kinship with aesthetics of European expressionism either in terms of ideological contents or in terms of expressive techniques. His language of the unconscious clearly has expressionist overtones. So the expressionist mode of style can be Lawrence’s another striking stylistic feature worth observing in this section with The Rainbow and Women in Love as the breakaway from the realistic style.
The use of expressionist art in Lawrence’s The Rainbow and Women in Love is by no means accidental, but is the natural result of the deep historical background at the time. His most representative novels like The Rainbow and Women in Love were written coincidentally in the years when the expressionism was quite prevailing throughout the Europe. So certain features of expressionism are therefore revealed expectedly throughout his works. For all the connections, The Rainbow remains a prewar novel, and Women in Love—written, like so many of the key works of Modernism, across the war—is a post-war novel, filled with the wound of war and the renewed encounter with disintegration, Lawrence’s wartime experiences enter the story, and the hard expressionist dimension is intensified in his works.
Chapter Three focuses on Lawrence’s symbolic style. A survey of his novels shows that Lawrence is a symbolist by and large. One of the most important ways in which Lawrence convinces us of the reality or the inner non-social world to which his characters have access is by his use of symbolism. He is not only good at using symbols to realize his artistic purposes, but also has his own definition of the“symbol”different from the other symbolist writers. His symbolic style differs from traditional symbolism and refers to the vital relationship existing between the human and the natural as between single individuals and circumambient universe. Besides, there is a mythic tendency in Lawrence’s symbolic style, hence it is also called a mythical symbolism by some critics. The symbolic style, in which most of the middle works of Lawrence are largely written, is often found in combination with other modes of style, for instance, the expressionist style. Lawrence’s symbolic style does not make comments on an event, nor does it merely factually describe a scene; it becomes the event, absorbs it, so that to describe the nature and narrative significance of the event is to describe the nature of the style.
Lawrence’s characteristic symbolic style consists in a special effect of language rather than in the usual forms that are immediately recognizable as“symbolic.”As F. R. Leavis writes, Lawrence’s symbolic effects“work subtly in with the whole complex organization of poetic and dramatic means…and are no more to be brought helpfully under the limiting suggestion of symbolism than the Shakespearian means in an act of Macbeth”.
As far as the occurrence of symbols in Lawrence’s novels is concerned, we may roughly come to the conclusion that there are four categories: 1. symbols are fused into the descriptions of landscape, like Birkin’s moon-stoning scene in“Moony”; 2. symbols are conveyed in the dialogues, like the“star equilibrium”in Birkin-Ursula’s dialogue; 3. symbols occur as particular signs or images, like“the beetle”and“the African statuette”; 4. symbols emerge as plots, like“Water-party”and“A Chair”in Women in Love. Through these kinds of symbolic ways, readers are attractively led into“the wood”of Lawrence’s peculiar symbols.
Chapter Four discusses Lawrence’s use of fabulous style. Lawrence’s later works have brought us to a less realistic and more fictional and more artistic kind of narrative: the fabulous style. This mode of style is concerned with a made-up world that exists deliberately outside the world we inhabit. It must also be admitted that it is a world which finds its meaning only in reference to the everyday world. It is“more shapely, more evocative, more concerned with ideas and ideals, less concerned with things”. This is amply exemplified in works like“The Prussian Officer”,“The Rocking-Horse Winner”, The Man Who Died and so on. The Man Who Died is the fictional embodiment of Lawrence’s hopes and aspirations which could not be fulfilled in his real life—a kind of“objective-correlative”for his intensely enthusiastic utopian endeavors, for his generally prophetic inclinations. The tale is the tribute—the final tribute—to his own long, lonely, often wild, years of wandering, to his strong belief in a better world in the future. It is not surprising that it should have been written at a time when he was far outside—both physically and emotionally—his native England. It is not surprising either that he ends his fiction with the use of the fabulous style.
The conclusion summarizes the change or evolution of Lawrence’s fictional styles during his seventeen-year (1911-1928) literary career: Lawrence’s fiction shows a development that begins with the realistic style, varies with the expressionist style, matures with the symbolic style, and ends with his use of fabulous style in combination with the realistic style.
引文
1. R. P. Blackmur, Modern Critical Views: D.H. Lawrence, edited by Harald Bloom (Chelsea House Publishers, 1985), p. 9.
2. Hou Weirui, A Comprehensive History of English Literature (Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1999), P. 604.
3. Dennis Jackson, Critical Essays on D.H. Lawrence (Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1988), P. 2.
4. Ibid., P. 1.
5. D. H. Lawrence, The Complete Poems (Wordsworth Poetry Library, 1994), P. 614.
6. Mark Schorer,“Technique as Discovery”, in Critiques and Essays on Modern Fiction: 1920-1951. P. 68.
7. Bibhu Padhi, D.H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style (New York: The Whiston Publishing Company, 1989), P. 1.
8. Ibid., p. 1.
9.万春,高二坡,“国内劳伦斯小说研究概述”(安徽:宿州师专学报,2000年4期),P. 45.
10.李维屏,《英国小说艺术史》(上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003),PP. 223-243.
1.朱伯通,D. H. Lawrence, Selected Literary Critiques. (上海外语教育出版社,2003),P. 92.
2. Graham Holderness, D. H. Lawrence: History, Ideology, and Fiction (Dublin: Gill, 1982), P. 58.
3. Kingsley Widmer, The Art of Perversity: D. H. Lawrence’s Shorter Fictions (Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press, 1962), P. 9.
4. F. R. Leavis, D. H. Lawrence: Novelist (Harmond-Sworth: Penguin, 1973), P. 82
5. John Worthen, D. H. Lawrence and the Idea of the Novel (London: Macmillan, 1979), P. 1.
6. Ibid., P. 5.
7. Ibid., P. 8.
8. Roger Dataller,“Elements of Lawrence’s Prose Style,”in Critics on D. H. Lawrence, ed. W. T. Andrews (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1976), P. 53.
9. Ibid., P.54.
10. Ibid., P.53.
11. Bibhu Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style (New York: The Whitston Publishing Company, 1989,) PP. 15-19.
12. Julian Moynahan, ed. Sons and Lovers: Text, Background and Criticism (Middlese: Penguin, 1977), P. 565.
1. Lothar. G. Buchheim, The Graphic Art of German Expressionism (New York: Universe, 1960), P. 21
2. Tony Pinkney, D. H. Lawrence and Modernism (Iowa City: U of Iowa P, 1990), P. 69.
3. D. H. Lawrence, Letters 2, P. 69.
4. Jack Stewart, The Vital Art of D. H. Lawrence: Vision and Expression (Southern Illinois U. P.), P. 52.
5. Max Wildi,“The Birth of Expressionism in D. H. Lawrence“English Studies 19 (1937), P. 242.
6. Ibid., P. 258.
7. Henry Schvey,“Lawrence and Expressionism.”D. H. Lawrence: New Studies. Ed. Christopher Heywood (London: Macmillan, 1987), P. 127.
8. Tong Pinkney, D. H. Lawrence and Modernism, P. 75.
9. Max Beckmann,“On My Painting.”(1938), P. 187.
10. Jack Stewart, The Vital Art of D. H. Lawrence, P. 56.
11. Ibid., P. 59.
12. Werner Haftmann, Emil Nolde. Trans. Norbert Guterman (New York: Abrams, n. d.), P. 12.
13. D. H. Lawrence,“New Mexico.”1931. Phoenix P. 144.
14. Will Grohmann, Ernst Ludwig Kirchner. Trans. Ilse Falk (New York: Arts, 1961), P 24.
15. D. H. Lawrence,“The Novel.”1925. Study of Thomas Hardy, P. 182.
16. Ulrich Weisstein, ed. Expressionism as an International Literary Phenomenon (Paris: Didier, 1973), P. 24.
17. Jack Stewart, The Vital Art of D. H. Lawrence, P. 63.
18. Gavriel Ben-Ephraim, The Moon’s dominion: Narrative Dichotomy and Female Dominance in Lawrence’s Earlier Novels (London: Associated UP, 1981), P. 223
19. Wolf-Dieter Dube, The Expressionists. Trans. Mary Whittal (London: Thames, 1972), P. 132.
20. Jack Stewart, The Vital Art of D. H. Lawrence, P. 66.
21. Werner Haftmann, Emil Nolde, P. 37.
22. Walter H. Sokel, The Writer in Extremis: Expression in Twentieth-Century German Literature (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), P. 87 (Sokel finds“the Dionysian roots of Vitalism”in expressionism).
23. Nancy Kushigian, Pictures and Fictions: Visual Modernism and the Pre-War Novels of D. H. Lawrence (New York: Lang, 1990), PP. 144-146
24. D. H. Lawrence, Letters 2, P 362.
25. V. Sep?i?,“Women in Love’and Expressionism (Ⅱ).”Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia 27 (1981), P. 404.
26. Wolf-Dieter Dube, the Expressionists, P. 70.
27. V. Sep?i?,“Women in Love’and Expressionism (Ⅰ).”PP. 425-429.
28. Watter Sorrell, The Mary Wigman Book: Her Writings Edited and Translated (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan UP, 1975), P. 96.
29. Emile Jaques-Dalcroze, Eurythmics, Art and Education. Trans. Frederick Rothwell. Ed. Cynthia Cox (New York: Arno, 1980), P. 7.
30. Ibid., P. 36.
31. Ibid., PP. 8-10.
32. Jack Stewart, The Vital Art of D. H. Lawrence, P. 80.
33. Paul Hadermann,“Exprssionist Listerature and Painting.”Weisstein P. 136.
34. Ulrich Weisstein, Introduction, P. 16.
35. V. Sep?i?,“‘Women in Love’and Expressionism [Ⅰ]”, P. 441.
36. Ibid., P. 7.
1. Ian T. Ramsey, The Language Poets Use (London: The Athlone Press, 1962), P. 186.
2. D. H. Lawrence, Phoenix (New York: Viking, 1964), PP. 543-544.
3. Ibid., P. 542.
4. Bibhu Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style (New York: The Whitston Publishing Company, 1989), P. 76.
5. Kingsley Widmer,“The Primitivistic Aesthetic: D. H. Lawrence.”Journal of Aesthetics and Art History 17 (1959), PP. 60-61.
6. Bibhu Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style (New York: The Whitston Publishing Company, 1989), P. 77.
7. Mark Spilka, Accent, 15 (1955), P. 56.
8. Roger Fowler, Linguistics and the Novel (London: Methuen, 1977), P.119.
9. Ibid., PP. 119-120.
10. Bibhu Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style, P. 105.
11. Ibid., P. 107.
12. .D. H. Lawrence, Letters 1, P. 172.
13. Ibid., P. 190.
14. Ibid., P. 178.
15. Frank Kermode, Lawrence, P. 32.
16. Anais Nin, The Novel of the Future (New York: Macmillan, 1970), P. 12.
17. Ibid., PP. 99-100.
18. Ibid., P. 135.
19. Bibhu Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style, P. 120.
20. Julian Moynahan, The Deed of Life: The Novels and Tales of D. H. Lawrence (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1972), P. 50..
21. Ian Robinson,“D. H. Lawrence and English Prose,”in D. H. Lawrence: A Critical Study of D. H. Lawrence’s Major Novels and Other Writings, ed. A. H. Gomme (England: Harvester Press, 1978). P. 14.
22. Ibid., PP 14-15.
23. Bibhu Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style, P. 127.
24. David Cavitch, D. H. Lawrence and the New World, P. 51
25. Julian Moynahan, The Deed of Life: The Novels and Tales of D. H. Lawrence (Princeton: PrincetonUniv. Press, 1972), P. 66.
