Tag Archives: philip larkin

Larkin Revisited

I am currently listening to Larkin Revisited on BBC Radio 4. The BBC’s website describes the 10 part series as follows:
“Across ten programmes and ten Philip Larkin poems, Simon Armitage, the poet laureate, finds out what happens when he revisits and unpicks Larkin’s work”.

I am a fan of Larkin’s poetry and I’m enjoying listening to Armitage discuss the poet’s work.

In the latest episode, which was broadcast on Wednesday 10 August, the Poet Laureate Simon Armitage discusses Larkin’s poem Talking in Bed. As with much of Larkin’s poetry Talking in Bed offers a world weary view of love. Anyone looking for a poem about ever lasting romance, flowers and chocolates will be sadly disappointed!

In the latest programme Armitage discusses Talking in Bed with a famous group of performing poets, one of whom expresses admiration for Larkin’s work but states that the group would probably not give a platform to the poet (where he still living) due to his views on race and the working class. (Larkin in his private letters wrote disparagingly of both).

I have always been of the view that one should (so far as is possible) separate the poet from his or her work. I am, therefore not a supporter of no platforming poets or other writers. No platforming leads to an illiberal and intolerant situation in which only those who hold “acceptable” or “correct” views are allowed to perform. Furthermore it has the potential to stifle creativity.

Interestingly the advocate of no platforming admitted that where Talking in Bed to have been written by a poet other than Philip Larkin she would have no problem in allowing the poet to perform. This smacks of Alice in Wonderland logic to me.

You can listen to Larkin Revisited on the BBC’s website here https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0019yy2, or on BBC Radio 4. In order to listen to previous episodes you will need to have an account with the BBC’s Iplayer.

Cultural Vandalism

The Irish Times reports that the Oxford, Cambridge and the Royal Society of Arts (RSA) exam board has removed the Irish poet Seamus Heaney from it’s exam syllabus along with other writers from Ireland. In addition, the English poet Wilfred Owen’s Anthem for Doomed Youth and Philip Larkin’s An Arundel Tomb have been removed, as have works by other English poets including William Blake.

The OCR’s Chief Executive Jill Duffy states the reason for the changes is to “reflect diversity and inclusivity not just in our qualifications, but in the material we produce to support their delivery, as well as in the assessment of our qualifications”.

I have for years laboured under the misapprehension that the purpose of the subject of English literature is to teach students about the best of our literary cannon. It never crossed my mind that it’s purpose is to enhance “diversity and inclusivity”. Henceforth I shall read books with these aims in mind, rather than with the aim of furthering my appreciation of the richness of English literature.

Of course, works of literature do engage with social issues. For example Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mocking Bird addresses the iniquity of racism in the southern United States. However, Lee’s work has been studied because it is a great work of literature that deals with racism, not because it promotes “inclusivity and diversity”, although, of course a side effect of reading To Kill a Mocking Bird may well be to kindle in it’s readers a feeling for the deep injustice of the racial prejudice in the American south.

Larkin’s An Arundel Tomb and Owen’s Anthem for Doomed Youth are both fine poems. I remember studying the latter whilst at school and coming across the former some years later. To drop Larkin, Heaney and Owen seems perverse and retrograde. Larkin and Owen are, in particular integral to the cultural fabric of the British aisles and I have sympathy for the Education Secretary’s description of the dropping of these poets as “cultural vandalism”.

You can read the article in the Irish Times Here https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/2022/07/02/irish-writers-dropped-from-uk-school-curriculum-in-move-to-increase-diversity/. Larkin’s An Arundel Tomb is available on the Poetry Foundation’s website here https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47594/an-arundel-tomb. Wilfred Owen’s Anthem for Doomed Youth is also available on the Poetry Foundation’s website and can be found here https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47393/anthem-for-doomed-youth. For information on Seamus Heaney please see the Poetry Foundation’s website here https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/seamus-heaney.

As always I would be interested in the views of my readers.

On Hearing Sirens Pass By

On hearing sirens pass by
I think on Philip Larkin
And Rhyme
While I
Have time.

Philip Larkin’s poem Ambulances frequently comes to mind when ambulances pass me by. You can find an analysis of Larkin’s fine poem here, https://interestingliterature.com/2017/05/a-short-analysis-of-philip-larkins-ambulances/.

