D.H. Lawrence Defended
To the Editor:
. . . Stephen Spender’s deduction [in his review of William Phillips's A Sense of the Present, June], that Lady Chatterley is representative of “nearly all” Lawrence’s work; that Lady Chatterley is merely hygiene; that hygiene is second rate, and therefore Lawrence’s work is second rate, fails on all points, but most obviously in the idea that Lady Chatterley stands for all (“nearly”) of Lawrence’s work. If comprehension is divine, how does Spender dispose of Women in Love or “nearly all” of Lawrence’s stories? . . .
Eric Wolf Fried
Ithaca, New York