26. Keith Sagar, The Art of D. H. Lawrence (Combridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1966), P. 64.
27. Bibhu Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style, P. 133.
28. F. R. Leavis, D. H. Lawrence: Novelist, P. 170.
29. Graham Hough, The Dark Sun: A Study of D. H. Lawrence: (Middleses: Penguin, 1961), P. 71.
30. Keith Sagar, The Art of D. H. Lawrence, P. 143.
31. Gamini Salgado, A Preface to Lawrence, P. 120.
32. Bibhu Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style, P. 135.
33. Ibid., P. 146.
34. Ibid., P. 147.
35. F. R. Leavis, D. H. Lawrence: Novelist, P. 236.
1. Malcolm Bradbury, The Modern British Novel: 1878—2001 (北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2005),P. 116.
2. Ibid., P. 116
3. Ibid., P. 116
4. Bibhu Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style, P. 189.
5. Ibid., P. 189.
6. Ibid., P. 193.
7. Snodgrass,“A Rocking-Horse: The Symbol, the Pattern, the Way to Live,”The Hudson Review 11,(1958), P. 191.
8. Frank Ammon,“D. H. Lawrence and the Short Story,”in The Achievement of D. H. Lawrence (Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1937), P. 235.
9. D. H. Lawrence, Letters 1, P. 215.
10. Graham Hough, The Dark Sun: A Study of D. H. Lawrence, P. 139.
11. Harry T. Moore, The Intelligent Heart: The Story of D. H. Lawrence (New York: Farrar, 1954), P. 332.
12. Graham Hough, The Dark Sun: A Study of D. H. Lawrence, P. 139.
13. David Cavitch, D. H. Lawrence and the New World (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1971), P. 167.
14. B. Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style, P. 202.
15. Ibid., P. 203.
16. Ibid., P. 203.
17. F. R. Leavis, D. H. Lawrence: Novelist, P. 65.
18. B. Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style, P. 205.
19. Ibid., P. 205.
20. Ibid., P. 206.
21. Wayne C. Booth, A Rhetoric of Irony (Chicago & London: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1974), P. 61.
22. Ibid., P. 62.
23. Ibid., P. 24.
1. D. H. Lawrence, Phoenix I: The Posthumous Papers Ed .E. D. McDonald (New York: Viking, 1964), PP. 543-544.
2. Bibhu Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style (New York: The Whiston Publishing Company, 1989), P. 8.
3. Jack Stewart, The Vital Art of D. H. Lawrence: Vision and Expression (Southern Illinois University Press, 1999), P. 117.
4. Bibhu Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style, P. 37.
1. Alldritt. Keith. The Visual Imagination of D. H. Lawrence. London: Arnold, 1971.
2. Bell, Michael. D. H. Lawrence: Language and Being. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992.
3. Bradbury, Malcolm. The Modern British Novel; 1878—2001. Beijing: Foreign Language and Research Press, 2005.
4. Bressler, Charles E. Literary Criticism. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2004.
5. Brook, Cleanth. Understanding Fiction. Beijing: FLTRP, 2004
6. Charnbers, Jessie. D. H. Lawrence: A Persoual Record. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1980.
7. Cheney, Shelden. Expressionism in Art. Rev. ed. New York: Liveright, 1958.
8. Cown, James C. D. H. Lawrence: Self and Sexuality. Columbus: The Ohio State UP, 2002.
9. Dan Shen. Literary Stylistics And Fictional Translation. Beijing: Peking University Press,1995.
10. Dix, Carol. D. H. Lawrence and Women. New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield, 1980.
11. Dube, Wolf-Dieter. Expressionists and Expressionism. Trans. James Emmons. Geneva: Skira, 1983
12. Fernihough, Ann. D. H. Lawrence: Aesthetics and Ideology. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993.
13.———. D. H. Lawrence. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001.
14. Forster, E. M. Aspects of the Novel. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973.
15. Frazer, James G. The Golden Bough. 3rd ed. 12 vols. London: Macmillian, 1911.
16. Granofsky, Ronald. D. H. Lawrence and Survival. McGill-Queen’s UP, 2003.
17. Hamalian, Leo. D. H. Lawrence. Mcgraw-Hill Book Campany, 1973.
18. Holderness, Graham. D. H. Lawrence: History, Ideology and Fiction. Dublin: Gill, 1982.
19. Hough, Graham. The Dark Sun: A Study of D. H. Lawrence. 1956. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1961.
20. Jackson, Dennis. Critical Essays on D. H. Lawrence. Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1988.
21. Kershner, R. B. The Twentieth-Century Novel: An Introduction. Bedford Books, 1997.
22. Kushigian, Nancy. Pictures and Fictions: Visual Modernism and the Pre-War Novels of D. H. Lawrence. New York: Lang, 1990.
23. Lawrence, D H. The Complete Poems of D. H. Lawrence. Ed. David Ellis. Wordsworth Editions Limited, 2002.
24.———.The Complete Short Stories of D. H. Lawrence. 3vols. New York: Viking, 1961.
25.———.“Daughters of the Vicar.”1914. The Prussian Officer 40-87.
26.———. England, My England and Other Stories. Ed. Bruce Steele. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990.
27.———.“Fantasia of the Unconscious.”1922. Psychoanalysis and the Unconscious and Fantasia of the Unconscious. New York: Viking, 1960.
28.———.“The Horse Dealer's Daughter.”1922. England, My England 137-52.
29.———. Kangaroo. 1923. Ed. Bruce Steele. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994.
30.———. Lady Chatterley's Lover; A Propos of Lady Chatterley's Lover. 1929, 1930. Ed. Michael Squires. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993.
31.———. The Letters of D. H. Lawrence: Vol. 1: September 1901-May 1913. Ed. James T. Boulton. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1979.
32.———. The Letters of D. H. Lawrence: Vol. 2:June 1913-October 1916. Ed. George J. Zytaruk and James T. Boulton. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1981.
33.———. The Letters of D. H. Lawrence: Vol. 3: October 1916-June 1921. Ed. James T. Boulton and Andrew Robertson. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984.
34.———. The Letters of D. H. Lawrence: Vol. 4: June 1921-March 1924. Ed. Warren Roberts, James T. Boulton, and Elizabeth Mansfield. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1987.
35.———. The Letters of D. H. Lawrence: Vol. 5: March 1924-March 1927. Ed. James T. Boulton and Lindeth Vasey. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989.
