No Defense for "The Rocking-Horse Winner"
Author(s): William D. Burroughs
Source: College English, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Jan., 1963), p. 323
Published by: National Council of Teachers of English
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/373629
Accessed: 29/03/2010 19:43
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncte.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
National Council of Teachers of English is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
College English.
http://www.jstor.org
Rebuttal
NO DEFENSE FOR "THE ROCKING-HORSE WINNER"
W. R. Martin (CE Oct. 1962) does not
rescue "The Rocking-Horse Winner" from
the limitationsnoted by Leavis and Hough.
Furthermore, Gordon and Tate in The
House of Fiction note the same strictures
in the story, although they add that it
"approaches technical perfection." That
Leavis and Hough have reservations about
RHW there is no doubt; however, the
grounds for Leavis' reservationsare vague:
RHW is not representative of Lawrence.
Indeed, Professor Martin shows that the
story is thematicallyrepresentativeof Lawrence's total works: the unlived life comes
through negation of emotions. So, I find
Leavis' objections partially answered. On
the other hand, Hough is more specific: he
substantiatesthe technical skill of RHW,
but he also notes that it is "quite outside
the range of Lawrence's usual work."
That the story is technically good, there
seems no doubt. This perfection is what
Professor Martin defends in the story
through cataloguing some of the symbols
and imagery for us, at the same time stating that the symbols present the "central
meaning of the story." The difficulty with
the story comes not with technique, but
from what is said. And what Lawrence
says in RHW is precisely what he says in
his other writings. Another difficulty is
Lawrence's unusual plot handling; there is
an uneasy feeling about the ending in light
of the simple declarative opening (like a
fairy tale): "There was a woman who was
beautiful, who started with all the advantages, yet she had no luck."
The plot is skillful, but lacks imagination.
Lawrence starts his characters at the top,
letting them degenerate to poor souls in
the denouement. This arrangement could
be tragic if Lawrence had bothered to show
some cause-effect for the parents'insistence
on social supremacyat Paul'sexpense;however, the plot is merely the reversal of the
fairy-tale climb from rags to riches. It is,
although having tragic possibilities, not
tragic, but only pathetic. It is this pathos
that Hough, Leavis, Gordon and Tate
attack.
The emotional appeal goes with Lawrence's insistence that the world should be
ruled by emotions (probably an extreme
position adopted to make his argument
more forceful). His reliance on reader
sympathy for Paul, and on reader hate for
the parents' materialism,and the dialectic
logic of opposites no matter what they
represent is strictly emotional.
Moreover, Paul is a romantic,not through
interpretation of objective correlatives (a
matter of technique in this story): the uncle
calls Paul a "romancer"while riding with
him in the car. This blunt identification of
one of the opposites is balanced by the
mother's identification with money, materialism, knowledge, mind, will, intellect.
And her symbolic meaning is forthright. In
short, the story has a didactic purpose,
persuading the reader to accept the dark,
the sensual, the blood, the flesh, the senses,
the feelings. This plot combination of the
fantastic (the boy's insistenceon revelation)
with the didactic is what critics cannot defend, no matter how much the dialectic is
supported by diction.
Professor Martin does not then take up
the challenge offered by Leavis and Hough;
indeed, no one could. The story is only
partially defensible: it is well plotted; the
diction, excellent in image, symbol and
meaning; and the characters, flat representations of ideas and attitudes. The defense
is adequate within its scope, but the value
of a short story depends on more than
technical perfection.
The lack of other aspects is the objection
raised by Leavis, Hough, Gordon and Tate.
Fiction depends upon a presentationof life.
This presentationis exactly what Lawrence
has failed to achieve. In "The RockingHorse Winner," he fails to show how his
fantastic insistence on the emotional aspects
of life can be, or should be, applied to life.
So, "The Rocking-Horse Winner," an excellent technical masterpiece, is limited by
applicationof Lawrence'shackneyed didacticism to a pathetic plot of fantasy.
323
WILLIAMD. BURROUGHS
USAF Academy, Colorado