'An Arundel Tomb' - Philip Larkin Analysis

What will survive of us is...youtube comments? Terrible sweatshirts? Not love anyway, not according to Philip Larkin. Poetry analysis intended for students studying WJEC English Literature ( for examination in 2018 remix)

[@atthebridge]

Hello, me again. Since you were kind enough to respond to my, on reflection, somewhat harsh critique I thought you might be interested in the following. It's taken from Peter Hitchens blog on the Mail on Sunday website:-
"Which brings me to my first text for this evening, from the great religious poet, Philip Larkin. Larkin is religious precisely because he very much did not mean to be, but he was. He was of God’s party without knowing it.
I can think of few more profoundly religious lines than these ‘The trees are coming into leaf, like something almost being said’.
Almost? He knows perfectly well that something is being said, and has - I suspect - a pretty good idea of what it is.
He shoves in a cautious ‘almost’, too, in ‘An Arundel Tomb’ ‘Our almost-instinct, almost true: What will survive of us is love’.
But in either case do you recall the hesitant ‘almost’ - or the unqualified and beautiful statement?"
This of course represents a different view entirely. Interesting of course (PH usually is) but I think it rather outstrips the 'actualite'. I find myself more in sympathy with your more cynical interpretation than Hitchens'. Not for the first time he takes a reasonable idea far too far.

[@atthebridge]

Nope, you say this poem is misunderstood and go on and repeat the same analysis of every other youtube/internet critic - ie 'we all know PL was a miserable sod therefore he must have been miserable about everything all the time so if he says anything that doesn;t sound miserable then he must be being ironic." The poem is for me about a cynical person encountering something mundane and being surprised at the emotions that are engendered. It doesn't conclude 'this is bollocks', though that might be a fair conclusion from PL's body of work as a whole, it says instead 'this is probably bollocks but on this individual (single?) day it feels like it might conceivably not be."

[@iangbland]

Think you've distorted what I'm saying somewhat. I don't think Larkin is inherently dismissive of emotional reactions to things. I think he respects those emotional reactions, then compares them to his rational reaction, and concludes, often quite mournfully, that it's the rational response that prevails. That said, thanks for a very thoughtful response - and I'll be telling my class to read what you've said as an excellent illustration of alternative readings.

[@atthebridge]

Perhaps, my view is simply that the poem is about how a particular thing made someone feel at a particular time. Not about the overall sweep of that same person's personality or philosophy. Anyone who never experienced what Primo Levi called 'moments of reprieve' from family, events or even old statues would experience great difficulty in putting one foot in front of the other on a day to day basis. I believe in this work PL shows he can appreciate the truth of such an experience even if in retrospect he comes to doubt its general importance in the wider scheme of things.
And you must admit all the internet commentaries on 'An Arundel Tomb' come to much the same cynical or if you prefer, semi-cynical conclusion as yours.
If you knew nothing at all about the poet, would you react in the same way to the poem?

[@FaceOfChitral]

Personal estimate of this poem is misleading

[@Simpaulme]

You never have much to say about the choice of meter and rhyme scheme?