Talk:Philip Larkin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Untitled

From June 2008 to July 2008

Clarification

XX poems - in what way were they privately printed? Snowman (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

In between The North Ship (published by Caton) and The Less Deceived (published by The Marvell Press) Larkin had twenty poems printed at his own cost, I think about a hundred copies. The poems by and large were included in The Less Deceived, or never published. He sent the copies to friends and to members of the literary establishment in the hope of self-promotion. I was thinking earlier today that it has no real purpose being in the list of Works on the main page, as it wasn't published; maybe I could make mention of it in either the Creative Output or the biog section? Almost-instinct 22:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As the 2003 Collected Poems - which proclaims only to contain poems published by Larkin - collects those otherwise unpublished items from XX Poems - I suppose it should stay there in the list almost-instinct 23:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The North Ship - A Girl in Winter - R.A.Caton

I've created The North Ship. Am now thinking if I ought do the same for A Girl in Winter? Also, am wondering if R. A. Caton should have a page? Maybe there's some information already out there that we could link to. Surely he's notable on two grounds (using literature as a cover for more illicit publications; publishing Larkin) Will have a root around. Almost-instinct 18:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the spacing in your text above to link to the Caton page. Snowman (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's nothing else about him that I can find on the web. Still, good to be linked now. Almost-instinct 19:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Content of the intro

My suspicion is that some of the detail of the introduction (eg parents' names) should be in the opening paragraph of the next section. Could someone/people with greater understanding of the guidelines on an article's introduction proffer their opinions, please? almost-instinct 22:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that you would be correct. I think that it can take a long time to write a good introduction to a complex article. The introduction should be a summary of the rest of the article and include all of the main topics, and it should not contain information which is not somewhere in the main text. The maximum length of the introduction is usually four paragraphs and that is for a long article, so 3 (or 4) paragraphs would be recommended here I guess. See WP:EL. Snowman (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Concur. --Red Sunset 23:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope - once I've done a lot more reading - to add more on Larkin's reception history and his influence on other poets. Maybe it would be sensibly cautious to save a rejig of the intro until then? almost-instinct 23:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that the article needs additions and improvements, and any editor can improve the article in their own time. Your plan to make improvements after further study sounds appropriate. I have done a quick partial fix only to move some of the excess details from the introduction or to avoid duplication. What did he study at Oxford? Snowman (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

non-" and non-'

What is in the guidelines of the use of non-" and non-' characters? Snowman (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

To tell the truth: I dunno. But they're put there by the Wiki developers in the first line under the edit window

“ – — … ‘ “ ’ ” ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § ”

so I guess they want them to be used. I noticed that someone else had turned some of my "..." into “...” so I just finished off the job. All the poems still have just "..." around them: I only used the curly ones for quotes. almost-instinct 23:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

More: the MoS says

“The exclusive use of straight quotes and apostrophes is recommended. They are easier to type in reliably, and to edit. Mixed use interferes with searching”

Thus the recommendation is there to avoid searching problems. Since they've only been used here in extremely clear circumstances and to improve the look of quotations, the problems envisaged by the guideline are avoided almost-instinct 23:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it means use straight quotes. Consistency is a key feature of the encyclopedia. Snowman (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO

• "recommended" means recommended, not obligatory
• the dangers flagged by the recommendation are avoided
• if the developers of WP didn't want them to be used they wouldn't put them an inch away from the en- and em-dashes. Or is this a test of our capacity for self-denial? almost-instinct 09:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

But your changes adding lesser-used inverted commas have interfered with literal searching (searching for exactly matching strings of characters). Snowman (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Here, are we talking about Philip Larkin — or are you referring to the sortable list at List of poems by Philip Larkin? This is the talk page for Philip Larkin. I have done nothing here that interferes with literal searching. On the Talk:List of poems by Philip Larkin I acquired a consensus and made not a murmur that it went against me and learnt the lesson. This is different. almost-instinct 10:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The topic here is clear as can be seen from the heading. I think that it would be simpler to follow the wiki recommendations. This article is part of an encyclopaedia which has rules and guidelines about consistency across all its pages. So different formating styles on individual pages are not the norm. The following section from the article is one line containing non-' and non-" characters; long-standing friendships with James “Jim” Sutton, Colin Gunner and Noel “Josh” Hughes. "This" is your edit which added some more. Perhaps, editors who have had experience working on potential GA and FA articles will advance this discussion. Snowman (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have been confusing an alphabetical sort in a table to a search matching a string of characters. The string may start with a " and end with a ", and so the non-" characters will mess up a literal search. But my main argument is for consistency within the wiki. Snowman (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That is why the “...” have only been used around quotations, not within. But anyway, to advance this I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and await the big guns' opinions. almost-instinct 12:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