36.———. The Letters of D. H. Lawrence: Vol. 6: March 1927-November 1928. Ed. James T. Boulton and Margaret H. Boulton, with Gerald M. Lacy Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991.
37.———. The Letters of D. H. Lawrence: Vol. 7: November 1928-February 1930. Ed.Keith Sagar and James T. Boulton. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993.
38.———.“Morality and the Novel.”1925. Study of Thomas Hardy 169-76.
39.———.“The Novel”1925, Study of Thomas Hardy 177-90.
40.———.“Odour of Chrysanthemums.”1911. The Prussian Officer 181-99.
41.———. PhoenixⅠ: The Posthumous Papers of D. FI. Lawrence. Ed. Edward D. McDonald. 1936. New York: Viking, 1964.
42.———. PhoenixⅡ: Uncollected, Unpublished, and Other Prose Works by D. H. Lawrence. Ed. Warren Roberts and Harry T. Moore. New York: Viking, 1970.
43.———. The Plumed Serpent 1926. Wordsworth Editions Limited, 1995.
44.———.“The Prussian Officer [Honour and Arms].”The Prussian Officer 1-21.
45.———. The Prussian Officer and Other Stories. 1914. Ed. John Worthen. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983.
46.———. The Rainbow. 1915. The Penguin Group, 1996.
47.———. Sons and Lovers. 1913. The Penguin Group, 1995.
48.———. Study of Thomas Hardy and Other Essays. Ed. Bruce Steele. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985.
49.———. The Symbolic Meaning: The Uncollected Versions of Studies in Classic American Literature. Ed. Armin Arnold. Fontwell, Arundel: Centaur, 1962.
50.———. The Trespasser. 1912. Ed. Elizabeth Mansfield. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1981.
51.———. The Virgin and the Gipsy. 1930. The Penguin Group, 1997.
52.———. The White Peacock. 1911. Ed. Andrew Robertson. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983.
53.———.“Why the Novel Matters.”1925. Study of Thomas Hardy 191-98.
54.———.“The Woman Who Rode Away.”The Complete Short Stories. Vol. 2. 546-81.
55.———. Women in Love. 1920. Wordsworth Editions Limited, 1992.
56. Leavis, E. R. D. H. Lawrence: Novelist 1955. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1976.
57. Levenson, Michael. Modernism. Cambridge UP. 2000.
58. Lukács, Georg. Studies in European Realism. New York: Grosset, 1964.
59. Messenger, Nigel. How to Study a D. H. Lawrence Novel. Macmillan Education LTD, 1989.
60. Merleau-Ponty, M. Phenomenology of Perception. Trans. Colin Smith. London: Routledge, 1962.
61. Milton, Colin, Lawrence and Nietzsche: A Study in Influence. Aberdeen: Aberdeen UP, 1987.
62. Padhi, Bibhu. D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style. New York: The Whitston Publishing Company, 1989.
63. Pinkney, Tony. D. H. Lawrence and Modernism. Iowa City: U of Iowa P, 1990.
64. Ross, Charles L. Women in Love: A Novel of Mythic Realism. Boston: Twayne, 1991.
65. Salgado, Gamini. A Preface to D. H. Lawrence. Beijing: Peking University Press.2005.
66. Sagar, Keith. D. H. Lawrence: Life into Art. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1985.
67. Schvey, Henry.“Lawrence and Expressionism.”D. H. Lawrence: New Studies. Ed. C. Heywood. London: Macmillian, 1987.
68. Spear, Hilda. York Notes: The Rainbow. Beijing: World Publishing Corporation, 1989.
69. Stewart, Jack. The Vital Art of D. H. Lawrence: Vision and Expression. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1999.
70. Weiss, Daniel A. Oedipus in Nottingham: D. H. Lawrence. Seattle: U of Washington P, 1962.
71. Wildi, Max.“The Birth of Expressionism in D. H. Lawrence.”English Studies 19 (1937): 241-59.
72. Worthen, John. D. H. Lawrence and the Idea of the Novel. The Machillan Press LTD, 1979.
73. Zoll, Allan R.“Vitalism and the Metaphysics of Love: D. H. Lawrence and Schopenhauer.”D. H. Lawrence Review 11 (1978): 1-20.
74.艾米丽·汉恩,《劳伦斯和他身边的女人们》[M]。于茂昌译。哈尔滨:北方文艺出版社,1998。
75.程爱民,《20世纪英美文学论稿》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002。
76.杜隽,论D. H.劳伦斯的道德理想与社会的冲突[J],《外国文学研究》,2005,(2)。
77.董俊峰、赵春华,国内劳伦斯研究述评[J],《外国文学研究》,1999,(2)。
78.冯季庆,存在与死亡—读D. H.劳伦斯《恋爱中的女人》[J],《阅读与欣赏》,1995,(5)。
79.高文斌,哲理的开拓与心灵的烛照—劳伦斯小说的神话倾向[J],《丹东师专学报》,1999,(4)。
80.侯维瑞,《英国文学通史》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999。
81.蒋炳贤,《劳伦斯评论集》[M]。上海:上海文艺出版社,1995。
82.蒋家国,《重建人类的伊甸园—劳伦斯长篇小说研究》[M]。湖南:湖南大学出版社,2003。
83.李维屏,《英国小说艺术史》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003。
84.劳伦斯,《劳伦斯论文艺》[M]。黑马译。北京:团结出版社,2006。
85.劳伦斯,《劳伦斯短篇小说集》[M]。主万译上海:上海译文出版社,1983。
86.刘维荣,浅析劳伦斯小说中的象征手法的运用[J],《语文学刊》,1999,(4)。
87.刘淑红,生的礼赞死的哀歌—论心理小说《恋爱中的女人》[J],《四川外语学院学报》,2005,(4)。
88.奥维德、劳伦斯,《奥维德、劳伦斯论性爱》[M]。戴望舒译。北京:团结出版社,2006。
89.邵锦娣,《文学导论》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002。
