Dilemmas of homoeroticism, homosexuality, and pseudo-heterosexuality are presented throughout, and usually with no good resolution or reconciliation.
Male Homophobia Equals Misogyny
The second such compelling aspect, which Lawrence inextricably intertwines with the first, is an overwhelming misogyny. This introductory essay will argue that the dual-pronged thrust of sexual ambivalence and mistrust of women deeply penetrates Lawrence’s early work, evident from his first novel The White Peacock (1911) and culminating in 1923’s The Fox. In this novella, sexual and misogynistic issues that Lawrence had previously but only tentatively explored are brought to a brutal climax by the early twentieth-century advancement of women. The crisis is compounded by the emergence of unmarried—and possibly homosexual—women as a newly recognizable social entity.
For example, Gerald Crich’s near-strangulation of his heterosexual but independent wife in Women in Love (1920) is completed by the death of Fox’s lesbian Jill Banford courtesy of Henry Grenfel’s tree-felling expertise. Regardless of their own autonomy or sexuality, both of these women’s only “crime” is to stand in the way of the object of a man’s true desire—another man. This is quite apparent in Women, but, as will be shown, a bit more complicated in Fox. At any rate, between these two novels, the homicidal deed, the destruction of a woman, has come full circle; although Gerald’s failure, which proves him “weak,” leads to suicide, a phallic tree trunk reclaims male dominance.
Women Cannot Successfully Emulate Men
It is also important to note that Ellen March, Banford’s partner, had tried to fell the tree herself, but could not; this is just one of many examples throughout the novella wherein March, the more masculine of the two women, fails to meet the stereotypical expectations one would have of a real man. To waggle Freudian tongue-in-cheek, she has no “tool,” and even if she did, she would not be able to wield it with authority. For this, she is cursed; as the novella reads, she can gratify neither Henry’s ostensible desire for a woman nor his more compelling urge for male sexual companionship, which he sublimates into a fierce, furious competition for March’s love.
The Ultimate Scapegoat
Indeed, although Jill Banford is killed, it is March, Fox’s true female protagonist, who unduly suffers Henry’s/society’s wrath. Mannish in appearance and character, yet nurturing and tender with Banford, March doubly suffers for male sexual ambivalence and misogynism; she is Lawrence’s ultimate physical and psychological scapegoat for men’s homophobic confusion and hostile resentment repeatedly shown toward women in his works.
Before Henry comes along, March and Banford, as they are usually known, are comfortable in their lot. Despite such minor annoyances as ill-tempered chickens and troublesome livestock, they are content, “the best of friends.” As Fox’s narrator introduces the novella, the reader learns that “They had taken the farm together, intending to work it all by themselves . . . They set out quite gallantly with their enterprise,” and life at Bailey Farm reflects a good, balanced partnership. The “robust” March does “most of the outdoor work,” while “thin, delicate” and bespectacled Banford tends to the more domestic chores, such as cooking. Prior to the human male’s arrival, their worst enemy is a marauding (literal) fox, who routinely raids the henhouse; had the figurative fox not raided their home, all would have been well.
The story’s third-person narrator is apathetic; misogynism overrides any empathy or sympathy one might infer from The Fox’s outcome as March is forced into a new existence with Henry—as it should be—now that Banford’s—and her own—lives are over.
Lawrence, D.H., The Fox, Four Short Novels of D.H. Lawrence. NY: Viking Press, 1972. 113-179. ISBN: 670-00180-5
 |
 |