PS when I wrote that sentence you quote, I did wonder what the WP guideline on including people's nicknames are; Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) doesn't appear to have an opinion. I've merely followed what Motion/Bradford use IIRC almost-instinct 12:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

But Wiki guidelines may not have been applied to these books. Snowman (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said: I wondered and looked and nothing came to my help, so I followed the only convention available to me. Since Motion was published a long time before WP was thought of I would agree that Wiki guidelines probably weren't applied there. As far as I can see there is no guideline on whether these people should be called ‘Noel "Josh" Hughes’ or ‘Noel Hughes (usually called "Josh")’ or ‘Josh Hughes (properly Noel Hughes)’. When there is a rule I'll only be too happy to follow it. almost-instinct 13:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Reception

I've started collecting information here to try to create a passage on Larkin's reception during his lifetime. Once it's ready I'll put it in at the start of the Legacy section. Meanwhile if anybody has access to some primary sources, most especially A. Alvarez's introduction to The New Poetry, please please add it to the sandbox's talk page almost-instinct 20:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've now pasted it in as a new sub-section at the start of legacy. Once someone finds a copy of The New Poetry we can replace that paragraph. Also the passage on High Windows would benefit from some actual quotes (which is why I quoted Bradford directly) almost-instinct 07:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Larkin at Sixty

I've put in a paragraph about the above. The best place to put it seemed to be the biographical section, but feel free to move it if it fits better elsewhere. I'm wondering whether it deserves an article of its own? (Then I could include excerpts from Russell Davies's review (in verse) from the TLS!) --GuillaumeTell 10:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it could well justify its own page eg Noel Hughes' contribution threatened to dredge up things relating to his childhood/his father's political position... Its been years since I read it, can't remember much about the other contributions. IMO it should be mentioned on this page twice:

• once where you've already put it in the final biog section (and maybe I could find a couple of other notable biog details to go with it)
• then again at the end of the Reception sub-section.

In the first instance maybe we don't need the list of contributors, and in the second instance perhaps we could get some idea of what these contributors had to say — and then on Larkin at Sixty itself we get a thorough article-by-article summary of its contents. And, yes, the Russell Davies review! almost-instinct 12:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

PS as with the Holy Trinity, Christ Church is both cathedral and college, indivisible, two in one and one in two, cosubstantial, coeternal &c. Since the event contained not just a service in the Cathedral but some kind of do in the hall afterwards (IIRC) perhaps it would be most accurate to say the memorial service was at Christ Church, Oxford; esp. as it was held there because Ch Ch had been Auden's college, not because its a cathedral almost-instinct 12:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, no problem - my concern was that piping the cathedral to Ch Ch (or is it the other way round? I can never remember some of these Wikitechnicalities) is ridiculous when there's an article on the cathedral itself (sounds as though you don't approve of that, though!). --GuillaumeTell 16:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

yeah, to be fair, I hadn't checked that that link was working properly! almost-instinct 21:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've started on this, adding something about the tv programmes which also came in Feb '82 to the biog, and moving your paragraph to reception. IMO it would be helpful if you were to bunch the contributors eg A, B & C wrote about X; D, E & F about Y. Or something like that. Some quotations would be nice! (oh still to have access to a decent library!) almost-instinct 14:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll do that now, and add in the contributors not in WP (though two of them have the same name as sportspeople who do have articles, one a footballer, the other a cricketer). I probably won't be able to start the L@60 article till tomorrow, though. --GuillaumeTell 16:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Done the listing, but do you really think that this is the place for quotations? If so, maybe just a small compendium here but more in the article on the book? Sorry about the Alan Bennett summary GuillaumeTell 17:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, the list is too detailed for this page too, and it probably should be in prose rather than a list. Snowman (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