90.史志康,《美国文学背景概观》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000。
91.史志康,莎剧英语,智慧的结晶—从语言角度赏析《哈姆雷特》(上、下)[J],《文景》,2006,(10、11)
92.伍厚恺,《寻找彩虹的人:劳伦斯》[M]。成都:四川人民出版社,1998。
93.肖肃,论劳伦斯小说的表现主义[J],《四川外语学院学报》,1994,(2)。
94.杨斌、吴格非,中国的劳伦斯研究述评[J],《成都教育学院学报》。2005,(3)。
95.叶兴国,劳伦斯与《圣经》[J],国外文学,1995,(2)。
96.叶立新,关于《恋爱中的女人》象征描写的解读[J],《乌鲁木齐职业大学学报》,1995,(1、2)。
97.殷企平,《英国小说批评史》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001。
98.殷企平,劳伦斯笔下的彩虹[J],《外国语》,2005,(1)。
99.袁可嘉,《欧美现代派文学概论》[M]。桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2003。
100.曾大伟,《回归宇宙本体—劳伦斯小说研究》[M]。广州:花城出版社,2001。
101.曾大伟,劳伦斯的迷误—简评劳伦斯的三部“领袖问题”小说[J],《国外文学》,(1997,(4)。
102.赵红英,劳伦斯笔下的女性[J],《华中理工大学学报》,2000,(3)。
103.张毅,《文学文体概说》[M]。北京:中国人民大学出版社,1993。
104.张中载,《二十世纪英国文学:小说研究》[M]。开封:河南大学出版社,2001。
105.周洁,近期中国劳伦斯研究一览与国外研究动态[J],《山东外语教学》,2004,(5)。
106.周玉忠,《英美文学与翻译研究》[M]。银川:宁夏人民出版社,2007。
107.朱通伯,《劳伦斯文论精选》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003。
108.万春、高二坡,国内劳伦斯小说研究概述[J],《宿州师专学报》,2002,(4)。
109.王绍昌,中国的劳伦斯研究:回顾、现状与展望—兼论劳学研究中值得注意的几个问题[J],《海南师院学报》,1995,(4)。
2. Hou Weirui, A Comprehensive History of English Literature (Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1999), P. 604.
3. Dennis Jackson, Critical Essays on D.H. Lawrence (Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1988), P. 2.
4. Ibid., P. 1.
5. D. H. Lawrence, The Complete Poems (Wordsworth Poetry Library, 1994), P. 614.
6. Mark Schorer,“Technique as Discovery”, in Critiques and Essays on Modern Fiction: 1920-1951. P. 68.
7. Bibhu Padhi, D.H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style (New York: The Whiston Publishing Company, 1989), P. 1.
8. Ibid., p. 1.
9.万春,高二坡,“国内劳伦斯小说研究概述”(安徽:宿州师专学报,2000年4期),P. 45.
10.李维屏,《英国小说艺术史》(上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003),PP. 223-243.
1.朱伯通,D. H. Lawrence, Selected Literary Critiques. (上海外语教育出版社,2003),P. 92.
2. Graham Holderness, D. H. Lawrence: History, Ideology, and Fiction (Dublin: Gill, 1982), P. 58.
3. Kingsley Widmer, The Art of Perversity: D. H. Lawrence’s Shorter Fictions (Seattle: Univ. of Washington Press, 1962), P. 9.
4. F. R. Leavis, D. H. Lawrence: Novelist (Harmond-Sworth: Penguin, 1973), P. 82
5. John Worthen, D. H. Lawrence and the Idea of the Novel (London: Macmillan, 1979), P. 1.
6. Ibid., P. 5.
7. Ibid., P. 8.
8. Roger Dataller,“Elements of Lawrence’s Prose Style,”in Critics on D. H. Lawrence, ed. W. T. Andrews (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1976), P. 53.
9. Ibid., P.54.
10. Ibid., P.53.
11. Bibhu Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style (New York: The Whitston Publishing Company, 1989,) PP. 15-19.
12. Julian Moynahan, ed. Sons and Lovers: Text, Background and Criticism (Middlese: Penguin, 1977), P. 565.
1. Lothar. G. Buchheim, The Graphic Art of German Expressionism (New York: Universe, 1960), P. 21
2. Tony Pinkney, D. H. Lawrence and Modernism (Iowa City: U of Iowa P, 1990), P. 69.
3. D. H. Lawrence, Letters 2, P. 69.
4. Jack Stewart, The Vital Art of D. H. Lawrence: Vision and Expression (Southern Illinois U. P.), P. 52.
5. Max Wildi,“The Birth of Expressionism in D. H. Lawrence“English Studies 19 (1937), P. 242.
6. Ibid., P. 258.
7. Henry Schvey,“Lawrence and Expressionism.”D. H. Lawrence: New Studies. Ed. Christopher Heywood (London: Macmillan, 1987), P. 127.
8. Tong Pinkney, D. H. Lawrence and Modernism, P. 75.
9. Max Beckmann,“On My Painting.”(1938), P. 187.
10. Jack Stewart, The Vital Art of D. H. Lawrence, P. 56.
11. Ibid., P. 59.
12. Werner Haftmann, Emil Nolde. Trans. Norbert Guterman (New York: Abrams, n. d.), P. 12.
13. D. H. Lawrence,“New Mexico.”1931. Phoenix P. 144.
14. Will Grohmann, Ernst Ludwig Kirchner. Trans. Ilse Falk (New York: Arts, 1961), P 24.
15. D. H. Lawrence,“The Novel.”1925. Study of Thomas Hardy, P. 182.
16. Ulrich Weisstein, ed. Expressionism as an International Literary Phenomenon (Paris: Didier, 1973), P. 24.
17. Jack Stewart, The Vital Art of D. H. Lawrence, P. 63.
18. Gavriel Ben-Ephraim, The Moon’s dominion: Narrative Dichotomy and Female Dominance in Lawrence’s Earlier Novels (London: Associated UP, 1981), P. 223
19. Wolf-Dieter Dube, The Expressionists. Trans. Mary Whittal (London: Thames, 1972), P. 132.
20. Jack Stewart, The Vital Art of D. H. Lawrence, P. 66.
21. Werner Haftmann, Emil Nolde, P. 37.
22. Walter H. Sokel, The Writer in Extremis: Expression in Twentieth-Century German Literature (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), P. 87 (Sokel finds“the Dionysian roots of Vitalism”in expressionism).