10 of the Most Accessible Poets in English Literature

On 30 May, the blog Interesting Literature published a post entitled “10 of the most accessible poets in English Literature”, https://wp.me/p2WHCx-5Bm.

Amongst the poets mentioned are some of my own favourites, including Philip Larkin, the American poet Emily Dickinson, and Thomas Hardy.

Below are links to a selection of my favourite poems by Larkin, Dickinson and Hardy.

“Aubade” by Philip Larkin. Read by the poet himself, Aubade is a powerful examination of the poet’s fear of death, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDr_SRhJs80

“Because I Could Not Stop for Death” by Emily Dickinson. Unlike Larkin in “Aubade” Dickinson does not see death as a threat which does, I think stem from her deep religious faith, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am5O8_iCpmg

“The Darkling Thrush” by Thomas Hardy. Hardy’s bleak mood is contrasted with that of the joyful singing of an “aged thrush”, which causes the poet to ponder on how the bird can see “some blessed hope whereof he knew and I was unaware”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGY3DZH85O8

Should poetry be accessible? Certainly any poet who deliberately writes to be inaccessible would be a very strange creature indeed. However what is accessible to one is not accessible to another as, to some extent accessibility is in the eye of the beholder.

Poets also need to be cognisant of the danger of patronising (talking down to) their readers. Whilst working on my forthcoming poetry collection, I considered the need for footnotes. This question arose as in 4 instances I reference the work of long dead poets. My initial view was that anyone with access to Google (please note that other search engines are available)! could easily ascertain details of the poem/poet mentioned, meaning that footnotes where unnecessary. However, I came to the conclusion that adding a few footnotes was preferable to having my readers cursing me for assuming that they had knowledge not possessed by them. Consequently several footnotes appear at the end of my poems.

As to whether my work is accessible? only my readers can answer that question. And different readers will, I believe answer it differently.

(You can find my “Selected Poems” here, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07WW8WXPP/. My forthcoming collection will, I hope be available in late June/early July).

Politics and Poetry

I met a young lady named Ling
Who said, “you poets are all left-wing!”.
I said, “between you and I,
Eliot was a Conservative kind of guy,
Whilst Philip Larkin was really right-wing!”.

Larkin Said We Think On Death

Larkin said we think
On death when drink
And friends are not around,
As there is nothing To distract
Us from the profound
Truth that you and I
Will die.

As I sit in this pub, alone
Drinking coffee
I reach for my phone
But Larkin stops me
Dead, and, with a clear head
I see
The truth the poet did see.

Don’t Say The “D” Word

We say
“He passed away”.
The “d” word
Is often
Not heard.

He is in his coffin
So why this absurd
Fear
Of the “d” word?

Does the Reaper, standing, unnoticed, near
Smile at our denial
That you and I
Shall die?

Larkin took refuge in drink
But, at dawn did think
On death
And felt bereft.

I have now said
The word we dread
To voice.

We have a choice
Over what words are said
But we are nonetheless, dead
In the end
My friend.

Should Poets Use Swear Words In Their Poetry?

In June 2017, I wrote a post entitled “Its My Blog and I’ll Swear If I Like”, https://newauthoronline.com/2017/06/27/its-my-blog-and-ill-swear-if-i-like/. In that article I argued that everyone has a right to run their blogs as they wish, including utilising swear words in posts. I also stated that swearing has a place in literature, for instance a gangster novel in which none of the characters swear would be wholly unbelievable.

I am, as pointed out in the above piece, no plaster saint myself and will on occasions swear in my personal life. However this is a rarity and when I swear it is, almost always under my breath and its not something of which I am proud.

I was reminded of my 2017 post by this article on the blog of the poet Giles L. Turnbull, http://gilesturnbullpoet.com/2018/04/01/i-swear-that-be-poetry/, in which he discusses the use of swearing in poetry. The article makes for interesting reading but utilises several four letter words, consequently anyone who would find this offensive may wish to avoid clicking on the above link.

As Giles points out, Shakespeare and Larkin (amongst others) employ swear words, for example Larkin’s “This Be The Verse” is famous (infamous)? For beginning with “They f . . k you up your mum and dad, they may not mean to, but they do”, and (in the case of Philip Larkin) the use of the “f” word is wholly justified (there would not be a meaningful poem where he to have written “they mess you up your mum and dad”. However I remain of the view that the sprinkling of poetry (or any other writing) with expletives for no reason other than shock value serves no useful purpose and I personally find such utilisation offensive.

