9 Comments

Do it! Your insight that many Larkin poems are *untypical* would be a great one to develop into a book. Too much Larkin criticism — like much Eliot criticism — has been concerned with making a small body of high quality poems cohere. But Larkin’s inability to repeat himself easily is one of the things that distinguishes him.

Expand full comment
Apr 16Edited

Thanks Jeremy - that's v encouraging. My initial idea (which fits with this) was to take a series of not-always-obvious poems and write an essay on each, straying into history/biography/controversy now and then but always coming back to the text... I'm not snooty about straight biographies, but they rarely work for poets and **really** don't work for him.

Expand full comment

Well, hello! I loved the thought of days as object and the image of Larkin "...alone in a bare, sunlit room with one of them, turning it over with a pencil." And I would like to see where all this will lead you.

I haven't read many of his poems, but "Days" is a favourite one and also "Dublinesque".

Expand full comment

Thanks Fotini! "Dublinesque" is a very underrated poem, I think, great choice - not many people would mention it.

Expand full comment

"Is it profound, or are the lines just short?" :D (And here I'd just posted this, which made me wonder that very thing: https://www.vianegativa.us/2024/04/mare-imbrium/ )

Expand full comment

It can be both :) I always enjoy your Pepys poems, but that one's especially lovely.

Expand full comment

aw, thanks

Expand full comment

If you wrote a book that discussed Larkin's work as beautifully as you have here, I would certainly want to read it. What are days for? Reading.

Expand full comment

Thank you Helen!

Expand full comment