23. Nancy Kushigian, Pictures and Fictions: Visual Modernism and the Pre-War Novels of D. H. Lawrence (New York: Lang, 1990), PP. 144-146
24. D. H. Lawrence, Letters 2, P 362.
25. V. Sep?i?,“Women in Love’and Expressionism (Ⅱ).”Studia Romanica et Anglica Zagrabiensia 27 (1981), P. 404.
26. Wolf-Dieter Dube, the Expressionists, P. 70.
27. V. Sep?i?,“Women in Love’and Expressionism (Ⅰ).”PP. 425-429.
28. Watter Sorrell, The Mary Wigman Book: Her Writings Edited and Translated (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan UP, 1975), P. 96.
29. Emile Jaques-Dalcroze, Eurythmics, Art and Education. Trans. Frederick Rothwell. Ed. Cynthia Cox (New York: Arno, 1980), P. 7.
30. Ibid., P. 36.
31. Ibid., PP. 8-10.
32. Jack Stewart, The Vital Art of D. H. Lawrence, P. 80.
33. Paul Hadermann,“Exprssionist Listerature and Painting.”Weisstein P. 136.
34. Ulrich Weisstein, Introduction, P. 16.
35. V. Sep?i?,“‘Women in Love’and Expressionism [Ⅰ]”, P. 441.
36. Ibid., P. 7.
1. Ian T. Ramsey, The Language Poets Use (London: The Athlone Press, 1962), P. 186.
2. D. H. Lawrence, Phoenix (New York: Viking, 1964), PP. 543-544.
3. Ibid., P. 542.
4. Bibhu Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style (New York: The Whitston Publishing Company, 1989), P. 76.
5. Kingsley Widmer,“The Primitivistic Aesthetic: D. H. Lawrence.”Journal of Aesthetics and Art History 17 (1959), PP. 60-61.
6. Bibhu Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style (New York: The Whitston Publishing Company, 1989), P. 77.
7. Mark Spilka, Accent, 15 (1955), P. 56.
8. Roger Fowler, Linguistics and the Novel (London: Methuen, 1977), P.119.
9. Ibid., PP. 119-120.
10. Bibhu Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style, P. 105.
11. Ibid., P. 107.
12. .D. H. Lawrence, Letters 1, P. 172.
13. Ibid., P. 190.
14. Ibid., P. 178.
15. Frank Kermode, Lawrence, P. 32.
16. Anais Nin, The Novel of the Future (New York: Macmillan, 1970), P. 12.
17. Ibid., PP. 99-100.
18. Ibid., P. 135.
19. Bibhu Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style, P. 120.
20. Julian Moynahan, The Deed of Life: The Novels and Tales of D. H. Lawrence (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1972), P. 50..
21. Ian Robinson,“D. H. Lawrence and English Prose,”in D. H. Lawrence: A Critical Study of D. H. Lawrence’s Major Novels and Other Writings, ed. A. H. Gomme (England: Harvester Press, 1978). P. 14.
22. Ibid., PP 14-15.
23. Bibhu Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style, P. 127.
24. David Cavitch, D. H. Lawrence and the New World, P. 51
25. Julian Moynahan, The Deed of Life: The Novels and Tales of D. H. Lawrence (Princeton: PrincetonUniv. Press, 1972), P. 66.
26. Keith Sagar, The Art of D. H. Lawrence (Combridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1966), P. 64.
27. Bibhu Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style, P. 133.
28. F. R. Leavis, D. H. Lawrence: Novelist, P. 170.
29. Graham Hough, The Dark Sun: A Study of D. H. Lawrence: (Middleses: Penguin, 1961), P. 71.
30. Keith Sagar, The Art of D. H. Lawrence, P. 143.
31. Gamini Salgado, A Preface to Lawrence, P. 120.
32. Bibhu Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style, P. 135.
33. Ibid., P. 146.
34. Ibid., P. 147.
35. F. R. Leavis, D. H. Lawrence: Novelist, P. 236.
1. Malcolm Bradbury, The Modern British Novel: 1878—2001 (北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2005),P. 116.
2. Ibid., P. 116
3. Ibid., P. 116
4. Bibhu Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style, P. 189.
5. Ibid., P. 189.
6. Ibid., P. 193.
7. Snodgrass,“A Rocking-Horse: The Symbol, the Pattern, the Way to Live,”The Hudson Review 11,(1958), P. 191.
8. Frank Ammon,“D. H. Lawrence and the Short Story,”in The Achievement of D. H. Lawrence (Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1937), P. 235.
9. D. H. Lawrence, Letters 1, P. 215.
10. Graham Hough, The Dark Sun: A Study of D. H. Lawrence, P. 139.
11. Harry T. Moore, The Intelligent Heart: The Story of D. H. Lawrence (New York: Farrar, 1954), P. 332.
12. Graham Hough, The Dark Sun: A Study of D. H. Lawrence, P. 139.
13. David Cavitch, D. H. Lawrence and the New World (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1971), P. 167.
14. B. Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style, P. 202.
15. Ibid., P. 203.
16. Ibid., P. 203.
17. F. R. Leavis, D. H. Lawrence: Novelist, P. 65.
18. B. Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style, P. 205.
19. Ibid., P. 205.
20. Ibid., P. 206.
21. Wayne C. Booth, A Rhetoric of Irony (Chicago & London: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1974), P. 61.
22. Ibid., P. 62.
23. Ibid., P. 24.
1. D. H. Lawrence, Phoenix I: The Posthumous Papers Ed .E. D. McDonald (New York: Viking, 1964), PP. 543-544.
2. Bibhu Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style (New York: The Whiston Publishing Company, 1989), P. 8.
3. Jack Stewart, The Vital Art of D. H. Lawrence: Vision and Expression (Southern Illinois University Press, 1999), P. 117.
