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.
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".
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.
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".
"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/ )
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.