As Bad as a mile

The poem is about eating a apple and trying to throw it in the bin and missing it. In the poem Larkin shows  at the start of the poem, that they (the people who are throwing the apple core) are going to miss the bin. This is because Larkin says " Striking the basket, skidding across the floor". The poem is written backwards because at the end of the poem the apple is "unbitten" which shows that they have not eaten the apple yet even though at the start of the poem they have and thrown it in the bin/ This shows that at the start of the poem the apple is predestined to fail.

This little poem with simple aaa bbb rhyme scheme is about failure. The description in the poem is of the “shied core” of an apple, “striking the basket” and “skidding across the floor”. It’s an image we can all relate to, and one that might set one over the edge: after a bad day, it all builds into the simple failure of missing the bin with an apple core. The word “failure” is stressed by the enjambment, (a feature common in Larkin’s poetry) appearing at the beginning of the second stanza.

 The poem has religious connotations because in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve. That Fall was the pinnacle of failure, and as with every other image, irreversible. It also shows that every throw is doomed to fail. Though short, ‘As Bad as a Mile’ is an effective metaphor for the idea of irrevocable failure and includes the themes repetition, Spiritual, and failure. 

Take one Home for the Kiddies Take One Home for the Kiddies

The title of the poem sounds really nice and the reference to Kiddies shows innocence and playfulness. The reference to " one" is a pet that the mother is taking home to her children to look after. the results of this is what the poem is about.  In the title Larkin is mocking and being sarcastic when he says " Kiddies", because Larkin actually thinks that the children are brats, Heartless and careless. The rhyme scheme of the poem is ABAB, which is a small and simple rhyme scheme almost like/for a child.    

The first stanza talks about the life of the pet in the pet store and how it is being treated. The stanza starts by talking about "shallow straw" to show that it is uncomfortable and has a cruel life. The " shade less glass shows that there is no privacy for the pet and that is is unprotected from the outside world. The second line shows that the animal gets its warmth by huddling with the other animals (like  penguins) and that they have " empty bowls" which suggests that is does not get much food and is not being cared for. The next line, the constant repetition of “no” enforces the deprivation, with “no dam” means “no mother” and "no grass" means nothing natural. The final line of the stanza is the first piece of dialogue, the children’s words with the working class (formal) language“Mam”. The child’s speech shows an innocence that only comes in childhood, demanding one “to keep”. He or she doesn't appreciate that the animal will eventually die, believing in “always”. The comical speech is a sharp contrast to the dark image of suffering painted in the previous lines.

The second stanza starts of with "Living toys" which refers to the animals and shows that the children are treating the pet like toys. In the second line is shows that the kids have gotten bored of the pet (like toys). the third line " Fetch the shoebox, fetch the shovel" shows that the the pet is dead and they are going to bury it in the garden. In the last line of the poem the children are speaking again and they say " Mam we're playing funerals now.", this suggests that the kids are heartless and that the pet dying is just another game for them. In the end the pet died out of neglect because the kids treated it as a toy rather than a living thing.

In the poem, Larkin represents the children as spiolt and demanding by using imperatives. The poem could aslo been seen as Larkin having a rant about working class people and there behavior towards others.

The poem could be about

• the cruelty of keeping pets 
• the cruelty of children
• playing vs living or doing something serious.      

Days

Days-Philip Larkin 

The themes of the poem include Madness, Boredom and Repetition.  Larkin also uses the constant theme of mortality and the pointless brevity of life.

The first line of the poem "what are days for?" is a rhetorical question that Larkin asks himself. In the rest of the stanza Larkin answers his question by saying what days do and personifying them by using the word "they".

In the second stanza Larkin says  that " solving the question Brings the priest and the doctor". the priest represents birth and it also represents the death of things as well, which shows the life and death of days. The doctor on the other hand prevents death. The final line in  the poem " Running over the fields" suggest that it his an emergency like 'Ambulances' for example. it also suggests that they are ruing nature because they are " running over fields".

The answer to the first question: "Days are where we live", implies a matter of fact, placatory tone as the simple question is answered by an equally simple (though worrying) answer. At first, the voice appears to be kindly, positive even, telling the questioner that days are "to be happy in." In the final lines of the poem, this second voice adopts a worldly, macabre tone, almost mocking and cruel, as it dryly observes that the only place people can inhabit, apart from days, is death.

The word "days" is repeated three times and this repetition forces the reader to think about the meaning of the word. In line two, the speaker tells the questioner "Days are where we live", raising interesting questions about the nature of time, how it is measured and its artificiality. Days are not a place, not a "where", but a when and it is this paradox that leads to the bleak response to the second question. Once a person no longer has any days left to live in, the only other place that person can occupy will be the grave.

The chief theme in "Days" is the futility of existence. As in many of his poems, Larkin examines with brutal honesty the inevitable truth that all life must end in death. The single image in the poem is of "the priest and the doctor" coming "running over the fields". This disturbing image implies that once a person has run out of days, the only solution is death, and if this is the case, then what is the point of filling endless days with living?

