The Modern Element-Philip Larkin

It seems that Larkin is just as tortured as the individual he speaks of in How to Read a Poem, and in fact, maybe that person is Larkin himself. It is not surprising that Larkin is as twisted as he is made out to be. From the beginning of the reading in The Modern Element, I questioned how it was fair of critics to judge Larkin based on his personal activities, and I was pleasantly surprised to read on pages 196-197 that the author believes that reading "Larkin's poem is to know the worst...But also to know the best" of him. That strikes me with its truthfulness; Larkin's poetry is so good because he opens himself up, and allows people to see into the dark lives of those that he writes about or maybe even of his own life. The almost candid style of his writing is what draws people in and keeps them reading. "The true subject of his poetry was the immolation of his life" (196), and he gave up himself for the art of literature.

This is a much more romantic way of looking at poetry when compared to chapter one of How to Read a Poem. After reading Kirsch's section on Larkin, I do not find myself thinking about Larkin "suppressing linguistic possibilities" that How to Read a Poem suggests that some poets may do for sake of making sure that their works of art "flow" (Eagleton 20). I do however, see his work as "a supremely refined product of human consciousness" (Eagleton 22). It is clear that he devoted his life to his writings, but his talent for writing seems to be an innate one, not forced or contrived, just very well thought out.