The Married Man: A Life of D.H.Lawrence

There are, sometimes, som very irritating passages in biography that just call out for, well, calling out.  Those interpretive passages that take off with some kind of (usually) psychoanalytic (but can be political) speculative analysis that can't be proven. Then it's backed up with just a little bit of scientific research that is entirely tangential to the conjecture, but never mind that hey it's science in the same paragraph so it makes my assertion nearby more true!
Here it is - I can't be bother to type it out, I found it quoted somewhere else(Literary Lives: Biography and the Search for Understanding
By David Ellis) , by someone who has the same dubious view I have of her psychoanalytic judgement, and snipped it as a .jpg.

Of course it fits in with the zeitgeist about Lawrence (if you can have a zeitgeist  about something, ah well). Lawrence isn't popular or read now - people turn their noses up at him not even because they've read much about him I suspect, but just because they've heard about him. Sons and Lovers, Woman in Love, The Rainbow - still some of the best novels in the English language - what evidence can I give? - give Leavis a chance!