Hartley’s novel Essay

Although appearing to have a cynical view of love in the poem Larkin does in fact not doubt love, but the expectations that we have of it. In the words of Andrew Swarbrick, Larkin expresses not feelings of bitterness or pessimism but â€Å"of pathos, of a tender sympathy for the widow who recalls dreams knowing they are best forgotten. † Though sometimes pleasurable reminiscing can reveal hopes that were unfulfilled, dreams never lived out, good times we can never experience again. Therefore what we perceive to be pessimism in Larkin is, in this instance, simply realism, an understanding of the illusions contained in the world, making him â€Å"less deceived† as a result. He once remarked, â€Å"Poetry is an affair of sanity, of seeing things as they really are† it was for him a way of being honest, not overestimating the value of things. Nonetheless, in the final poem of The Whitsun Weddings, An Arundel Tomb, Larkin hints at his belief in love. Despite not having a successful love life himself he still implies that he has faith in its existence, the ultimate word of the anthology being the abstract noun, â€Å"love†. This line is a testament to its endurance and strength, â€Å"What will survive of us is love. † John Saunders likens these lines containing the â€Å"prove/love† rhyme to Shakespeare’s attempt to define true love in Sonnet 73, Larkin’s concluding line echoing the rhyming couplet, â€Å"If this be error, and upon me proved I never wrote, nor no man ever loved. † An Arundel Tomb concentrates on the historical aspect of the past. The persona in the poem, which is in fact Larkin, examines the concept of artifacts, how something set in stone can withstand the test of time regardless of whether it actually existed in the first place. Visiting a Sussex churchyard Larkin sees an example of love that both moves and intrigues him, had it not been for the incongruity of two linked hands displayed on the tomb he would have walked by. It is a gesture small yet touching but the cynic in Larkin questions its validity presuming it to be a case of â€Å"a sculptor’s sweet commissioned grace† rather than a symbol of a long and devoted marriage. Together in death the couples’ â€Å"faces blurred† but the husband is still â€Å"holding her hand†. Over time their features have been weathered but their effigy remains as a reminder of their lives, a monument to their love. Archaic language is used to complement the subject matter of the poem, capturing a bygone time so unlike today’s â€Å"unarmorial age†. Further manipulation of syntax is evident with the effective juxtaposition of the adjectives â€Å"sharp† and â€Å"tender†, conveying simply but perfectly Larkin’s confused and mixed reaction to the union of the stone hands. There is debate over Larkin’s true feelings towards the real meaning of the â€Å"faithfulness in effigy†. Whether or not he again intended the pun with the use of the verb â€Å"lie† just as lovers were â€Å"lying together† in bed is unclear. As Brother Anthony (An Sonjae) points out in his paper Without Metaphysics there is a huge diversity in the interpretations of Larkin’s intended meaning in his work, it is up to the reader to determine their own response â€Å"which is good for the reader, but a challenge too†. Does the poet believe that â€Å"love survives† not only in stone? Or as Andrew Swarbrick quite rightly points out does he â€Å"almost† believe it as the penultimate line suggests? â€Å"Our almost-instinct almost true† therefore cancels out the optimism of the following statement. Here we witness Larkin lowering his defenses, allowing himself to hope for the best, to want love to be â€Å"that much mentioned brilliance† but he cannot do so completely for fear of it being an illusion. Although hinting at what he truly believes it is as though he will not allow himself to trust it in case he is mistaken. Yet whether love survives or not it lives on in Arundel where â€Å"only an attitude remains†. This is also true of Larkin’s poetry, and in fact to the whole genre. Whereas fictional characters and places from novels are lost, forgotten, poetry allows thoughts to survive as art long after the death of the artist. Larkin wrote of this inspiring philosophy in 1955, contained in a statement to D. J. Enright he explained, â€Å"I write poems to preserve things I have seen/thought/felt†¦ I think the impulse to preserve lies at the bottom of all art. † Yet as mentioned previously the meaning of Larkin’s literature is not always clear, just like he could only assume the significance of the joined hands we can only guess at the thoughts of Philip Larkin which are contained and live on in his verse. The poem Dockery and Son relates the events and emotions that occur when Philip Larkin revisits his old college, steps back into the past only to be disappointed with what he finds there. An outsider there, he no longer belongs and finds himself a stranger in his own past, as well as physically being unable to enter his past residence â€Å"the door of where (he) used to live† is also â€Å"locked† metaphorically. However, the most disturbing thing for Larkin is the news that one of his peers now has at son at Oxford: Dockery unlike Larkin with â€Å"no son, no wife, no house or land† is a success story. The door to fatherhood is therefore also â€Å"locked† for Larkin. By starting with dialogue the poem is made more authentic as it adds an injection of reality to the verse. It also alerts Larkin to the fact that he is no longer part of that world, of public school boys and ranks, he, unlike Dockery, has no reason to revisit that part of his life. He feels â€Å"ignored†. As in The Whitsun Weddings Larkin philosophizes whilst on a train which is not only a vehicle in the normal sense of the noun but a vehicle for his thoughts and also a metaphor for direction, moving forward in life. The simplistic repetition in the third stanza â€Å"How much†¦ How little†¦ † conveys Larkin’s disappointment in himself as he contemplates his own achievements in comparison with those of Dockery. Whereas Leo Colston benefited from his nostalgic visit to the past it has been a negative experience for Larkin who should never have returned. Both Larkin and Hartley present philosophies on the past in two contrasting but equally effective genres, which themselves give insight into the pasts of the authors. The past is, as both pieces of literature show, inevitably significant to us all. How we are affected by it however, either negatively or positively, is to some extent in our own hands. â€Å"Even a god cannot change the past† (Agathon 445 BC) yet we can move on, learn from our experiences and in the future be â€Å"less deceived†. L. P. Hartley’s novel is a message to us all that we should not dwell on what has come before, but concentrate on living the present, Leo recognized that he â€Å"should not be sitting alone† before it was too late. In reality the past does not fully exist; in the words of Larkin it is a â€Å"love song† that can never sound the same, a â€Å"locked† door which we can never be reopened, â€Å"only an attitude† that lives on in our minds. We may try to capture moments and emotions in stone, or in verse yet the only place where they truly exist is in our memory. We have the ability to dictate the significance the past holds for us. And so whilst we cannot change our pasts, we have the ability to change our future; Shakespeare declared that â€Å"What’s past is prologue† yet we can determine what is contained in the epilogue.