4. Bibhu Padhi, D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style, P. 37.
1. Alldritt. Keith. The Visual Imagination of D. H. Lawrence. London: Arnold, 1971.
2. Bell, Michael. D. H. Lawrence: Language and Being. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992.
3. Bradbury, Malcolm. The Modern British Novel; 1878—2001. Beijing: Foreign Language and Research Press, 2005.
4. Bressler, Charles E. Literary Criticism. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2004.
5. Brook, Cleanth. Understanding Fiction. Beijing: FLTRP, 2004
6. Charnbers, Jessie. D. H. Lawrence: A Persoual Record. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1980.
7. Cheney, Shelden. Expressionism in Art. Rev. ed. New York: Liveright, 1958.
8. Cown, James C. D. H. Lawrence: Self and Sexuality. Columbus: The Ohio State UP, 2002.
9. Dan Shen. Literary Stylistics And Fictional Translation. Beijing: Peking University Press,1995.
10. Dix, Carol. D. H. Lawrence and Women. New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield, 1980.
11. Dube, Wolf-Dieter. Expressionists and Expressionism. Trans. James Emmons. Geneva: Skira, 1983
12. Fernihough, Ann. D. H. Lawrence: Aesthetics and Ideology. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993.
13.———. D. H. Lawrence. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001.
14. Forster, E. M. Aspects of the Novel. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973.
15. Frazer, James G. The Golden Bough. 3rd ed. 12 vols. London: Macmillian, 1911.
16. Granofsky, Ronald. D. H. Lawrence and Survival. McGill-Queen’s UP, 2003.
17. Hamalian, Leo. D. H. Lawrence. Mcgraw-Hill Book Campany, 1973.
18. Holderness, Graham. D. H. Lawrence: History, Ideology and Fiction. Dublin: Gill, 1982.
19. Hough, Graham. The Dark Sun: A Study of D. H. Lawrence. 1956. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1961.
20. Jackson, Dennis. Critical Essays on D. H. Lawrence. Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1988.
21. Kershner, R. B. The Twentieth-Century Novel: An Introduction. Bedford Books, 1997.
22. Kushigian, Nancy. Pictures and Fictions: Visual Modernism and the Pre-War Novels of D. H. Lawrence. New York: Lang, 1990.
23. Lawrence, D H. The Complete Poems of D. H. Lawrence. Ed. David Ellis. Wordsworth Editions Limited, 2002.
24.———.The Complete Short Stories of D. H. Lawrence. 3vols. New York: Viking, 1961.
25.———.“Daughters of the Vicar.”1914. The Prussian Officer 40-87.
26.———. England, My England and Other Stories. Ed. Bruce Steele. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990.
27.———.“Fantasia of the Unconscious.”1922. Psychoanalysis and the Unconscious and Fantasia of the Unconscious. New York: Viking, 1960.
28.———.“The Horse Dealer's Daughter.”1922. England, My England 137-52.
29.———. Kangaroo. 1923. Ed. Bruce Steele. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994.
30.———. Lady Chatterley's Lover; A Propos of Lady Chatterley's Lover. 1929, 1930. Ed. Michael Squires. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993.
31.———. The Letters of D. H. Lawrence: Vol. 1: September 1901-May 1913. Ed. James T. Boulton. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1979.
32.———. The Letters of D. H. Lawrence: Vol. 2:June 1913-October 1916. Ed. George J. Zytaruk and James T. Boulton. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1981.
33.———. The Letters of D. H. Lawrence: Vol. 3: October 1916-June 1921. Ed. James T. Boulton and Andrew Robertson. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984.
34.———. The Letters of D. H. Lawrence: Vol. 4: June 1921-March 1924. Ed. Warren Roberts, James T. Boulton, and Elizabeth Mansfield. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1987.
35.———. The Letters of D. H. Lawrence: Vol. 5: March 1924-March 1927. Ed. James T. Boulton and Lindeth Vasey. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989.
36.———. The Letters of D. H. Lawrence: Vol. 6: March 1927-November 1928. Ed. James T. Boulton and Margaret H. Boulton, with Gerald M. Lacy Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991.
37.———. The Letters of D. H. Lawrence: Vol. 7: November 1928-February 1930. Ed.Keith Sagar and James T. Boulton. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993.
38.———.“Morality and the Novel.”1925. Study of Thomas Hardy 169-76.
39.———.“The Novel”1925, Study of Thomas Hardy 177-90.
40.———.“Odour of Chrysanthemums.”1911. The Prussian Officer 181-99.
41.———. PhoenixⅠ: The Posthumous Papers of D. FI. Lawrence. Ed. Edward D. McDonald. 1936. New York: Viking, 1964.
42.———. PhoenixⅡ: Uncollected, Unpublished, and Other Prose Works by D. H. Lawrence. Ed. Warren Roberts and Harry T. Moore. New York: Viking, 1970.
43.———. The Plumed Serpent 1926. Wordsworth Editions Limited, 1995.
44.———.“The Prussian Officer [Honour and Arms].”The Prussian Officer 1-21.
45.———. The Prussian Officer and Other Stories. 1914. Ed. John Worthen. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983.
46.———. The Rainbow. 1915. The Penguin Group, 1996.
47.———. Sons and Lovers. 1913. The Penguin Group, 1995.
48.———. Study of Thomas Hardy and Other Essays. Ed. Bruce Steele. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1985.
49.———. The Symbolic Meaning: The Uncollected Versions of Studies in Classic American Literature. Ed. Armin Arnold. Fontwell, Arundel: Centaur, 1962.
50.———. The Trespasser. 1912. Ed. Elizabeth Mansfield. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1981.
51.———. The Virgin and the Gipsy. 1930. The Penguin Group, 1997.
52.———. The White Peacock. 1911. Ed. Andrew Robertson. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983.
53.———.“Why the Novel Matters.”1925. Study of Thomas Hardy 191-98.
54.———.“The Woman Who Rode Away.”The Complete Short Stories. Vol. 2. 546-81.
