Lawrence is a strange poet, because so many of his poems read as "unpoetic;" at first glance, this seems to betray a lack of skill, but upon deeper study, I think it is helpful to run across writers who push the boundaries of a genre because they come from outside of it. Lawrence's "Pansies" are perhaps the most controversial and least-well-recieved of his poetry, and on first blush, many of them are just bad (by poetic standards). Those few which stand out as better than the others still feel a bit too forceful in their message, a bit too straightforward and lacking in re-reading value. But that's the funny thing: this totally contradicts his preface to the "Pansies", wherein he bemoans most "original" (philosophical?) thoughts because "immediately it irritates by its assertiveness;" this seems to be the very thing he does with these "poems," many of which are barely more than one opinion or observation. In that preface, Lawrence seemed to both dismiss the poems as "casual thoughts," but he also thought them important enough to fight for their printing when threatened by censorship, and for him to spend the time editing manuscripts and ordering them in an intentional sequence. But, as I wrote in one of my close readings, I think it's actually superficial to dismiss these Pansies, and that they actually make an important point about tone of voice and poetry:
Pensées, oui, mais dont? Like Friedrich Nietzsche before him, who wrote much of his philosophy in poetry, and much of that poetry in the voice of his enemies, D. H. Lawrence uses varying levels of nuance and irony in his Pansies, which invites the tantalizing question of how “serious” these thoughts are, and which “voice” uttered them. Mostly, they remain in a conversational register, which seems important; if you have ever attempted transcribing a conversation, you will notice immediately how “un-prose-like” it is, with repetitions, Freudian slips, and its own natural cadences. Likewise, rather than these “Pansies” being only internal thoughts, they seem to be utterances, or thoughts “out loud.” Thus in contrast to the Russian Formalists who posited a “literary” register which deviates from “ordinary language,” this collection implies the opposite, that thoughts, in their natural state, are more akin to poetry. Rather, it is only prose which artificially orders thoughts into neat, complete sentences. These “Pansies” are thoughts in their natural state: confrontational, overconfident, and yes, poetic.
But are these “Pansies” barely-formed thoughts that Lawrence “blurted out” on the page (as many critics insinuate), or do they interrogate the genre of poetry by their tone and subject matter? If the latter, then their literal content matters less than their effect upon the reader. As Roger Simmonds points out, the primary effect these poems have is not a literal changing of the reader’s mind on any specific topics, but rather a spurring of impassioned debate (142). This debate initially revolves around a reevaluation of the poems’ “literary worth,” which, if continued, broadens to an interrogation of what we even mean by “literary,” “poetry,” and “thoughts.” If this is the case, Lawrence’s flippancy when talking about these poems is less a matter of preemptively defending himself against potential criticisms, but rather is his way of helping us look at the bigger picture. One could even argue that the less traditionally “poetic” the poems, the better, because it forces readers away from overly-close readings which otherwise threaten to maintain an aesthetic orthodoxy. Lawrence seems to be implicitly arguing that no ars poetica poem can fully challenge formal presuppositions so long as it maintains those suppositions itself. In this way, Lawrence’s Pansies function similarly to a senatorial filibuster, where to expect rhetorical flourishes or convincing arguments would miss the point.
This is not to say that the “Pansies” contain only filler content, but their oftentimes “slightly bullying…assertiveness” is exactly what Lawrence was complaining about in his Foreword. If these seemingly straightforward “thoughts” cannot be taken at face value, what other everyday messages we receive must be interrogated? Once again, Lawrence paradoxically forces the reader away from surface-level engagement with these poems by their apparent superficiality. Readers who get hung up on “buds” that “are a bit shrivelled-looking” both miss the point and prove his point, especially about censors. The censors of his time illustrated the point perfectly, threatening banning his work for a few out-of-context profanities. Likewise, critics displayed their own puritanism by censuring Lawrence’s “profanity” against poetic expectations. Both “missed the field for the flowers” if you will, which, if you can excuse the idiom’s cliched roots, is an especially pertinent metaphor for Pansies.
Like with Pansies, much of Lawrence's poetry misses a certain tone of voice which we just assume is necessary for poetry (in lieu of formal constraints such as rhyming and artsy topics). In other of Lawrence's poetry he approaches topics such as tortoises orgasming (yes, you read that right), and dammit, I actually am intrigued. Once again, on first reading it's repulsive and seems to sully the entire endeavor of poetry, but as I re-read that tortoise poem sequence, I found a strange evolutionary mythology linking us and all of pulsating life into one big family, one long lineage. Another in the "Reptiles" section, "Snake," is probably one of his more-anthologized poems, and that one helpfully interrogated socialization and fear, and, though it has a straightforward enough narrative, highly rewards the reader upon re-reading.
I'm not sure if it's a flaw in Lawrence's poetry or in ourselves that these poems repulse so much on first glance, but I'm glad I was forced to look longer than I would have of my own free will. Especially because his Late Poems are really amazing. It seems his jokey, strange sense of humor sobered up, and he wrote some truly beautiful theological poems. Echoing his earlier bemoaning against gnosticism, his later poems tightened up his earlier thoughts and created their own strange concept of a radically embodied God. Lawrence rightfully points out how terrifying it would be to fall out of the hands of a loving God, and how it is "self-knowledge" which separates us from Him. Lawrence's anti-gnosticism goes so far that he rejects all striving after that which unnecessarily abstracts, because that breeds pride and distances us from physical reality. It's difficult to parse precisely how he conceptualizes God, because he uses the same terminology but means different things. Thankfully, Lawrence consistently orders his poems so that there is often considerable overlap between them, allowing you as the reader to both follow threads between them, and, if you're lazy, not have to read all of them. His last long poem, "The Ship of Death," is a beautiful work which echoes Neruda's "Nothing but Death" (albeit much more hopeful) and the Gilgamesh epic. Lawrence's movement in the poem from enclosing darkness to a light emerging on the horizon is poignant and I think justifies the book of poetry. Though his work requires a bit more labor and patience than it perhaps SHOULD need, I'm still thankful I read this collection, especially because it showed transitions from his early, orgiastic animal poetry, to his more ironic middle poetry (Pansies), to his sober, moving thanatopsis.