I never saw a wild thing
sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
without ever having felt sorry for itself.
I agree wholeheartedly with the general opinion of this forum concerning the beauty of this poem. It voices a simple idea that is articulated with simple words, and yet it generates the capacity for complex discussion and diverse opinion. Although I may not agree entirely with the mode of argument the poem presents, I will never discredit the magnificence of this composition.
To begin my analysis, and assuming the above is how the poem was published, when I take the scansion of it under consideration, I find a few instances that are remarkable. In combination, concerning Lawrence's use of enjambment; the opening line finishes with 'wild thing', but completes the sentence on the next line. I believe this was done for a few reasons:
(1) The last words are 'wild thing' before the reader must pause momentarily to scan to the next line in the poem. I believe Lawrence intended this pause to allow for the manifestation of an image to come to the fore in the mind of the reader, whatever 'wild thing' their imagination would entertain in that moment. As a poet, he could have used any words to describe his idea, but the connotation of the words 'wild thing', (using the adjective: "wild", and the ambiguous object: "thing"), in all probability manifest an image that is fear-inspiring, or in other words has a tendency toward being a frightful creature of the unknown. However, even if this "frightful" image does not come to the mind of a first-time reader, I am quite sure the 'wild-thing' coming to mind still is a serious creature that contrasts the sentiment of the following line.
(2) The next line could be read as entirely spondaic, and helps to emphasize the meaning of the poem. The words’ syllables do not have to be read as spondees – I personally believe that the line, in context with reading the rest of the poem, should be read as: SOR-RY / FOR it / SELF. But for the most part, they are ictus. As I mentioned above, the setup of the image of the "wild-thing" in the audience's mind is reduced somewhat after imagining it feeling sorry for itself. I personally picture a great, frightful bear moping around feeling sorry for itself, and it is an absolutely ridiculous image. This mental comparison aids greatly to emphasize D.H. Lawrence's theme of the poem – to ridicule the human state of self-pity, by depicting self-pity in such a way so that the reader realizes, or gets an impression of, its futility.
Furthermore, the matter-of-factness of the poem lends far more to the meaning than what elaboration could have achieved. In argument, stating a conclusion matter-of-factly bolsters its authority. This is especially obvious if you compare stating an argument confidently to stating something you seem unsure of – if both arguments are plausible enough, an audience will, in the moment, tend to believe the more confident statement, as if confidence made a difference in rationality. As if a human being feeling sorry for themselves is as ridiculous as the aforementioned image of a wild thing feeling sorry for itself.
I believe the poem’s simplicity makes it far more complete. It is a simple statement about an aspect of our humanity that Lawrence apparently perceived as somewhat flawed. At the very least, he is obviously comparing the human phenomenon of self-pity to the lack thereof in creatures of the wild. It is the comparison of the human being to things of the wild that I have somewhat of a problem with, for we could also write poems, for example, about how we humans never saw another human being kill and eat its young – or at least, a sane human being – and various criticisms of a similar nature, comparing the wild to a human being. The point I am making, is that although we might perceive that a wild thing lacks self-pity, using this as a measure to criticize the element of self-pity in the human spirit is relatively ineffective, because you cannot use a single aspect of another flawed (and I use “flawed” as defined from the perspective of the human cognition) means of survival as a mode of criticism. I mean, of course you can use it as a mode of criticism, but in this case, considering that (I dare proclaim) nothing else of the wild can compare to the evolutions humanity has undergone since the dawn of our creation, and therefore our respective environments are entirely different on a variety of levels, I become skeptical of the argument’s usefulness. So yes, although a wild thing may never feel sorry for itself, it also is not the optimal tool to use in deconstructing human self-pity.
In contrast however, I believe self-pity has its use and I also believe D.H. Lawrence knew this. An individual might encounter self-pity in their lifetime, and the act of that individual becoming cognizant of the pathetic nature of this state of being lends to their capacity to not only transcend it, but to better themselves in the process. Therefore, a poem like “Self-Pity”, read in its matter-of-fact, to the point style, would be a perfect tool to help an individual with realizing the pathetic nature of their self-pity. He ends two lines in a four line poem with the words “sorry for itself”, which helps to illustrate that the focus of the poem is on feeling sorry for oneself, or getting past feeling sorry for oneself, and therefore the means of overcoming self-pity becomes far less significant than the fact that it must be overcome. That is, the point of the poem focuses on overcoming self-pity, and less on how we should do so.
I have commented all along on the beauty of the poem’s simplicity, and I believe it should be interpreted as simply: a mere statement to help the self-piteous transcend their pitiful state. I know this poem has helped me in the past, and I appreciate it, Mr. D.H. Lawrence! The craftsmanship of this poetry is spectacular and beautifully executed. It is one of my favorite poems to date, despite the small criticism I have written of its logic. Someone else, open my argument up for me! What I have written here I would never submit as a formal essay. My opinions are quick and personal, which I have admittedly spent negligible time in researching. But what do you think?
Reply With Quote
Self Pity
Originally Posted by ebbo69
