|

FEATURES 
Onan the librarian
With the BBC about to show a film
about Philip Larkin, Robert Gore-Langton praises the poet
who knew how to offend everyone
Philip Larkin, the miserable old git, has
never had it so good. Sir Tom Courtenay is about to play him on
stage. Faber is reissuing his Collected Poems this month. And on
television there’s a new and (by all accounts) sympathetic film
about him, Love Again, coming up on BBC 2. (Love Again sounds as
though it should star Hugh Grant, but in fact Larkin is played by
the brilliant baddie from Daniel Deronda, Hugh Bonneville.) The
bald, Hull-based poet who once claimed that ‘depression is to me
as daffodils were to Wordsworth’ is having his day, albeit posthumously.
 |
 |
|
Just think, Lord
Irvine. You will be able to wallpaper your house with your
pension
|
The general view hitherto has been that Larkin
(1922–85) was a fine poet but a creep of the first order. Of course,
being character-assassinated is par for the course if you’re a top
poet. Ted Hughes had terrible trouble with a gruesome clique of grave-desecrating
feminist harridans, who more or less accused him of personally shoving
his wife’s (the poet, Sylvia Plath) head into the gas oven when she
killed herself. A would-be Plath biographer once told me in all earnestness
that she could not complete her book because Mystic Ted had put a
spell on her. (Ted and Sylvia: The Movie, starring Gwyneth Paltrow,
is on the way.)
Until recently, you were unlikely to hear a good word about Philip
Larkin — misogynist, racist, rightist Eeyore, and the most magnificently
un-PC poet of modern times. The morose university librarian who wrote
some of the best lyric poetry of the last 60 years was surely the
Alf Garnett of the poetry world. His letters (many written in the
jazzy slang he dug) to mates like Kingsley Amis are stuffed with jokes
about blacks, women, liberals and Irishmen. There is something to
offend just about everyone. The BBC press release that accompanies
the forthcoming film mentions the reactionary ‘saloon-bar’ nature
of his views, and, although the word ‘regrettable’ isn’t used, you
know that’s what they mean.
Larkin was happy to spell out exactly where he stood. ‘I’ve always
been right-wing.... I suppose I identify the Right with certain virtues
and the Left with certain vices. All very unfair, no doubt. Thrift,
hard work, reverence, desire to preserve — those are the virtues,
in case you’re wondering; and on the other hand idleness, greed and
treason.’ Instead of displaying solidarity with the oppressions of
the working man, as modern poets are supposed to, Larkin regarded
the unions as a work-shy rabble led by droning, chippy Glaswegians.
Indeed, Larkin’s outrageous wind-up persona makes this outwardly drab,
tall, reclusive figure endlessly entertaining if you’re in the mood.
He was true blue in almost every respect. His enthusiasm for mucky
books was an appalling own goal for his reputation as a distinguished
man of letters. He loved the top-tier titles in newsagents and complained
that he couldn’t get sufficient filth in Hull where he worked at the
university library for much of his life. When he bought himself a
television, he was bitterly disappointed. ‘Where’s all this porn they
talk about? I’ve seen three bummes and two payres of tittes [sic]
since slapping my money down. Why can’t they show naked women or pros
and cons of corporal punishment in girls’ schools?’
It’s worrying to think that today Larkin would find his house full
of paedo-cops rummaging through his hard disk for spanking websites
featuring teenagers in St Trinian’s uniform. But Larkin wasn’t short
of girlfriends, though that’s the impression he gave. The forthcoming
BBC film will feature the long-suffering women in his life (his secretary,
a fellow-librarian and a lecturer), all of whom he two-timed and refused
to marry in a plot worthy of an Alan Ayckbourn comedy. Indeed, how
this Casanova of Humberside managed to get away with this convenient
(for him) arrangement without being beaten up in his own library beggars
belief. Yet he regarded himself as a total failure in the romance
department (‘useful to get that learnt’), his loser persona the pervading
voice of the poems.
In his literary tastes he was refreshingly straightforward — his journalism
is fabulously lucid. He regarded A.E. Housman’s observation that he
could recognise poetry ‘because it made his throat tighten and his
eyes water’ as being perfectly sound. For all his deep knowledge of
English verse, Larkin liked poems that pretty much anyone could read
and enjoy. He hated ‘the boring too-clever stuff. Poetry that can’t
be understood without footnotes: “See the picture ‘A dog buried in
the sand’ among the Black Paintings of Goya in the Prado.” Why the
fucking hell should I?’ he railed.
His jokiness — he’s a gift to a good actor — shouldn’t hide the fact
that he was genuinely gloomy. Death follows life, and the thought
depressed him deeply. But for a depressive he knew how to enjoy himself.
He hated hunting but he wasn’t short of trad English enthusiasms:
he was mad about books, porn, whisky, jazz and cricket, all of which
enlivened the daily grind of ‘the toad, work’. Of these loves, the
greatest was jazz. Come to think of it, his total worship of those
‘antique negroes’ who could really blow a horn (‘oh, play that thing!’)
is the healthy flipside of his racism.
Perhaps his most famous line, ‘They fuck you up, your mum and dad’,
should have been an album track, not a poem. On the parental front
he isn’t seen at his best, it’s true. He famously described his Coventry
childhood as ‘a forgotten boredom’, even though he remembers it in
precise detail. His dad was a jam-making Nazi (and the city treasurer
of Coventry) who kept a statuette of Adolf Hitler on the mantelpiece.
Philip hated his mum and was publicly nasty about her — though not
as nasty as John Osborne was about his. In her later years Larkin
wrote, ‘My mother, not content with being motionless, deaf and speechless,
is now going blind. That’s what you get for not dying, you see.’ Nasty.
But then again Philip was a very dutiful, attentive son. There’s a
paradox almost everywhere you turn with him.
Larkin is read today not because he was a Meldrewish curmudgeon, but
because he was a genius at writing poetry that illuminates the corners
of ordinary life in all its sadness. He was the English verse Sinatra.
If you don’t like Larkin the man, there are still those wonderful
poems. Would the reclusive old grump have enjoyed the current celebration
of his life and work on stage and telly? Of course he wouldn’t. To
him it would have been a glitzy hell. As the jazzer poet said himself,
‘It’s all showbiz now. Not my scene, Dad.’
©
2003 The Spectator.co.uk
|