D.H. Lawrence – the hyperkinetic writer of genius

D.H. Lawrence – the hyperkinetic writer of genius who was perverse and had a possible autistic narrative Michael Fitzgerald, Former Professor of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland. www.profmichaelfitzgerald.eu e-mail: [email protected]  D.H. Lawrence was a major literary figure of the twentieth century, who put descriptions of sexuality in print which had not been written about before. He was banned like James Joyce. He had a personality which was abnormal, (Fitzgerald, 2018) and which was emotionally immature, complex and extremely contradictory -the kind of personality not uncommonly associated with artistic personality. He shows many features from DSM 5, (APA, 2013). He had sexual identity diffusion, (bisexuality), but expressing heterosexual side physically. Wilson (2021), stated that he was, ̔a self-wrestling human document̕. Certainly, issues of self were central. He was a hyperkinetic writer and wanderer or as Nietzsche put it, ̔but nowhere have I found a home: I am unsettled in every city and depart from every gate̕. He was too close to his mother who denigrated his father. Henry Miller’s description of himself could also apply to Lawrence where Miller, (Wilson, 2008), said to Anais Nin, ̔I am at core a writer … and not a human being”. While Lawrence’s works are much less read today, Lawrence himself remains one of the most fascinating characters on the literary circuit. He was callous and engaged in domestic violence. His wife, Frieda Lawrence told E.M. Forster in 1915 that, ̔God knows he is a fool, and undeveloped, but he is so genuine, a genuine force, inhuman – and such a strain̕, (Maddox, 1998). His wife gets to the core of Lawrence with words like, ̔genuine̕ and, ̔inhuman̕, totally contradictory in personality. He experimented with every form of sexuality with his wife. He had one of the most complex married lives of any literary figure – indeed marriage to Frieda was unique and Lawrence put it best in a letter to Edward Garnett in 1912, when he wrote, ̔we are fearfully fond of one another, all the more, perhaps, when it doesn’t show. We want remarkably the same thing in life – sort of freedom, nakedness of intimacy, free-breathing space between us. You don’t know how fine it is between us – whatever either of us says̕, (Maddox, 1998). They were both novelty-seekers and sensation-seekers, (Fitzgerald, 2008) and transgressors, (Fitzgerald, 2021) with perverse features, you often see in great literary writers. Wilson, (2021), said that he developed T.B. as a teenager and Maddox, (1998), said he developed it when he was a teacher. He wrote therefore, under the threat of death all his life. The T.B. was largely denied. Lawrence was a misogynist and could be seen as anti-family when he wrote, ̔Fatherhood’s a myth … the average man with a family is nothing but a cart-horse, dragging the family behind him for the best part of his life̕, (Maddox, 1998). His misogynism was partly due to his fear of females and probably to memory of his psychologicaly, ̔suffocating̕, mother. Autistic narrative: Boucher, (2017), describes the language at the, ̔top end of the spectrum (as) somewhat pedantic and idiosyncratic̕, and that, ̔subtle differences in the content and organisation of the conceptual networks underlying linguistic meaning̕. She goes on to state that, ̔this may help to explain why words and phrases may be used with unusually narrow or idiosyncratic meaning̕. She also mentioned the problems with, ̔semantics̕, and problems integrating, ̔linguistic impact with real world knowledge̕. Formulacity is the repetition of certain phrases, (Boucher, 2017) and this is seen in Lawrence and in people on the spectrum. For Asperger, (1944 – 1991), some persons with autism have, ̔good grammar and vocabulary but inappropriate use of speech̕. McGrath (2017), emphasises that autism, ̔involves a set of differences̕. The difference in Lawrence’s writing has been highlighted. Lawrence showed otherness which is central to the subjective experience of autism. McGrath (2017), states that, ̔an otherized population is depicted as deviant from the centre̕. McGrath, (2017), uses the phrase, ̔ableist narratives̕, and of course, Lawrence was a literary genius and therefore, this would make his writing a superior narrative. The person with autism can only define themselves through an autistic narrative. Childhood and family: At birth, he was a, ̔weakling̕, and not expected to survive, (Maddox, 1998). He became over-emotionally attached to his mother and Bowlbian’s and Freudian’s would incorrectly attribute