The only detail in the poem is the line that describes the "long coats" of the priest and doctor. This makes them appear sinister, frantic individuals, hurrying across fields towards they dying patient. Their haste seems indecent, as if they are greedy for death, not intent upon healing, or comforting.

 Larkin is no sentimentalist, but in sharing his fears and doubts, at least there is a commonality of despair and a community of hopelessness

Ignorance

Ignorance-Philip Larkin

The title of the poem "Ignorance", means that the person has a lack of knowledge and refuses to believe in anything else. Ignorance’ cuts to the heart of the collection’s doubtfulness about the future.

The first stanza of the poem talks about Larkin feeling strange to not know something and to be uncertain about something. He talks about being unsure "Of what is true or right or real".  

In the second stanza, Larkin continues to be unsure by saying "strange to be ignorant of the way things work", which suggests that the way life works is strange and Larkin is unsure about it. In the stanza is also suggests that people are unsure of life and what they need to know. 

The last stanza shows that people wear knowledge which means they know things, but they still don't understand why they the things happen. There is also a paradox at the beginning of the stanza and the end which is " Even to wear such knowledge... Have no idea why", which is what i just said. 

Te poem is filled with tentative and uncertain phrases which shows that Larkin is unsure himself. Overall the poem is about the uncertainty of life and that you do not understand the purpose of life, or the future. 

 Larkin comments on how strange it is ‘never to be sure / Of what is true or right or real’. This, and the question about death in the last stanza, point to religious doubt – Larkin was an agnostic – but also social uncertainty. The second stanza, which describes ignorance of ‘the way things work’ (a vague subject) ‘their sense of shape, and punctual spread of seed’ suggests again Larkin as an observer, noting others’ instinctive identity and reproduction, but unable to participate without questioning these. The body (‘flesh’) is predetermined, but the reason for life remains a mystery.

Home is so Sad

Home is so Sad

Home is so sad by Philip Larkin is a poem about a house that is personified ( anthropomorphism)  as a person who is sad. The themes in the poem include loneliness and negation and is a sad poem, based on Larkin’s return to his family house.

Summary

The first stanza in the poem is about the homes's feelings by saying that the "Home is sad". It also shows that the house is a dump because " it stays as it was left" which shows that Larkin left the house in a dump and it has been that way until Larkin came back. The stanza continues by saying that all it wanted to do was to comfort and to please those that it sheltered. The house is broken hearted and been left to rote and decay away.

The second stanza starts of with Larkin saying that the house feels unfamiliar to what it was before, and he wants to change it back to what it used be. Larkin then describes objects in the house ("pictures, cutlery, music, piano stool, vase") to show different memories of events that happened in the house that were happy and cheerful. However the poem is not about the home being sad, it instead is about Larkin being sad at home.  

analysis

Throughout the two stanzas, there is a lack of adjectives and imagery, such as the final list: “Look at the pictures and the cutlery. The music in the piano stool.” Larkin chooses to strip this description to the bare minimum in order to make in more universal; it could be anyone’s lost home.

The house is personified throughout the poem, “It stays as it was left” “As if to win them back” “bereft / Of anyone to please, it withers so”. This personification adds to the sensitivity of the poem, and when it “withers” it is as if the house is dying, and persona feels the sadness of this loss. “Bereft”, in particular, is emotive, with its duel meaning of “without” and also “a sense of loss”. The house, for the persona, has been robbed of its inhabitants, “theft”, and no longer as “heart” to “turn again to what it started as”.

Yet, in the final stanza, that idea of “how things ought to be” for the house, even in the past, was merely “a joyous shot”, “long fallen wide”. Like the ‘Whitsun Weddings’ there is much promise in the idea of “home”, yet like marriage in that poem, it doesn't quite deliver. The “music in the piano stool”, similarly, reminds us of love’s failure in ‘Love Songs in Ages’.

“Home is so sad” because while time passes outside, it remains frozen within, a snapshot of how life once was. Those memories burst out on examination, but the house now, just as it was unable then, isn’t quite able to live up to its expectations.

Wild oats

This poem is based upon the only woman Larkin came close to marriage with: his first girlfriend Ruth Bowman. She had a friend called Jane, who is the model for the “bosomy English rose”, while sixteen-year-old Ruth was “her friend in specs I could talk to”.  The idea of “specs” reminds us of ‘A Study of Reading Habits’, because its about the tending to undervalue oneself and one's abilities poem, and in its way, this isn't . The title ‘Wild Oats’ comes from a common euphemism for sex: an encouragement for boys to go out and ‘saw some wild oats’ – sleep with lots of women before getting serious. During the 1950s, there was still a real dichotomy between males and females: men were encouraged to ‘get out there’, while women were advised to remain chaste.

Considering ‘A Study of Reading Habits’ and Larkin, though, this seems a somewhat ironic title: no matter the adolescent fantasies of the persona in ‘A Study’, Larkin doesn't seem the type to have cast many. Immediately in this poem, the persona is intimidated by the “rose” and “it was the friend I took out”. 

In the first stanza Larkin talks about two women where he works at. The first one is " a bosomy english rose" which is the one that Larkin fancies, however Larkin is not confident to talk to her and intimidated by her. The other one is the " friend in specs", this women is the one Larkin does not fancy but she is the one "I could talk to".  However Larkin decides that " it was the friend i took out". 

