No One Else Is Lawrence!: A Dozen of DH Lawrence's Best Poems

W.J. Keith is a retired professor of English at the University of Toronto and author A Sense of Style: Studies in the Art of Fiction in English-Speaking Canada.

Doug Beardsley and Al Purdy, both Canadian poets, started with an
excellent idea. Bored (as any poet would be) with the aridity of most
contemporary literary criticism, and impressed with the extraordinary
quality of a number of D.H. Lawrence’s poems, they decided to choose
12 that they considered to rank among his best, reprint them, and append
a commentary taking the form of a dialogue in which they explore the
poems and try to explain their greatness.

The poems, many of them from Birds, Beasts and Flowers, certainly
belong among Lawrence’s finest achievements. Lawrence was a
hit-or-miss poet, and his best poems, like Thomas Hardy’s, tend to get
swamped in collected editions by a mass of indifferent verse. So
Beardsley and Purdy have performed a useful act of evaluation (that
necessary and responsible act so absurdly downplayed by current
academics). This is admirable, and I am grateful for having been
encouraged to read these poems again and to experience their
ever-changing freshness.

So far, so good. Unfortunately, the project collapses as soon as the
two poets begin their commentary. They insist that they offer
“appreciation” rather than “criticism,” but this consists almost
entirely of a “gee-whiz-isn’t-that-great” kind of exclamation.
They focus for the most part on content, and have surprisingly little to
say about Lawrence’s poetic effects—his manipulation of words,
rhythms, and cadences. Worst of all, they reveal themselves as lacking
the elementary knowledge that Lawrence assumes. Thus they don’t
understand his line “Jesus was called The Fish” because they are
unaware of the early Christian use of the Greek Ichthus as an acronym
(Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior)—and even wonder if it’s a
quotation. Later, Purdy admits: “I’m not sure Christ is the only god
who is resurrected”! Lawrence would have been appalled at such
ignorance.

A pity because, well executed, this could have resulted in a
challenging critical breakthrough.