Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.634023
Title: The guilty influence : Philip Larkin among the poets
Author: Roberts, Mark Patrick Davidson
ISNI:       0000 0004 5349 2758
Awarding Body: Goldsmiths College (University of London)
Current Institution: Goldsmiths College (University of London)
Date of Award: 2014
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Access from Institution:
Abstract:
Scholarship on Philip Larkin tends to limit him as a poet, through accusations of narrowness both of subject-matter, and of received influence. The paradox between Larkin’s undoubted place as an important, beloved poet, and the supposedly limited nature of his verse, has served to isolate him – unlike other poets (e.g Ted Hughes) – Larkin’s recognised influences are few. It is commonly accepted that he was influenced perhaps only by W. H. Auden, W. B. Yeats, and Thomas Hardy. He is seen as an opponent of modernism, specifically of the poetry of T. S. Eliot, and his accepted modernist heirs; Robert Lowell, Hughes, Sylvia Plath and others. My project sets out to prove that this view of Larkin is simplistically limited. Sufficient (indeed, much) evidence exists of Larkin as having been a keen reader and assimilator of a wide range of influences, from Eliot through Dylan Thomas, Lowell and Plath. Much of this evidence (e.g. 2010’s Letters to Monica) has come to light only recently, and is yet to be fully acknowledged for the effect that it has had on our reading of Larkin. Added to this is a body of older evidence (1992’s Selected Letters) arguing for Larkin’s ‘English’ influences to be rooted in the ‘studied impersonality’ of Edward Thomas and Wilfred Owen. When compared to Hughes and Thom Gunn, similar poetic and thematic concerns unite these three poets, so often thought to be at odds. These ‘guilty’ influences, show Larkin to be a far more culturally receptive poet than he is often thought of as being. Why such evidence has gone unused or under-appreciated is considered here, as is an assessment of both Larkin’s defenders and detractors. I argue for a more open, less limiting reading of Larkin, and note that, recently, this argument has been gaining ground in scholarship.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.634023  DOI: Not available
Share: