but I still wondered whether the image was improved by being made a puzzle. (Tightened, or screwed? is always a good question to ask about a poetâs emendation.) At the time, the main issue raised by Lowellâs final barrage of poetry collections was a journalistic one: the legitimacy, or lack of it, of his quoting Elizabeth Hardwickâs letters without permission. Only slowly did the discussion shift towards the lasting critical point, which was whether or not Lowell was engaged in the distortion of his own achievement by crushing it under a heap of busywork that it took a tenured scholar to care about. From the point of view of his British publishers (who were in the front line, because Lowell had shifted his base from New York to London), their accommodation to Lowellâs latter-day prolificity was a disaster. Sales of the new books were negligible, and the blight eventually affected his back catalogue. The criticâs duty was clear: to remind the educated reading public that this absurd attempt to build a pyramid single-handed from within, though it looked like the work of a mad pharaoh, was the aberration of a very talented man. The critic also had the duty to remind his more gullible colleagues that the talent was not attaining an apotheosis, but consuming itself before their eyes. What happened to Lowell in London was not the final development of his confessional poetry. It was the final development of his clinical dementia, a condition for which there had never been any legislating, although there had always been a romantic critical tendency to believe that the poetry would not have been possible without the madness. In that respect, distance lent enchantment to the view. Anyone who caught the merest glimpse of Lowellâs solipsistic mania knew that it was more likely to produce boredom than creative freedom. Even at his craziest, Lowell seemed to realize that himself. At the peaks of his delusion, he thought that he was Hitler, not Shakespeare. The saddest thing about the History book was its encouragement of the notion that his early volumes might have been precursors to its development, and can thus be safely forgotten along with it. But theyâll be back. Poetry of that order always comes back.
2003
4
FOUR ESSAYS ON
PHILIP LARKIN
1. Somewhere becoming rain
Collected Poems by Philip Larkin,
edited by Anthony Thwaite
At first glance, the publication in the United States of Philip Larkinâs Collected Poems looks like a long shot. While he lived, Larkin never crossed the Atlantic. Unlike some other British poets, he was genuinely indifferent to his American reputation. His bailiwick was England. Larkin was so English that he didnât even care much about Britain, and he rarely mentioned it. Even within England, he travelled little. He spent most of his adult life at the University of Hull, as its chief librarian. A trip to London was an event. When he was there, he resolutely declined to promote his reputation. He guarded it but would permit no hype.
Though Larkinâs diffidence was partly a pose, his reticence was authentic. At no point did he announce that he had built a better mousetrap. The world had to prove it by beating a path to his door. The process took time, but was inexorable, and by now, only three years after his death, at the age of sixty-three, it has reached a kind of apotheosis. On the British best-seller lists, Larkinâs Collected Poems was up there for months at a stretch, along with Stephen Hawkingâs A Brief History of Time and Salman Rushdieâs The Satanic Verses . In Larkinâs case, this extraordinary level of attention was reached without either general relativityâs having to be reconciled with quantum mechanics or the Ayatollah Khomeiniâs being required to pronounce anathema. The evidence suggests that Larkinâs poetry, from a standing start, gets to everyone capable of being got to. Oneâs tender concern that it