everything to this, (Fitzgerald, 2020). He suffered from nightmares as a child. Mother: She was, ̔a bitter woman … a pupil teacher̕, in the past. She was intelligent and stimulating and was a poet. She over-protected Lawrence, ̔like a sick monkey̕, (Maddox, 1998), according to a member of the family. In the novel, ̔The White Peacock̕, he wrote about the, ̔destructiveness of mothers̕, (Maddox, 1998). He became very depressed after she died and described life then as, ̔meaningless̕, (Maddox, 1998). Maddox, (1998) also noted that later, ̔Lawrence saw his mother as righteous and cruel, a woman who had portrayed her husband as a good-for-nothing drunkard, when the man had an unquenchable relish for living and a deep love for his family̕. He was a hardworking, poorly educated miner. School: In primary school, Lawrence had poor relationships with his peers, cried a lot and was kept at home because of this by his mother. This often occurs in children on the spectrum. His lack of schoolboy friendships was a major issue. He liked copying paintings and spent a long time on it. Marriage: Superficially his wife and himself were ill-matched, but both were novelty-seekers and sensation-seekers. Frieda his wife, had a famous WW1 Air Ace, ̔The Red Baron̕, genes in her, (they were cousins), and one could speculate that these had some effect on her and the marriage. Previously, she had a relationship with the most spectacularly promiscuous Freudian psychoanalyst Otto Gross and she was promiscuous always. Frieda brought Freudian ideas to Lawrence’s attention. Before he married her, he had a few female relationships. Like Shaw and Yeats, his marriage was a, ̔mother-child relationship in many ways̕, and this is not uncommon in persons with autism. Lawrence was extremely controlling and, ̔could not bear any woman to have power over him̕, (Maddox, 1998). This was probably another one of the reasons for the domestic violence and misogynism. Maddox, (1998), stated that Frieda was under his formidable spell and he was very controlling. Constance Garnett, (Maddox, 1998), ̔thought Lawrence cruel and cold to Frieda’s suffering while she found Frieda tactless, dense and insensitive̕. Laurence, (Maddox, 1998), stated that, ̔women in their natures like giantesses̕. Most great artists use and abuse their partners for their creativity, (Fitzgerald, 2020). Maddox, (1998), wrote that, ̔one night, Frieda burst into the consulting rooms of Ernst Jones weeping that her husband, (Lawrence), was trying to murder her̕. Freud, (Maddox, 1998), said that, ̔Lawrence does not really care for women, he only cares for men̕. Lawrence, (Park, 2003), stated, ̔she, (Freida) is the only possible woman for me, for I must have opposition – something to fight or I shall go under̕. Kate Millett, (1970), stated that Lawrence’s work, ̔The Fox̕, had, ̔Lawrence representing marriage, not only as a taming of woman and her extinction̕. No wonder Frieda realised that he almost wanted to murder her. Maddox, (1998), pointed out that, ̔every one of Lawrence’s books, according to Kate Millett’s, (feminist writer), comment insists, ̔a woman had to become a wife̕. Laurence never recovered from Kate Millett’s criticism. The most callous thing Lawrence did was not to allow Frieda post-divorce, to have contact with her three children. It appeared that he wanted to be the only, ̔child̕, in the family and to be looked after by Frieda. In one way, he had a very dependent type personality. Personality: Maddox, (1998), described him as, ̔an infuriating friend; one minute, full of understanding, amusing and generous, the next, angry, preachy, disloyal and ungrateful̕. He was a brilliant mimic and was a, ̔loyal brother and generous uncle̕, as well as being careful with his money, (Maddox, 1998). He was a good cook and did all the so-called, (at that time), female tasks around the home, including cleaning, scrubbing the floor, cooking, gardening and needlework. This is some evidence of his sexual identity diffusion. He was also a massive reader. He was excellent with children. He never had any children himself. Basically, he became for Frieda, his wife, her, ̔child̕, and was over-dependent on her. Being violent and impulsive outbursts were a feature of his life. He was like a, ̔temper tantrumy child̕. He was an irritable character. He was always rebellious. Early in his life, he was isolated, ̔from the society of men̕, (Maddox, 1998). At that time, he associated mainly with women. He appeared to be hypersensitive to smells and the dark smells and crevices of the body̕, (Maddox, 1998). As a child if another child trod on a flower, he would