You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Philip Larkin (1922–1985) is the most influential English poet of the second half of the twentieth century and the central figure of The Movement — a loose grouping of poets who, in the 1950s, reacted against the rhetorical excesses of 1940s Neo-Romanticism. Movement poetry valued clarity, restraint, irony, traditional forms, and an unflinching engagement with the disappointments of ordinary life. Larkin's love poems — if they can be called that — are studies in failure, self-deception, and the impossibility of living up to the ideals that love demands.
Paper 1, Love Through the Ages: poetry (post-1900). Larkin is the anthology's great sceptic, and on the comparative paper his deflationary realism is most powerful when set against the idealising tradition that precedes him (the Petrarchan sonnet, Romantic and Victorian love-poetry) or against the more affirming moderns. The dominant objectives are:
The Movement crystallised in the early 1950s and is associated with two anthologies — D.J. Enright's Poets of the 1950s (1955) and, more famously, Robert Conquest's New Lines (1956). Its key figures — Larkin, Kingsley Amis, Elizabeth Jennings, Thom Gunn, Donald Davie — shared a suspicion of grand gestures, emotional excess, mythological machinery, and intellectual pretension (much of it directed at the perceived bardic indulgence of Dylan Thomas and the 1940s "New Apocalypse"). They wrote in traditional forms — rhyme, metre, recognisable stanza — and drew on the cadences of educated everyday speech rather than the heightened diction of Romanticism.
Larkin's poetry is rooted in post-war English culture: a world of rationing and austerity, of modesty and reduced expectation, of the Empire in terminal decline and the welfare state under construction, with the old certainties of class, religion and national identity quietly eroding. His speakers are people who have learned, on principle, not to expect too much — and his great theme is the distance between the lives we are promised and the lives we get.
Larkin never married. He sustained overlapping long-term relationships with several women — most notably Monica Jones, Maeve Brennan and Betty Mackereth — without committing fully to any. His posthumously published Letters and Andrew Motion's biography Philip Larkin: A Writer's Life (1993) revealed a man profoundly ambivalent about intimacy: he craved companionship yet dreaded the loss of solitude, was drawn to women yet suspicious of the demands a shared life would make. (The same posthumous material exposed strains of misogyny and racism that have complicated his reputation and feed directly into feminist readings of the love poems.)
This biography illuminates the poems but must not be used reductively. Larkin's love lyrics are not raw confessions but carefully built dramatic performances, in which a version of the self is set up, scrutinised, and ironised — the speaker is a construction the poem examines, not simply Larkin talking.
It helps to set Larkin's scepticism in its broader cultural moment. The 1950s and 1960s were, on one familiar account, the decades of the "sexual revolution" — of relaxing taboos, of greater candour about desire, eventually of the contraceptive pill (the subject of Larkin's own famously dated "Annus Mirabilis," with its rueful "Sexual intercourse began / In nineteen sixty-three"). Yet Larkin's love poems are conspicuously un-liberated: his speakers are not the confident sensualists of the new permissiveness but men marooned in an older English diffidence, hampered by shyness, calculation and the fear of commitment. Part of the poems' poignancy is this lag between the era's loosening codes and the individual's stubborn emotional inhibition — the speaker of "Wild Oats" missing his chance in a world that, the newspapers insisted, was busy seizing its chances. Larkin registers, in other words, not the headline story of the sexual revolution but the quieter truth that changing social codes do not automatically free the timid or the guarded heart.
"Wild Oats" is built in three eight-line stanzas, broadly iambic and lightly rhymed, the metre loosened almost to the rhythm of rueful speech. The regularity of the stanza imposes a surface of control over content that is emotionally untidy and faintly humiliating — the order of the verse is part of the irony, a tidy frame around a mess. The poem proceeds chronologically through a failed relationship: its beginning ("About twenty years ago"), its long unhappy duration ("seven years"), the wreckage of its ending, and the strange persistence of its aftermath in a wallet.
The title — "Wild Oats" — is a dead cliché for youthful sexual adventure ("sowing one's wild oats"), and Larkin's deployment of it is mordantly ironic: the poem records a man who conspicuously failed to sow any wild oats, who settled for the plainer of two women out of timidity and then could not sustain even that diminished arrangement. The title promises libertine escapade; the poem delivers seven years of dutiful, doomed correspondence.
The opening establishes the defining cowardice: "About twenty years ago / Two girls came in where I worked — / A bosomy English rose / And her friend in specs I could talk to." The speaker is instantly drawn to the beautiful one — the "bosomy English rose" — but pairs off with the approachable one, "her friend in specs." The adjective "bosomy" is the crucial word, and it must be quoted exactly: it makes the rose frankly, physically alluring, an object of sexual attraction, and "English rose" lends her a conventional, almost advertising-poster ideality. By contrast "in specs" reduces the friend to a single unglamorous accessory — ordinary, accessible, unintimidating.
The phrase "I could talk to" is devastating in its modesty. The speaker does not claim he desired the friend, or loved her, only that she was someone he "could talk to" — the bare minimum of human contact. The damning implication is that the beautiful woman was precisely the one he could not talk to, that her beauty struck him dumb; he chooses companionship he can manage over a desire he cannot.
