Talk:D. H. Lawrence/Archive 2

"bi-curious" in the terminology of today
All Wikipedia articles are written for today's readers. The phrase "in the terminology of today" is superfluous and I will delete it.

Phersh (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Biased
This article is biased. It acknowledges that there were many people who were highly critical of him, but they are all waved aside, so that everyone who ever said anything *good* about him can be highlighted. The impression given (though not explicitly stated) is that lots of people hated his work, but they were all idiots and should be ignored, and the minority who liked him were the smart ones, so let's talk about them. To be balanced, the explicit complaints of the detractors should be cited. I'm particularly interested in this, because I find him to be the single worst writer I've ever been forced to read, and so I'd like to learn more about other critical views of him. And this article gave me *none* of that (except, perhaps, that some people were bent out of shape by the explicit sexuality (which, by the way, is NOT my complaint). I find it hard to believe that that was the only complaint.  But if it in fact were, the article should say *that*). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.186.24.68 (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I echo the above sentiments. I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor, so I'm not going to make the requisite edits at this time, but someone please visit the following link and see if some edits are in order. The author makes a good case for why D.H. Lawrence had some very unsavory views which would be considered racist in 2019. Many people did back then, but if kids are going to read and be influenced by his work, the public should know that he thought very low things of other races. https://www.bookforum.com/print/2604/d-h-lawrence-s-stunning-indefensible-essays-23766

and here is a discussion on Hacker News (reputable forum run by Y Combinator, a top startup incubator) linking to that blog post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21625061

Let's be careful not to romanticize past figures, including via omission.


 * There has been much debate about such matters in the RfCs above. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC).