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
author
Apr 16·edited Apr 16Author

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
Apr 14Liked by Jeremy Wikeley

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
author

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

Expand full comment
Apr 14Liked by Jeremy Wikeley

"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
author

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

Expand full comment

aw, thanks

Expand full comment
Apr 14Liked by Jeremy Wikeley

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
author

Thank you Helen!

Expand full comment