Evening star., 1936-03-28
BY Mary Carter Roberts.

must regret the fact that 1t
4 also contains properties OF a
somewhat sensational nature. One sees
that it is these properties which will
engage readers. For If a book Is
reported to have in it lifelike and
malicious portrait of the English
speaking worlds outstanding play
washt-actor, what boots it that it
has anything else? People will read
it for that, and that alone.
But when, as in the case OF THE
1npassioned Pygmies," novel offers
not only intimate facts about dramas
famous playboy, but well-worked-
out delineation of the late, always
controversial D. H. Lawrence as well,
it is certain that anything else it
contains will Just be ignored; will
lust be unnecessary, from the average
point of view.
However, the book is better than
malicious satire on great Cor con-
spicuous) figures. 1t is not even prl-
marily intended to be such a satire,
one feels. Instead, it would seem that
the author has chosen his famous
characters for other purposes than
satire, has chosen them because they
seemed to him legitimate subjects for
a novel which would demonstrate once
more the old, old lesson OF human
frailty. He has overlooked the fact
apparently, that that lesson is OF
tiny interest to most persons, when
Get beside such matters as the bitter
sweet private life of the fascinating
playwright. Or the domestic rela-
tions of the wretched Lawrence, to
whom even the grave seems to deny
sanctuary.
So already one hears the book
spoken of as "debunking" Of one
Or the other men who appear in it.
And one hears little about the OBJ
vious intent to produce a psychological
novel of implications wider than the
personal.
But it is not "debunking," in the
sense that it introduces matter Of
new relevance about either charac-
ter. For it does not do that.
It is the old scene-the household
of "intellectualS" in the Mediterranean
villa. They slash and tear at ono
another in the usual feral fashion Of
members of such households There
Is one superior person and several
relatively superior. They struggle
with themselves and their lives, while
the human rats of the group take
notes and wait. A deal of under
standing and insight is displayed by
the writer in his treatment OF this
old theme. He is seldom more than
superficial, but he is superficial in a
kindly and mellow manner.
1t all ends on note of CHASTITY un-
reality, however, and it is hard to
forgive so violent a distortion OF
possibility. The suicide of Jordan.
the playwright, is wildly out Of char
acter with anything that the author
has previously written about him.
That throws the final passage Of the
book out of joint with the rest.
The household is that of one E. L.
Marius, who certainly must be taken
as Lawrence. In fiction. as in life, he
will be more readily recognized by the
properties that surround him than
by himself He has a beard, he has a
Germanic wife, he is represented as
having been in difficulties with British
authorities during the war, he Is
novelist whose books have aroused Bit
ter controversy. He is, observes Mr..
Winter, the greatest failure of the
century, and the great quest which his
life was to have been has become a
great getaway.
This must be Lawrence. And, if
further properties were to be needed,
the Marius of the story "a touching
flgure), is surrounded by throng OF
paIlid rodent-like men and women
worshippers. Satire is to be found in
the treatment of these creatures, and
In plenty. Mr.. Winter finds the pro-
fsssional disciple a thoroughly loath-
some animal evidently. and he takes
as his object lesson a group similar to
that which attached itself to Law
renee In the days Of his decline.
We have the woman who washed his
linen and wrote OF an imaginary pas
sion she shared with him as dark
frustrated fame" We have the man
who makes being q man his creed.
We have the three who long to be
Marius' mother. And so on There
are five Of these in all, and they write
five totally different biographies as
soon as their hero obliges them by
dying. It is all perfectly recognizable,
and healthfully funny-at last.
The participation In this group of
Andrew Jordan, the "dernier cri" of
the dramatic world. the oracle of his
generation, and so forth, is carried out
plausibly enough through the first
parts of the book. Jordan comes in as
the friend, or the would-be friend of
Saul, Marius' son. Saul, incidentally,
may be the authors concept of the
best Of Lawrence-one strongly sus-
poets that he Is. Just as the other
son, Rollo, seems to be personifica-
tion of the worst; Rollo has the quail
fcations q a nrst-raSe trape9e artist.
We see Jordan revelling in his Sec
ond rate-ness and petty cruelty. We
see Saul watching him with pity. Up
js 7as. point 1t is all plausible enough.
Fnen we find Jordan believing that
Saul has reviled him; whereat he kills
himself and that is as wild a piece Of
pure melodrammer as has been put in
an otherwise intelligent book in
long time.
The weaving in and out Of human
motives and the analysis of those mo-
tives Is the essential theme. As has
been said, that analysis seldom reaches
beyond superficial young irony, but
1t Is done with steady hand and an
appropriate manner Of conviction It
Is to be regretted that the book will
not be judged by Its merits alone, for
they are considerable, but 1t certainly
will not be. The spectacular nature of
its personifcations will completely
overshadow its every other aspect.
And what would have been o good,
%hns,ot. x,os,fIf,,1 accoS, ~ <ba v%c1nhn