55.———. Women in Love. 1920. Wordsworth Editions Limited, 1992.
56. Leavis, E. R. D. H. Lawrence: Novelist 1955. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1976.
57. Levenson, Michael. Modernism. Cambridge UP. 2000.
58. Lukács, Georg. Studies in European Realism. New York: Grosset, 1964.
59. Messenger, Nigel. How to Study a D. H. Lawrence Novel. Macmillan Education LTD, 1989.
60. Merleau-Ponty, M. Phenomenology of Perception. Trans. Colin Smith. London: Routledge, 1962.
61. Milton, Colin, Lawrence and Nietzsche: A Study in Influence. Aberdeen: Aberdeen UP, 1987.
62. Padhi, Bibhu. D. H. Lawrence: Modes of Fictional Style. New York: The Whitston Publishing Company, 1989.
63. Pinkney, Tony. D. H. Lawrence and Modernism. Iowa City: U of Iowa P, 1990.
64. Ross, Charles L. Women in Love: A Novel of Mythic Realism. Boston: Twayne, 1991.
65. Salgado, Gamini. A Preface to D. H. Lawrence. Beijing: Peking University Press.2005.
66. Sagar, Keith. D. H. Lawrence: Life into Art. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1985.
67. Schvey, Henry.“Lawrence and Expressionism.”D. H. Lawrence: New Studies. Ed. C. Heywood. London: Macmillian, 1987.
68. Spear, Hilda. York Notes: The Rainbow. Beijing: World Publishing Corporation, 1989.
69. Stewart, Jack. The Vital Art of D. H. Lawrence: Vision and Expression. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1999.
70. Weiss, Daniel A. Oedipus in Nottingham: D. H. Lawrence. Seattle: U of Washington P, 1962.
71. Wildi, Max.“The Birth of Expressionism in D. H. Lawrence.”English Studies 19 (1937): 241-59.
72. Worthen, John. D. H. Lawrence and the Idea of the Novel. The Machillan Press LTD, 1979.
73. Zoll, Allan R.“Vitalism and the Metaphysics of Love: D. H. Lawrence and Schopenhauer.”D. H. Lawrence Review 11 (1978): 1-20.
74.艾米丽·汉恩,《劳伦斯和他身边的女人们》[M]。于茂昌译。哈尔滨:北方文艺出版社,1998。
75.程爱民,《20世纪英美文学论稿》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002。
76.杜隽,论D. H.劳伦斯的道德理想与社会的冲突[J],《外国文学研究》,2005,(2)。
77.董俊峰、赵春华,国内劳伦斯研究述评[J],《外国文学研究》,1999,(2)。
78.冯季庆,存在与死亡—读D. H.劳伦斯《恋爱中的女人》[J],《阅读与欣赏》,1995,(5)。
79.高文斌,哲理的开拓与心灵的烛照—劳伦斯小说的神话倾向[J],《丹东师专学报》,1999,(4)。
80.侯维瑞,《英国文学通史》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,1999。
81.蒋炳贤,《劳伦斯评论集》[M]。上海:上海文艺出版社,1995。
82.蒋家国,《重建人类的伊甸园—劳伦斯长篇小说研究》[M]。湖南:湖南大学出版社,2003。
83.李维屏,《英国小说艺术史》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003。
84.劳伦斯,《劳伦斯论文艺》[M]。黑马译。北京:团结出版社,2006。
85.劳伦斯,《劳伦斯短篇小说集》[M]。主万译上海:上海译文出版社,1983。
86.刘维荣,浅析劳伦斯小说中的象征手法的运用[J],《语文学刊》,1999,(4)。
87.刘淑红,生的礼赞死的哀歌—论心理小说《恋爱中的女人》[J],《四川外语学院学报》,2005,(4)。
88.奥维德、劳伦斯,《奥维德、劳伦斯论性爱》[M]。戴望舒译。北京:团结出版社,2006。
89.邵锦娣,《文学导论》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2002。
90.史志康,《美国文学背景概观》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2000。
91.史志康,莎剧英语,智慧的结晶—从语言角度赏析《哈姆雷特》(上、下)[J],《文景》,2006,(10、11)
92.伍厚恺,《寻找彩虹的人:劳伦斯》[M]。成都:四川人民出版社,1998。
93.肖肃,论劳伦斯小说的表现主义[J],《四川外语学院学报》,1994,(2)。
94.杨斌、吴格非,中国的劳伦斯研究述评[J],《成都教育学院学报》。2005,(3)。
95.叶兴国,劳伦斯与《圣经》[J],国外文学,1995,(2)。
96.叶立新,关于《恋爱中的女人》象征描写的解读[J],《乌鲁木齐职业大学学报》,1995,(1、2)。
97.殷企平,《英国小说批评史》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001。
98.殷企平,劳伦斯笔下的彩虹[J],《外国语》,2005,(1)。
99.袁可嘉,《欧美现代派文学概论》[M]。桂林:广西师范大学出版社,2003。
100.曾大伟,《回归宇宙本体—劳伦斯小说研究》[M]。广州:花城出版社,2001。
101.曾大伟,劳伦斯的迷误—简评劳伦斯的三部“领袖问题”小说[J],《国外文学》,(1997,(4)。
102.赵红英,劳伦斯笔下的女性[J],《华中理工大学学报》,2000,(3)。
103.张毅,《文学文体概说》[M]。北京:中国人民大学出版社,1993。
104.张中载,《二十世纪英国文学:小说研究》[M]。开封:河南大学出版社,2001。
105.周洁,近期中国劳伦斯研究一览与国外研究动态[J],《山东外语教学》,2004,(5)。
106.周玉忠,《英美文学与翻译研究》[M]。银川:宁夏人民出版社,2007。
107.朱通伯,《劳伦斯文论精选》[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社,2003。
108.万春、高二坡,国内劳伦斯小说研究概述[J],《宿州师专学报》,2002,(4)。
109.王绍昌,中国的劳伦斯研究:回顾、现状与展望—兼论劳学研究中值得注意的几个问题[J],《海南师院学报》,1995,(4)。