The relationship's slow failure is recounted with brutal economy: "In seven years after that / Wrote over four hundred letters, / Gave a ten-guinea ring / I got back in the end." The specificity of "four hundred letters" and "ten-guinea" is quintessential Larkin — he audits love in countable units (letters, guineas, years), as if emotional life were a ledger whose profit and loss could be totted up. The returned ring is the poem's most compressed emblem of failure: an engagement not merely broken but reversed, the investment handed back, the whole transaction written off — "I got back in the end" landing with weary, bathetic finality.
The third stanza diagnoses the speaker with merciless precision and then springs the poem's final, telling detail: the parting came, "after about five / Rehearsals," as an agreement that he was "too selfish, withdrawn, / And easily bored to love," a verdict he greets with the flat, self-mocking "Well, useful to get that learnt." The metaphor of "Rehearsals" is bleakly comic — even the break-up had to be practised five times, as though the couple were amateurs fumbling a scene they could not perform. The self-diagnosis "too selfish, withdrawn, / And easily bored to love" is unsparing, and the throwaway tone of "useful to get that learnt" converts genuine failure into rueful shrug. Then the sting: "In my wallet are still two snaps / Of bosomy rose with fur gloves on. / Unlucky charms, perhaps." After all these years the photographs he keeps are not of the woman he courted for seven years but of the "bosomy rose" he never had the nerve to approach — the precise, faintly absurd detail of the "fur gloves" fixing her as an object of glamour and fantasy. Calling the snaps "Unlucky charms" is exquisitely judged: a charm is meant to bring luck, so an "unlucky charm" is a talisman of failure, and the tentative "perhaps" lets the speaker half-disown even this rueful self-knowledge. He has been faithful all along not to a person but to a fantasy he lacked the courage to pursue.
The distinctive achievement of "Wild Oats" is tonal, and tone in Larkin is built from diction. The poem deliberately mixes registers: the cliché of the title and the dead idiom "English rose" sit beside the bureaucratic precision of "four hundred letters" and "ten-guinea," and beside the flat, demotic shrug of "Well, useful to get that learnt." This collision of the romantic-cliché, the accountant's-ledger, and the saloon-bar throwaway is the Movement voice in action — a refusal of poetic "fine writing" in favour of the textures of ordinary educated speech, deployed with an ironist's precision. The slang contractions ("snaps" for photographs) and the casual "perhaps" keep the poem resolutely unliterary on the surface, even as the rhyme and stanza hold it in shape underneath; the tension between the colloquial diction and the formal scaffolding is exactly where Larkin's irony lives.
Pay attention, too, to the poem's bathos — its repeated deflation of feeling into anticlimax. Each potentially romantic or tragic moment is punctured: the beautiful woman dwindles to a friend "in specs"; seven years of love shrink to a returned ring and the limp "I got back in the end"; the painful self-knowledge of being "too selfish, withdrawn, / And easily bored to love" is brushed off with "useful to get that learnt"; and the poem's emotional climax is not a confession of grief but the absurd, precise detail of "fur gloves." Larkin engineers each of these falls deliberately, and the cumulative effect is a speaker who cannot, or will not, let himself rise to the dignity of tragedy — who keeps undercutting his own pain with irony, so that the poem becomes a study in emotional self-protection through deflation. The comedy is real, but it is the comedy of a man flinching from his own feeling.
"Wild Oats" reads as a deliberate deflation of the Petrarchan and Romantic idealisation of the beautiful, unattainable woman. Where Sidney or Petrarch makes the unreachable beloved the engine of exalted desire, Larkin's speaker simply fails to speak to her and dates her friend — the sublime tradition collapses into social cowardice and a wallet snap. The unattainable beloved of five centuries of love poetry ends up as two photographs in a wallet, "unlucky charms"; Larkin takes the most exalted figure in the tradition and files her, literally, in a man's pocket. Within the anthology, set the poem against Millay's "I, being born a woman and distressed": Millay's woman assesses a man's body and coolly declines further "conversation," while Larkin's man cannot even begin the conversation with the woman he wants — a pointed gender reversal of confidence and control, the assured female desirer set against the paralysed male one. Against MacNeice's "Meeting Point," the contrast is total: MacNeice captures the radiant achieved moment of connection that Larkin's speaker, frozen by beauty, never even reaches — the one poem all communion, the other all missed chance.
"Talking in Bed" is compressed into three rhymed quatrains — twelve lines holding one of the bleakest anatomies of intimacy in English poetry. The lines tighten as the poem proceeds, and the final stanza in particular contracts towards short, hesitant phrases whose halting rhythm enacts the very difficulty of speech that is the poem's subject. The neat closed quatrain is, once again, a tidy form clamped over an untidy desolation.
The opening statement — "Talking in bed ought to be easiest" — lays out the central paradox with deceptive plainness. The modal "ought" is the load-bearing word: it opens a gap between expectation and reality, between what should be true and what is. Bed is the site of maximum physical intimacy — naked, horizontal, enclosed — and so, by every logic, the place where honest speech should come most easily. The rest of the poem exists to demonstrate that physical closeness guarantees no such thing.
The next lines deepen the irony: "Lying together there goes back so far, / An emblem of two people being honest." "Lying together" is presented as an ancient human practice, linking these modern lovers to every couple who has ever shared a bed, and the bed is offered as an "emblem" — a heraldic image — of mutual honesty. But "Lying" is a pun that quietly poisons the line: it means both reclining and telling untruths. To say that two people "lying together" are an emblem of "being honest" is to plant, in the very word, the suggestion that intimacy is always shadowed by deception — that the emblem of honesty is built on a word for falsehood.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.