...and it isn't exactly Reception History, either, I'd say, but there you go. Let's see what a-i thinks. --GuillaumeTell 21:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

aye-oop has tried to turn the useful list into prose, emphasizing the Reception element, and hopes that MrArcher will add an apposite quote or two when he peruses the book itself almost-instinct 21:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Best Words

I've removed this clause about anthologised poems

and "Afternoons" appears in another, Best Words

as I can't find a reference to this book. Perhaps someone with a better idea of where to look might be able to find it and give us some details about it almost-instinct 09:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

references

When a reference is listed it must be directly sourced (and the original text read by the editor) and not quoted through another source, so "Bradford 2005, p.241, in turn quoting Motion 1993, p.282." is not in line with wiki guidelines. Snowman (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Just so you know, I read both passages before making the first attempt at clarification
2. I don't know if you intended it that way, but in its curtness your comment felt aggressive (and the addition in parentheses, sarcastic)
3. When you draw attention to Wiki guidelines it would be helpful if you were to cite them, so one can go and look for oneself
4. Do you know of a guideline on whether "England" should always be called "England, UK"? I can't find anything in MoS. The template for the infobox requires "Sovereign State" on that line—the article England calls England a country. But I don't know if a country is a sovereign state. I would guess so. almost-instinct 09:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• My comment was meant to be helpful and I was quoting rules as I understood them. I thought that it was brief and to the point. Also, I was not intending to be sarcastic. I was referring to this WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT from memory, but on rechecking it, I would say that you have done the correct thing and said that it was an indirect source. Philip Larkin is a subject that I do not know much about, and I respect your thoroughness with your work on this page. Nevertheless, I guess (I might be wrong) that you might be misunderstood by some who might think that you did not read both sources. There may be a reason for quoting both sources, but would it be simpler to quote only the primary source? See also WP:AGF. Snowman (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I really tried to work out which was the better source. Bradford is more thorough, but—and this is rare for either book—at this point Motion himself is the primary source for the information. In the end I concluded that the decision wasn't mine to take almost-instinct 11:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

PS Thank you almost-instinct 11:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of UK

• I do not known about the rules on using "England" or "England, UK", but the "William Shakespeare" page, a FA, just uses "England" in the infobox. Snowman (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I clicked on the some of the links on the page and, again, plain "England" seems to be the norm, but have asked on WT:MoS for a citeable guideline. It's an issue that's going to recur a lot, I would have thought almost-instinct 11:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

On the MoS Talk page someone kindly gave this advice:

"They have a guideline WP:UKTOWNS, and in WP:UKTOWNS#Lead* and examples they only describe the location up to the constituent country of the UK, but without mentioning the UK itself. To me this suggests not to use "England, UK" in other situations either"

so I removed them. almost-instinct 16:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Needler Hall University of Hull

Larkin was resident, for about a year soon after he took up his post at Hull, in the Needler Hall students' residence as a deputy warden, at the same time that Liverpool poet Roger McGough was a first-year student. I don't think that this qualifies as a "bed-sit." Although knowing Needler, I was a resident myself for 3 years, his accomodation in the hall might have resembled a bed-sit.

An interview with McGough talking about this can be found here: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=199534&sectioncode=26

I think for accuracy's sake and to highlight the spatial connection of two notable poets this should be mentioned in the text of the wiki article.

I remember Larkin as a sort of 'eminence noir' stalking around the Brynmor-Jones, I never had the courage to address him, something I shared with many other students I believe.