Kevin

Is Poetry Socialist?

A little while back, a friend and I sat enjoying a curry and a bottle of wine. At some point during our conversation my friend remarked on how poetry is, in some sense “socialist” or “left-wing”. At the time I said that I didn’t agree with his perspective, and our conversation moved on to other topics.

Rather than entering into an exposition of my own views on the above question, I would be interested in hearing those of my readers. Is poetry in some sense “Socialist” or “left-wing”? If so why?

Obviously there have been (and remain) Conservative poets (for example Philip Larkin). Likewise men such as W. H. Auden where of the left. However, leaving aside the fact that poets hold different political perspectives, is there some sense in which poetry appeals more to those on the left of politics? Or is the art form, in some sense profoundly Conservative with a big or a small c?

Why Are People Disinclined To Engage With Poetry

I am part of an informal network where people meet over coffee to discuss their jobs. The idea behind the network is to enable individuals from diverse professions/disciplines to learn from one another in an unpressured environment. These informal chats also furnish people with the chance to discuss non work related matters, for example hobbies. During a recent meeting (having exhausted work related issues), the conversation turned to outside interests. I mentioned that I write poetry. At this juncture there emanated from my companion what I can only describe as a distinct titter. “So you don’t like poetry?” I said. “I don’t have much time for reading”, replied my newly made acquaintance.

Shortly after the above exchange, we shook hands and went our separate ways.

Looking back on the incident, I am torn between amusement at the fact that the writing of poetry elicited mirth from a grown person, and sadness at the seeming inability of my acquaintance to engage (or at least attempt to engage) with something other than their own narrow profession (that of finance).

There are, of course things with which I find it difficult to engage. For instance I am not a lover of opera. I would not, however dream of dismissing (or laughing at) this art form as to do so would indicate boorishness on my part. If a friend where to invite me to the opera I would go along as I am open minded and prepared to develop my tastes. Where I to attend an operatic performance and not find it to my liking I certainly would not titter but, as is so often said it takes all sorts to make a world.

My encounter with this individual reignited within me a curiosity regarding why some people dismiss poetry out of hand. One possible reason explaining the disinclination of people to engage with poetry is that the art form is often associated in the public’s mind with complex imagery and metaphor. For instance to fully grasp Eliot’s “The Wasteland” demands copious reading of notes with their references to mythology, history etc. I, personally find the effort entailed in following up on often obscure references enhances my understanding of Eliot’s work. I do, however understand that others feel differently.

While much poetry is complex, a good deal is not. For instance Alfred Noyes’s “The Highwayman” is a wonderful balad describing the doomed love affair between a highwayman and an inkeeper’s daughter. No arcane knowledge is required to enjoy the poem. None the less the idea that poetry “is not for me” persists in the minds of many.

Does the reluctance of some to engage with poetry stem from a fear of deep emotion. The best poetry frequently tackles issues with which many are disinclined to engage. To take a concrete example, in “Aubade” Larkin ponders on death and, in particular our fear of dying. It is often said that in Victorian England sex was the taboo subject. Perhaps in today’s consumerist society the great taboo is death, hence the reluctance of many to engage with poems (and other art forms) which tackle this topic. It is easier to flick between TV soap operas than it is to immerse oneself in the profundities of poetry.

However not all poetry is of a serious nature. “The Owl and the Pussycat” by Edward Lear and the many limericks, written by countless individuals prove that verse need not be serious.

In conclusion, poetry is for everyone so why are significant numbers of people not attracted to this art form? As stated above, I believe that part of the answer to this question lies in the mistaken belief that poetry is by its nature intrinsically difficult. While some poetry is difficult to interpret, by no means all poetry falls into this category. Consequently any attempt to tackle the misconception that the art form is difficult needs to ensure that young people (and others) are introduced to as broader range of poetry as is possible (both “difficult” and not “difficult”).

As regards the saturated consumerist society in which we live, one in which beautiful women are used to sell all manner of products, this is a more difficult issue. As a liberal (with a small l), I have no desire to tell others how they should spend their leisure time. One man’s meat is another man’s poison and it is not for me to force a dish of my choosing on others. I can only hope that through a rounded education people will come to appreciate poetry at a young age and that this love will remain with them throughout their lives.