cry, ̔vandal̕, or, ̔murderer̕, (Maddox, 1998). As a child, he had a, ̔sharp tongue̕, (Maddox, 1998). Maddox also points out that he, ̔never played sports, nor went swimming with other boys̕, but, ̔kept company with girls but never flirted nor tried to kiss them̕, and the boys called him, ̔Mardy-boy̕, (soft), or, ̔Mandy-Anse̕. Nevertheless, he had, ̔a dread of females̕, and was the, ̔odd one out̕, (Maddox, 1998). These are all features of those on the spectrum. Lawrence, (Maddox, 1998), stated, ̔with should or ought I have nothing to do̕, and, ̔I can’t help it, I’m made this way̕. He was single-minded, impatient and impulsive. He had a reputation for, ̔duplicity̕, (Maddox, 1998) and he betrayed everyone’s confidences; further evidence of his perversity. D.S.M. (APA), (2013): In terms of personality trait ratings, (APA, 2013), he showed evidence of disinhibition – impulsivity and he showed evidence of risk-taking behaviour. In terms of antagonism – (APA, 2013), he showed manipulativeness, some deceitfulness, grandiosity and a feeling of entitlement with condescension to others, with attention seeking behaviour and callousness. Finally, he showed a lot of negative affectivity with emotional lability, extreme emotions, anxiousness and depressivity with hostility, anger and irritability as well as suspiciousness and finally, separation anxiety from his wife, Frieda. He was idiosyncratic and eccentric. Indeed, some readers would describe him as having borderline personality (APA, 2013), with identity diffusion, empathy problems, problems with intimacy and negative affectivity with emotional lability, anxiousness and depressivity with impulsivity, risk-taking and hostility. Borderline personality is often confused with autism, (Fitzgerald, 2005). In terms of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, (APA, 2013), Lawrence should evidence of identity problems, compulsive writing (and cleaning), empathy problems and some preservative traits. Maddox, (1998) pointed out that Lawrence had a, ̔compulsive habit, whenever he was staying, of going into the kitchen to do the dishes and, while spouting his views on the evils of mechanisation and the bloodless American spirit, rearranging all the china and glass on the shelves, scrubbing the draining board, wiping the washing-up bowl and hanging it on its nail̕. In terms of antisocial personality disorder, (APA, 2013), Lawrence showed identity issues, thought mostly about gratifying his, ̔own needs and desires, had problems with intimacy and empathy, showed callousness and hostility and could be irresponsible, impulsive and a risk-taker. In addition, he had some narcissistic psychopathology. In terms of autism spectrum disorder, (HFA), (APA, 2013), he showed deficits in social and emotional reciprocity, deficits in managing relationships, insistence on sameness, restricted interests, reading and writing difficulties with unusual sensitivity to sensory issues. There was also some evidence of ADHD hyperactive type, with hyperactivity, excessive talking, blurting out answers, problems taking turn and interrupting. He had a vast ray of traits, often associated with artistic personality, (Fitzgerald, 2021). In these puzzling presentations, it often happens that a neurodevelopmental disorder will bring all these traits best together if one is looking for a single dimensional disorder for him. Eagleton, (2004), disagrees with Chaudhuri, (2003), that his, ̔portrait of Lawrence as the marginal, decentred, anti-hierarchic outsider̕. I believe that Chaudhuri was correct. Eagleton, (2004), concluded that Lawrence’s ̔quasi-pathological obsession with the proud, single, separated self, aloof from the squalid mess of emotion and involvement, led this splendid scourge of the mechanistic mind to truly fearful misogyny, a raging contempt for democracy and hatred of Jews, homosexuality and supposedly inferior races̕. He was a man of strange ideas rejecting, ̔democracy as well as political equality of the sexes. He wanted instead, an elected aristocracy and called the leader a Dictator̕. He did not recognise appropriate limits. Lawrence, (Maddox, 1998) also had a, ̔high pitched tone of voice̕, which is often seen in persons on the spectrum. Rebecca West, (Maddox, 1998), described his voice, ̔as curious, hollow, like the soft boot fan owl̕, and she also noted its, ̔peculiar timbre̕, ̔high end reedy̕. These prosodic issues are often seen in persons on the spectrum. He had minor similarities to the Marquis de Sade, (Fitzgerald, 2021), but de Sade went very much further. Maddox (1998) also noted Lawrence’s, ̔casual anti-Semitism̕. She