Urselius (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The index for the Motion biog. only has one entry for Needler Hall: after a spell of medical attention in March 1961—a few years after he had moved to the Pearson Park flat—he went "to recuperate in Needler Hall, the university hall of residence where his friend Peter Coveney was warden." (Motion, p.313) The exactly dates aren't clear but this would seem to be during the Easter vacation, and by mid-April he was in a London hospital for more medical tests.
As for accuracy these are Larkin's addresses during his first years after he moved to Hull:

• 12th March 1955 (the day he sailed from Belfast): Holtby House, Cottingham (Motion, p.247)
• 20th April 1955: 11 Outlands Road, Cottingham (Motion, p.247)
• June 1955: 200 Hallgate, Cottingham (Motion, p.263)
• June 1955: 192 Hallgate, Cottingham (Motion, p.268)
• October 1956: 32 Pearson Park (Motion, p.276)

I appreciate that this flatly contradicts Roger McGough article, but I think Motion's version carries more weight. almost-instinct 15:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There is at least one published letter from Larkin with his address stated as being Needler Hall. Needler is not a bed-sit, therefore the text is factually incorrect, whatever the length of Larkin's stay. There wouldn't usually have been students in residence during the Easter break, even if McGough's memory has misled him on the length of Larkin's stay he couldn't really have mistaken seeing him; Larkin was difficult to miss given his height. There is another possibility, Needler was a catered hall and it is possible that Larkin took his meals in Hall but lived out, Hallgate is just round the corner from Northgate where Needler is situated, probably two minutes walk at most. This would at least reconcile McGough's recollection of Larkin saying grace, there was a "top-table" where the tutors ate and other tables for the students. When I was there students were invited to the top-table in rotation so McGough may have eaten with Larkin. This scenario makes a good deal of sense; Larkin as a convalescent would be relieved of having to feed himself, but he would also not have to put up with being constantly surrounded by hordes of undergrads. Urselius (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the date for the letter, 1955/6 or 1961? Is it in Thwaite? Given that Larkin wrote letters virtually every day throughout his life a single letter headed from there doesn't imply much. Does the letter state that he was living in Needler Hall, or just that that was where he was writing the letter? If he stayed there for one weekend do you think we should change the text to: "For his first year he lodged in bedsits, except for a weekend spent at Needler Hall, a university hall of residence..." My opinion would be that if something isn't notable enough for Motion, its not probably not going to be notable here. Your other possibility is attractive, but would this be straying into Original Research? almost-instinct 08:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The letter was, indeed, from 1961. Both Hallgate addresses are within easy walking distance from Needler, which is suggestive. As McGough is an eyewitness and Motion isn't I'd tend, from the principles of historical sourcing, to go for the McGough account. I imagine Motion just missed the Needler connection if Larkin was living out. It would be entirely believable that McGough would not have known that Larkin was not in fact resident. The tutors' accommodation, in the oldest part of the building (a former insane asylum), would not have been readily accessible to students. I spent three years there and never worked out exactly where the entrance to the warden's apartment was. At the very least McGough's account should be referenced, we have no reason to presume mendacity on his part, what motive would he have? He says that he didn't even speak to Larkin, and only contacted him, rather later, by sending him some poems. Urselius (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I know little about McGough so can't guess his motives. However he is straightforwardedly wrong when he says: "He would have taken up residence at Needler Hall1 at the same time as myself, for he was the newly appointed sub-warden". How can he be relied on as a reliable witness? Are the details of where Larkin took his evening meals during the 18 months he lived in Hallgate notable? almost-instinct 09:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Roger McGough was awarded a CBE a few years ago, so the people who vet people for such awards must be happy about his bona fides. At present he hosts a long running poetry programme on BBC Radio 4.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/presenters/roger_mcgough.shtml.

The quotation is not wrong if McGough was unaware that Larkin was not in fact residing in the building, but merely eating there. In his interview McGough does say that Larkin exited with alacrity following meals. This was an age when men, especially lone academics, were not expected to be able to cook and clean for themselves so an arrangement such as I propose for Larkin would not have been considered unusual. In order to have meals at a university residence there would have had to have been some sort of pro-forma connection of Larkin with the hall, as a tutor or sub-warden or something like that. That Larkin didn't extend this beyond saying grace occasionally is very believable, the idea of him actively conducting 'pastoral care' for undergrads would strain the imagination somewhat. Urselius (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Philip Larkin/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

#Requires photographs Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates Switch existing references to use one of the {{Cite}} templates Requires copy edit for WP:MOS Keith D (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC) These have all been done, at least IMHO. Macphysto (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 12:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 21:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)