 |
| Philip Larkin, photo from the Socialist Worker |
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
♞♜♝
But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another’s throats.
♞♜♝
Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don’t have any kids yourself.
It’s easy to find debate about Larkin, and I don’t wish to repeat verbatim here the ins and outs of what others have written about him. But it’s worth quoting the Socialist Worker, who say he had political faith in Enoch Powell and Margaret Thatcher. In 1970:
Prison for strikers
Bring back the cat.
Kick out the n*ggers,
How about that?”
I was shocked when I read it. It flows brilliantly, with content that is vile. How about that? How about f*ck you, Philip Larkin. But then I read a complete version of the poem:
“Prison for strikers,
Bring back the cat,
Kick out the n*ggers,
How about that?
♞♜♝
Trade with the Empire,
Ban the Obscene,
Lock up the Commies,
God Save the Queen.”
And the poem is called “How to Win the General Election.”
Is this parody? Who is this guy? The second verse is surely satirizing Little Englanders? Surely? Is the joke on liberals unable to contextualise? I don’t know.
Back to the Socialist Worker:
“And in 1976 there was:
I want to see them starving,
The so-called working class.
Their wages weekly halving,
Their women stewing grass.
When I drive out each morning
In one of my new suits
I want to find them fawning
To clean my car and boots.”
This strikes me as bitter, angry, maybe humour barely hiding these emotions. Numerous reviews of his life and work confirm his extreme right-wing nature. But his writing is so impactful it merits serious consideration, in my opinion.
Would I have read Larkin’s poem at my daughter’s naming if I’d known more about him? Probably. I wouldn’t have read a Morrissey lyric. Maybe artists need to be dead before their alleged prejudices are treated more leniently, and even then, many aren’t.
I wonder if Larkin ever had remorse for his intemperate speech.
Anyway, some rambling thoughts for me. I’m interested in what Quillers may think.
⏩ Brandon Sullivan is a middle aged, middle management, centre-left Belfast man. Would prefer people focused on the actual bad guys.
Because of celebrity culture and academia, people expect artists to be nice people in line with the reader's own ideological beliefs before they can appreciate their work, instead of ether taking the work on its own merit. This is, at best, naive and, at worst, deeply ignorant.
ReplyDeleteArtists have differing views and life experiences that shape their work: Bukowski was an alcoholic bum, hence he was able to write about how being at the bottom of life's totem pole was actually liberating. Hanif Kureshi writes about the struggles and contradictions of multicultural Britain. Personality wise, the two men seem to be incredibly different and yet we (as readers) can understand differing facets of humanity because of their writing. If they had been identikit writers, they wouldn't have had the impact that they did.
Differing views and personalities equal interesting art. Nice, polite writers with similar politics create mediocrity.
Did Larkin have an "extreme right wing nature?" No. He was a middle class man of a certain age who lived through a time of great social change in England and, like a lot of people, expressed mixed views to different people. We can look at these today and dismiss him as a racist, but the above provides context that is important to consider.
Ezra Pound? Now there was a poet who fits the bill.
If free speech is indeed fundamental, then people must be left free to take offense. Over-protecting people's sensibilities only impedes and corrupts.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Owens (il miglior fabbro) makes some very good points; I'm not sure you need to be a literal fascist to be a great poet, though...
ReplyDeleteThe comparison between Philip Larkin and Morrissey is an interesting one. For the most part, we didn't have easy and immediate access to a real-time record of Larkin's errant thoughts and political biases while he lived. That he was discovered to be somewhat "yikes" posthumously therefore seems to be of little importance. Today, living artists and celebrities not only share their work with us (which may or may not be valuable), but many of them also share a social media presence that is much less considered than their work. Thus, we all experience the chagrin of "never meet your heroes" on a grand scale, and that chagrin coexists with our experience of their creative output in a way that it probably never has before. Nowadays, maybe it's less "never meet your heroes" and more "never look at your heroes' social media accounts"?
The "bring back the cat" lines seem to me to be a classically Larkinesque blend of satire and self excoriation. It encapsulates a very human experience: to sort of believe something, to sort of not believe it, to hate the people who believe the same thing, to hate oneself, to be dimly aware of the selfishness that informs your own beliefs...it's all there. He existed during a time when it was easier for his work to stand alone, and that is a blessing. In the end it matters less what he really thought; the question is how his work speaks to us as readers.
That said, I don't mind admitting that I'd find it hard to feel that way if Philip Larkin were alive today, had a monetised TikTok account, and was using it to share Breitbart articles and generally be vituperative. I'd feel that he was doing harm in a way that would inevitably affect my experience of his work.