noted that he was, ̔careless with his manuscripts̕, and was a, ̔careless borrower̕. These features are sometimes seen in the hyperkinetic type of ADHD. T.B. was probably aggravated during the War, after his novel was banned and he lived in damp houses with little money. Lawrence, (Maddox, 1998), described himself as, ̔so damnably violent, really, and self destructive̕. There was, ̔extreme contrariness̕, in Lawrence’s personality and it should be noted that, ̔Frieda complained loudly about Lawrence’s gracelessness in bed̕. In contradiction, Lawrence could be charming and wanted to create a utopian community, Rananim, which was for fantasy, but he was charismatic, and people did fall under his spell in relation to this. This can also happen in persons on the spectrum. E.M. Forster, (Maddox, 1998), said that Lawrence was a divided man. Indeed, he was more than that in that he was multifaceted. The playwright Herbert Farjeon (Maddox, 1998), stated that, ̔Lawrence never forgot nor forgave a good turn̕. At the same time, he could engage in, ̔flagrant abuse of hospitality̕, a feature of antisocial personality. He always betrayed people’s secrets. Further evidence of his cruelty was blaming a mother he knew for a child’s disability. Maddox, (1998) also said, ̔he also wanted to destroy the husbands of women he admired̕. He feared, ̔dissolution, degradation, dirt and shame̕, (Maddox, 1998). He was hypersensitive to colour and could give brilliant descriptions of physical pain. He was after all, an, ̔ill, obsessive and angry man, seething with hate for all humanity̕, (Maddox, 1998). He was a, ̔contrarian, oppositional defiant and rebellious̕. Cecil Gray, (Maddox, 1998), said he had, ̔a certain streak of mystical self-abasement̕. Indeed, his personality was one of endless, ̔streaks̕. He once described himself as a, ̔psychic physician̕, (Maddox, 1998). He constantly moved house because he got bored with places but nevertheless, he could hyper focus on writing to an extraordinary degree. Like many people with hyperkinesis he had, ̔a myriad (of) unfinished projects̕, (Maddox, 1998). He also had incurable, ̔restlessness̕, (Maddox, 1998). Further evidence of his contradictory personality: While he loved nature and animals, he was also noted once to viciously beat a dog. He had, ̔convulsive losses of control̕, with often, ̔tirades̕, (Maddox, 1998). Maddox, (1998) also noted that, ̔Lawrence knew he did not fully understand himself: “my self is a mystery that impinges on the infinite”̕. This is common in great artists. Work: He became a teacher but could only control his pupils with physical punishment. He was a good teacher and he also did quite a bit of journalism. Writing influences: In 1917, Lawrence met Frieda, who was deeply interested in psychoanalysis and European thought. She influenced Lawrence. It’s therefore worth dividing Lawrence’s work up to those written before he met Frieda and those after he met Frieda. He was somebody who took enormously from his current environment and people in his current environment that he put into his books with little disguise which was tactless. Fast versus slow writing: He was one of the fastest writers of novels, which meant the writing was immediate and intuitive. He was like Mozart in musical composition. As compared to the slowest novel writers, for example, Flaubert (Fitzgerald, 2001) and Joyce, (Walker & Fitzgerald, 2007), who wrote very slowly and deliberately with enormous mental processing. His writing process was hyperkinetic, intuitive, fast, novelty-seeking and sensation-seeking. Lawrence described his writing process as writing, ̔every novel three times̕, which meant, ̔I don’t mean copying and revising … (but) often I finish the first draft and I put it aside and write another. Then, I put the second aside and write a third̕, (Maddox, 1998). Maddox, (1998) also noted that, ̔Lawrence wrote with extraordinary speed … (and) revised extensively, often producing highly different versions of the same book̕. Ford, (Maddox, 1998), described his writing as, ̔too lush, too descriptive̕. He was a compulsive writer and wrote incessantly until his death. He was also a massive copier. Because he knew he was going to die of T.B, this increased the rush. He pushed the idea of dying with T.B. out of his mind most of the time. Idiosyncratic narrative, autistic narrative or Lawrentian narrative?: This is a speculative area, where it is hard to come to a final conclusion. There is some evidence of autism as described earlier, particularly in his early years. His difficult postnatal period would be common in persons with autism and his school