Injustice In D. H. Lawrence's Sons And Lovers

The general critical consensus on D.H. Lawrence’s Sons and Lovers(1913) is that Lawrence has done injustice to his own father by presenting him as an irresponsible, uncouth and beastly figure under the shadow of Walter Morel. He himself “came to think that he had done injustice in Sons and Lovers”1. “Less than ten years after he completed Sons and Lovers”, as Harry T. Moore comments, “Lawrence expressed the wish that he could re-write it in fairness to his father”2. In fact, while portraying Walter Morel he was only “justifying a private grudge of his own”3. The grudge that he had in his mind was only the result of seeing his father “in childhood and youth….through the prejudiced eyes of his mother”4.But for a moment, if we keep the “unashamedly

against the good, responsible, caring Gertrude Morel who seems to be associated with the left or superior side. Walter Morel is always blamed for his habit of drinking; but examining closely the comments of Lawrence as the narrator, he scarcely seems to put the blame on alcohol; he himself vindicates: “[H]e drank rather heavily, though no more than any other miner”10. However heavily he drank, it scarcely told upon his profession since Lawrence himself clarifies: “[H]e practically never had to miss his work owing to his drinking”11. Apart from his profession, Walter is portrayed to be a very useful person for his domestic household works. Lawrence’s complimenting Walter as “remarkably a handy man”12 proves his skill and usefulness. In a very short notice he “could make or mend anything”13. Lawrence also tells us that working out such tasks always make him happy. As the novel progresses, we get to learn that Walter was “always very gentle if anyone was ill”14. It is out of such gentility that at the birth of William, when Mrs. Morel was very ill, “Morel was good to her, as good as gold”15. Nevertheless, unfortunately, that goodness never gets the chance to bloom to the full; not only the narratives but the readers’ attention also deviate from a satisfying possibility to the so-called flaws of his persona. Such kinds of occasions play a key role to the making of an intimate and successful conjugal relationship. But, since “Lawrence’s intention and the intention of the novel are disparate”16, the relationship pathetically turns out be a bitter struggle to the