Jim Murdoch has done a great post about Philip Larkin (and his poem 'Mr Bleaney' in particular) this week. As I mentioned a few posts ago Larkin is one of my very favourite poets. I don't even have favourite poems as such (more like favourite lines, favourite moments) and it's weird but he feels like a family member almost - in the sense that I don't like everything about him but I feel a loyalty, a connection, a love I can't quite explain. I'm glad he's not still around though...I'm sure meeting him would have finished off any love forever. Like some of the best relatives - absence can keep the heart much fonder.
I mentioned to Jim that I had been just about to blog about Larkin - largely because I got the new Chumbawamba cd this week and it has a song about him called 'Hull or Hell'. (The cd, by the way, is called 'The boy bands have won' and is fantastic. It contains many songs of interest to people working in the word business - 'Words can save us' is brilliant and inspirational, 'Sing about love' explains so well how some of us can't avoid writing about what's going on in the world around us, no matter how hard we try. If you only think of Chumbas as that band that did the 'knock me down and I get up again' song then you should seek this out at once.) But to get back to where I was...Jim said something like 'do the blog about Larkin - I've only scratched the surface...' (nonsense - he had made some of the vital points about Larkin and linked to lots of interesting articles too - I enjoyed the one about Motion's biography and its motivations especially).
So here I sit. I'm not sure I have a blog about Larkin that can move on any discussions or anything. I am not good at writing about writers in any kind of even-vaguely-approaching-academic way - I discovered that at university...a little too late perhaps as I was already on a literature-heavy course (you should see some of the essays I wrote then...well, no, you really shouldn't...). I've always loved to read but have never quite understood how the study of literature (once you're over 18) has turned into something so dry and cold and dull. Call me an over-sentimental old fool, do I care? If I wanted to turn everything into a science I would study science for heavens sake! In fact one of my favourite bits of Zadie Smith's 'On Beauty' (to hark back to my last post) is the easily-missed little interlude where we meet one of the novel's least overtly academic characters - student Katie Armstrong. Katie tries to take part in her very theoretical history of art class but can't quite make it. From Indiana and now at an east coast university Katie was 'by far the brightest student in her high school' and 'loves the arts' but finds the intellectual life at the university, Wellington, simply incomprehensible. She doesn't know the language ('she wished her high school had given her different kinds of books to read than the ones she has evidently wasted her time on') and much as she tries (she is a hard-working, clever girl) she just doesn't think or talk or feel the way her teacher and some of her fellow students do and she can't quite see why. To use a reference that comes in later in the novel, she just loves tomatoes. You have to read it...it's well worth it believe me.
When I first read that scene I was amazed. Was Zadie Smith sat next to me in a Lisa Jardine lecture on Barthes back in 1988 (LJ talked about signs and all I could think about was Monty Python 'Brian, Brian, give us a sign...')? Had she read my mind? I still don't know how much the author sympathises with the Katie character or how much she looks down on her as not-quite-up-to-the-intellectual mark but as I feel that character is me (in a little way) I always choose understanding and an appreciation of Katie's finer, less sculpted sensibilities (as opposed to some of her very convoluted contemporaries)...but then I would say that, wouldn't I?
So it's also no wonder I feel so happy with Larkin, the man who, as Jim says 'used plain English and somehow managed to infuse it with poetry'. I'm not saying everyone should use plain English (please let us not all try to be the same!) but it is generally what I do, just because it feels right to me. I don't have an academic theory to explain it. That would be most out of character. I like the way he wrote some short, snappy, straight-to-the-point poems as well as some of the more...obviously poetic ones. I like poetry when it sneaks up on me - not when it comes out waving a flag saying 'hello, aren't I the bee's knees?' (is that a very English way of thinking? Or a British one?). I like the way he showed life, the way he told his tales in little lines and sad details. The way he got on with his job at the University Library in Hull, knowing, I am quite sure, that he didn't need a glittering career in academia or elsewhere when his poems were so important, so much better on humanity and its confusions than so much else being written at the time. That's what will survive...and that's enough.