non-attendance with endless crying would again be another feature often seen, although not a core feature. He found other, ̔boys rough, an cried a lot̕, and was very irritable. When his mother asked him why he was crying, he would say that he didn’t know, (Maddox, 1998). He wrote much superb and also very poor work and showed an, ̔incoherent philosophy̕, (Maddox, 1998), which could go with an autistic narrative. The Morning Post newspaper, (Maddox, 1998), asked about Lawrence’s novel, ̔The White Peacock̕, ̔what is the sex of the author and that its particular physical charm is praised almost convinces us that it is the work of a woman̕. This is further evidence of Lawrence’s identity diffusion. Maddox, (1998) stated that Lawrence was, ̔no logical thinker̕, used constant, ̔simile and metaphor̕. For E.M. Forster, (Maddox, 1998), ̔The White Peacock̕, is, ̔so very absurd and incompetent as a novel … the characters changing, not only their natures but their outward appearances at the author’s whim̕. Hodgkinson, (2002), notes Lawrence’s, ̔fuzzy grandiloquence̕, and that he had a tendency to throw in the words, ̔blood̕, ̔phallic̕, or, ̔living̕, whenever, ̔he wants to sound truly mystical̕. Mysticism is also common in writers on the spectrum. Eagleton, (2004), notes that Chaudhuri (2003), uses, ̔Derrida’s notion of discourse as a play of traces, revisions, supplements, erasures, repetitions̕, and that, ̔Lawrence’s poems are less framed and finished products than fragments of a larger discourse. Images circulate from one poem to another or acts as raw material for it and the whole process is criss-crossed by resonances, redundancies, repetitions̕. Hodgkinson (2014), states that, ̔This provisional, revisionary, open-ended mode of writing, Chaudhuri (2003) argues, undermines the monolithic and hierarchical. There is no master form, no simple linearity or controlled centre. A constant buzz of intertextual allusions subverts any suggestion of pure presence̕, and there is an, ̔unfinishedness̕. Eagleton, (2004), noted that for Lawrence, life was, ̔enigmatic, utterly mysterious, farce which “speaks”, to us for more than we, “speak” it̕. Eagleton, (2004) also notes that for Lawrence, ̔a man’s self … is a law unto itself – not himself. There is a phase in the novel, ̔The Rainbow̕, where Lawrence writes, ̔he knew that he did not belong to himself̕. Eagleton, (2004), states that, ̔ Lawrence is indeed all about process, exfoliation, trembling instability, emerging out of darkness only to lapse into it again̕. Chaudhuri (2003), notes that ‘for T.S. Elliot, Lawrence has, ̔marvellous passages that are meaningful and other passages which serve, as it were, as links in the continuous chain of a work, which are by themselves, unreadable and cannot be commented on̕. This is the autistic narrative. Lawrence was a risk-taker and novelty-seeker and Tom Paulin, (2003), notes that he was, ̔one of the most radical, risk-taking poets ever̕. Paulin, (2003) went on to state that the writing, ̔in its incompleteness, changes and revisions, its gaps, silences, ragged, false starts, structural flaws, enormous imaginative leaps … withdraws from his own work̕, (Chaudhuri, 2003). For Chaudhuri, (2003), Lawrence’s writing is, ̔confused, incapable of abstract thought, slightly imbecilic, apparently handicapped and lacking a sense of smell̕. This again could be the autistic narrative. The collage technique, (Fitzgerald, 2021), may be seen, ̔in the manner of Picasso’s, ̔The She Goat̕, which is made from a wicker basket, palm leaves, scraps of iron, ceramic pots̕, (Paulin, Chaudhuri, 2003). Paulin, (Chaudhuri, 2003), noted that, ̔the wily Yeats, who admired Lawrence’s fiction, is describing poems … built out of bits and pieces – memories, phrases, recycled quotations – but unlike Lawrence, he (Yeats), goes for closure in the final, iambic couplet and, ̔many of these characters remain when all is ruin again̕, (Walker & Fitzgerald, 2006) did have autism. Chaudhuri (2003), pointed out, ̔difference̕, is the key to Lawrence, which Lawrence often calls, ̔otherness̕. I would call it autistic narrative. Lawrence was also a brilliant travel writer. In terms of his writing, Maddox, (1998), wrote that, ̔Lawrence’s laborious method of working – extensive revision, with hundreds of pages discarded, plots and characters often changed beyond recognition – should not disguise the speed with which he wrote – rapidly, in pen, in a clear, legible, schoolmaster’s hand. In essence, he wrote several books in the time most novelists take to complete one̕. He was a very visual writer. His unusual talent consists in his