Scan barcode
A review by beautyistruth
Apocalypse by D.H. Lawrence
2.0
The best thing about this slim book is that there is some seriously poetic and passionate writing on Lawrence's part, with one or two great quotes, and he does have some amazing underlying spirit, so I enjoyed reading this book for that reason.
------------
Most of it is an argument for that the Apocalypse in the Bible is pagan in origin and still very pagan but just was altered and written over by Jews and Christians, and there is some social discussion on whom it appeals to and why. With the disclaimer that I'm not a theologian nor a Christian, I don't have a big problem with this because it's obvious that the Apocalypse is totally different to the Gospels, is really bizarre and that the Bible is man-made.
But the rest of it loses serious points for:
a) Aping Nietzsche, whose philosophy is intellectually stupid (I've written a review on why to Thus Spake Zarathustra). If Lawrence had thought more for himself, it might have been better, so that makes me sad.
b) In one part, for going on about how woman is a source of evil and always a policewoman.. just seems ridiculous and is offensive as well as just stupid. True intelligence would be trying to actually move from simplistic and divisive categorisation where one has projected issues that just causes conflicts: embracing the grey shades and complexity that is more the truth of things. There is not one big simple 'man is this, woman is that', in other words.
c) It felt like he was being seriously rose-tinted about past civilisations rather than acknowledging that when they worshipped the cosmos instead of Christianity or Judaism they no doubt had problems just as much. It was like he had an idea of how it was or should be and idealised it, which isn't well-grounded in reality. I have sympathy because I can see how he got carried away with an ideal rather than looking more critically at how things work in practice, but I cannot respect it.
So his manifesto as laid down in this book does not work for me. It's a shame.
------------
Most of it is an argument for that the Apocalypse in the Bible is pagan in origin and still very pagan but just was altered and written over by Jews and Christians, and there is some social discussion on whom it appeals to and why. With the disclaimer that I'm not a theologian nor a Christian, I don't have a big problem with this because it's obvious that the Apocalypse is totally different to the Gospels, is really bizarre and that the Bible is man-made.
But the rest of it loses serious points for:
a) Aping Nietzsche, whose philosophy is intellectually stupid (I've written a review on why to Thus Spake Zarathustra). If Lawrence had thought more for himself, it might have been better, so that makes me sad.
b) In one part, for going on about how woman is a source of evil and always a policewoman.. just seems ridiculous and is offensive as well as just stupid. True intelligence would be trying to actually move from simplistic and divisive categorisation where one has projected issues that just causes conflicts: embracing the grey shades and complexity that is more the truth of things. There is not one big simple 'man is this, woman is that', in other words.
c) It felt like he was being seriously rose-tinted about past civilisations rather than acknowledging that when they worshipped the cosmos instead of Christianity or Judaism they no doubt had problems just as much. It was like he had an idea of how it was or should be and idealised it, which isn't well-grounded in reality. I have sympathy because I can see how he got carried away with an ideal rather than looking more critically at how things work in practice, but I cannot respect it.
So his manifesto as laid down in this book does not work for me. It's a shame.