surprising ability to illuminate both sides simultaneously̕. The autistic narrative: Cynthia Asquith stated that, ̔words welled out of him, (Lawrence). He spoke with flashing phrases, at times colloquially, almost challengingly so, but often with startling beauty of utterance. His voice was now harsh, now soft, one moment lyrically, contagiously joyous, the next sardonic gibing̕. Lawrence, (Maddox, 1998), said, ̔don’t look in my novels for the old stable ego of character̕. Maddox, (1998), also noted that Lawrence, ̔could take over others’ material and make it entirely his own̕. This is typical of autistic writing techniques where the collage technique is predominant. Lawrence’s, (Maddox, 1998), ̔feat of fast composition was accompanied with his usual magpie technique, ingredients from everywhere. This can be contrasted with Joyce’s technique in Ulysses which, ̔was a collage of different writing styles, newspaper headlines, scratches of music, dreams and flashbacks̕, (Maddox, 1998). Lawrence write the novel, ̔Kangaroo̕, in forty-two days, (Maddox, 1998). Lawrence said, ̔never trust the artist, trust the tale̕, and Maddox, (1998) also noted when he wrote, ̔St. Mawr̕, he, ̔once again does not seem in control of his meaning̕. This is part of the autistic narrative. He wrote, ̔Lady Chatterley’s Lover’, and he had, ̔no choice̕, and it seemed, ̔to come out of nowhere̕, but Maddox, (1998) stated differently, that, ̕his slumbering sensual self was exploding onto the canvas̕. This is true, but he often felt that he did not have control of this process, possibly because he was hyperkinetic. Lawrence, because of his fast writing technique did not censor. He was a compulsive writer, (part of his OCD), and could not stop until death. He believed that humans were, ̔the product of impersonal forces̕, (Maddox, 1998). Fernihough, (2003), notes that, ̔Lawrence’s style, with its tendency to repetition and excess and its sometimes outrageous flouting of aesthetic norms, has frequently been presented as a puzzle or a problem̕. Lawrence wrote in the style of the autistic narrative, like that of Simone Weil, (Fitzgerald, 2005) and also Ludwig Wittgenstein, (Fitzgerald, 2004), both of whom had autism. Fernihough, (2003), also notes that, ̔Lawrence is an idiosyncratic writer has always been recognised, but his idiosyncrasy has usually been construed as the solitary genius, the lone Romantic voice, a Lawrence who was somehow purely himself and no one else. Lawrence’s, “difference”, in this sense is not the, “difference”, that gives this book its title. Far from drawing on the Romantic tradition, and its New Critical aftermath for his critical idiom̕. This is the autistic technique with its biological imperative. For Chaudhuri (2003), Fernihough, (2003) states that, ̔Derrida’s concept of difference, which observes no textual boundaries and renders the distinction between “finished” and “unfinished” works are, “good” and “bad” works̕, a meaningless one with its and in which, ̔his poem bear the “traces” of each other and of the work of other poets̕. Fernihough (2003) notes that for Paul Eggert, Lawrence’s text shows, ̔provisionality, its contingency, its, “change and variation response to accident”, rather than organic growth towards some predestined goal of literary perfection̕. Lawrence’s texts are different from Flaubert, (Fitzgerald, 2021), which were, ̔timeless gems, the hardened perfected works that can supposedly be contemplated from a safe distance̕, while Lawrence’s text is unfinished works in progress, (Fernihough, 2003). Perloff, (2004), notes that Lawrence makes his case, ̔not by any sort of logical argument, but by repeating the word, “free” seven times, so as to make it wholly absurd. In ̔Women in Love̕, Lawrence writes the, ̔thoracic and lumbar ganglia̕, as, ̔centres of negative polarity of our first being̕, (Perloff, 2004). Perloff, (2004), notes that ̔Lawrence’s, “casual”, sentences are packed with allusions to other writers from Samuel Johnson to Turgenev, as well as any number of esoteric religious, psychological and philosophical texts and personal experiences̕. This is the autistic narrative model. There is similarity between Lawrence and Beckett, (Fitzgerald, 2021), when Lawrence states, ̔I hate̕, understanding, ̔people … and I hate more to be understood̕, (Parks, 2003). Lawrence, (Parks, 2003), wrote that he, ̔gave up deliberately the pretence of being an artist … his aim was to discover authority, not create art̕. Not surprisingly, Lawrence’s work was alive and, ̔met with incomprehension, contempt, censorship and adoration̕, (Parks, 2003). This is a typical response to autistic narrative. T.S. Elliot, (Parks, 2003), stated that he showed, ̔an incapacity for what we ordinarily call thinking̕. Parks, (2003), noted that Simon Callow stated that Lawrence’s works was no more than, ̔an assault on the reader by plastering contrived symbolism over the tale with impatient crudeness̕. Parks, (2003), (noted also) ̔there are no rules̕, in Lawrence’s ̔Novella the Fox̕. For Lawrence, (Parks, 2003), ̔rather than “knowing”, another, a positive sexual encounter became an, “unknowing”, a shedding of self in oneness̕. Squires & Talbot, (2002), note that, ̔Lawrence’s aim was, “to locate the spiritual mystery at the end of a long conduit to which his intuition, aided by emotion, would lead him – in concert with a person who was herself, able to struggle independently towards the mystery”, and, “the unknown self”̕, (Crees, 2003). Conclusion: Lawrence was an infinitely complex artistic personality. Nowhere could he be described as a normal personality, as typical of most great artists. The notion of an autistic narrative is a very speculative and its unclear how much it fits with Lawrence’s work. The concept of a fast writing novelist like Lawrence, as compared to slow writing novelists like Joyce, is worth further exploration. This is based on thinking fast and slow, (Kahneman, 2011).  References: American Psychiatric Association (2013): DSM 5. Washington D.C. American Psychiatric Association. Asperger H., (1944-1991): Autistic Psychopathy in childhood (U. Frith Trans). In Frith U., (Ed). Autism and Aspergers Syndrome, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bouchard J., (2017): Autism spectrum disorder. London: Sage. Crees M., (2003): Alone with a rabbit called Adolf. DLS. March 14. Page 26. Chaudhuri A., (2003): D.H. Lawrence and ̔difference̕. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eagleton T., (2004): Anti-humanism. London Review of Books. February 5th, 16 – 18. Fernihough A., (2003): Blood and dirt. T.L.S. August 29th, page 8. Fitzgerald M., (2004): Autism and creativity. New York: Brunner-Routledge Fitzgerald M., (2005): The genesis of artistic creativity. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Fitzgerald M., (2005): Borderline personality disorder and Asperger’s syndrome. Autism 9, 4, 452. Fitzgerald M., (2008): ADHD, creativity, novelty-seeking and risk-taking. New York: Nova Science. Fitzgerald M., (2018): Normality and abnormality in psychiatry. Doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.17216.07688. Fitzgerald M., (2020): Criticism of attachment disorder. Doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.24012.77445. Fitzgerald M., (2020): Criticism of attachment theory. https://www.researchgate.net/publications/338696030_criticiam_of_attachment_theory Fitzgerald M., (2020): The empathy spectrum, genius and creativity. https://www.researchgate.net/publications/1346920403_the_empathy_spectrum_genius_and_creativity Fitzgerald, M., (2021): Does artistic personality exist? Doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.15237.27360. Fitzgerald, M., (2021): Flaubert was on the spectrum. Doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36683.92974. Fitzgerald, M., (2021): The greatest works of fiction were autistic narratives. https://www/researchgate.net/publications/352038622_The_greatest_works_of_fiction_were_autistic_narratives Fitzgerald, M., (2021): Autistic narrative seriously neglected today. https://www/researchgate.net/publications/351274173_Autistic_narrative_seriously_neglected_today Fitzgerald, M., (2021): The Marquis de Sade: perversion and creativity. Doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.32349.54240 Fitzgerald M., (2021(b)): Bacon, Picasso, Freud and Goya: Transgression and perversity in great art. https://www.researchgate.net/publications/3419409855_bacon_picasso_freud_and_goya_tragressopm_and_perversity_in_great_art Hodgkinson T., (2002): Not everyone agreed. Literary Review. Nov. 10-11. Kahneman D., (2011): Thinking fast and slow. New York: MacMillan. Maddox B.C., (1998): The married man – A life of D.H. Lawrence. London: Vintage. Millett K., (1970): Sexual politics. New York. Doubleday. McGrath J., (2017): Naming adult autism. London: Rowan & Littlefield. Parks T., (2003): The fighter. New York Review of Books, September 25th, page 72. Perloff M., (2004): Chuff, Chuff, Chuff. T.L.S. March 12th, page 5. Squires M., Talbot L., (2002): Living at the edge. Robert Hare. Walker A., Fitzgerald M., (2006): Unstoppable brilliance. Dublin: Liberty Press. Wilson F., (2021): Burning Man: The ascent of D.H. Lawrence. London: Bloomsbury. 16