The second stanza says that the relationship lasted "seven years", which is a long time considering that you are in love with her friend and not her. They gave each other over "four hundred letters" and they tried to break up five times but it never went through in the end. 

In the final stanza Larkin admits that he has done wrong by saying " I was too selfish, withdrawn, And easily bored to love, then they break up with each other.  After twenty years though, Larkin still wants his fantasy girl however he knows that he cannot get her. 

Larkin uses objectification of women, because he says that he loves the "bosomy english rose" because of er looks and not her personality. The poem itself is about unwanted life and unsatisfied life. It is also about Love  

 http://www.writework.com/essay/analyzing-wild-oats-philip-larkin 

Water

Philip Larkin was an acknowledged agnostic, but also a poet seemingly fascinated by the Christian faith. Larkin is quoted as saying, after reading the bible: “It’s absolutely bloody amazing to think that anyone ever believed any of that. Really, it’s absolute balls. Beautiful, of course. But balls.” The very contradiction in terms of describing something as “beautiful”, yet also “balls” indicates a man who, although not of faith, found the subject of religion very interesting, and an irresistible creative influence. Larkin’s intriguing view on religion is apparent throughout his poem, Water, which itself is a beautiful and multi-faceted piece. The poem is, at first, a somewhat tongue-in-cheek account of how Larkin would adjust the religious institution to better suit his views. Upon deeper analysis, however, the poet seems somewhat mocking of his subject.

Larkin is very quick to reveal his non-religious standpoint in Water. The very idea that one could ‘construct a religion’ (Line 2) immediately implies religion to be a mere fabrication – a man made concept. This could be considered a rather firm dig at the church, reducing it to fiction and fantasy. This is very indicative of Larkin’s position of non-faith and his intention to encourage his reader to question their religious beliefs. The use of ‘fording’ (Line 5), however, is much gentler, although highly significant. The word is carefully chosen, as it leads the reader to view religion as escapism. In effect Larkin suggests that the church offers safe passage, perhaps to death, and helps one to accept the facts of life. The author is appreciating that religion is a pleasant comfort for some, although he, himself, does not appreciate it. Larkin is imparting his very strong opinions on religion by his selection of words with distinct connotations. The reception of these opinions could vary depending on the beliefs of the reader, but Larkin’s tone could easily be considered controversial and this was likely his intent. The poem is aimed to challenge religion and its followers. It is interesting to note that in one breath Larkin seems to strike at religion, yet in the next he seems to soften the blow with a certain air of understanding. He seems to say, ‘Religion is nonsense, but I appreciate what its uses are.’
The poem has an atmosphere throughout, which is rather aloof and disdainful. Larkin seems to scoff at religion as an institution. The grand, ever contentious subject of religion is briefly and whimsically mused over for a mere thirteen lines, as if it warranted no more of his time. This is compounded by the gentle, blasé and lazy rhythm, which flows like water itself, somewhat irregularly, but in a manner which seems to make perfect scientific sense. The first three lines seem to gush quite freely, yet the alliterative ‘dry, different’ (Line 6) and ‘devout drench’ (Line 9) seem to imitate, almost onomatopoeically, the slow drip-dripping of a tap, allowing the reader longer to dwell on these lines.
Larkin makes direct reference to science with ‘Where any-angled light/Would congregate endlessly.”(Lines 12-13) This is seemingly a reference to the theory of refraction appearing to capture light within the glass of water. Science is often coined as an opponent to religion and Larkin is aligning himself and his own religion alongside it. This is another strong anti-religious statement, yet the religious reference of ‘congregate’ (Line 13) indicates Larkin is pulling his punches again somewhat. He seems to suggest that it is acceptable for science and spirituality to coexist peacefully, both in the world and within a person’s mind.

Larkin’s utilisation of the first person perspective is a highly charged tool which has a distinct effect. To speak of recreating religion in the first person and in such a matter-of-fact way seems to elevate the author to godlike status. The arrogant and conceited idea is supported by the seeming honesty of the message. The perspective leads to a feeling of real sincerity, as if the reader is being spoken to personally. Larkin seems to laugh at religion and really means it. The effect of this upon a religious reader could be of real shock and outrage. The very fact that Larkin is seeking to change religion rather than abolish it altogether, though, suggests that his attack is against Christianity or organised religion, as opposed to the idea of a god or spirituality itself.

The use of water throughout the poem is a powerful symbolism. Larkin parallels religion and water in: ‘And I should raise in the east/A glass of water’ (Lines 10 – 11). He substitutes the blood of Christ, as presented during Holy Communion, for water. By replacing blood or wine with water, Larkin removes religion’s colour, potency and flavour. This is a very potent message, which suggests that religion is impure. Larkin is hinting that religion should perhaps be more transparent. The message being expressed is that religion is inherently corrupt due to it being man made. Water, being the pure, natural, life giving substance that it is, would be a cleansing force to rid religion of its many flaws and downfalls. ‘A furious devout drench’ (Line 9) is supportive of the idea of cleansing. The line is representative of a baptism, but the word ‘furious’ is of particular significance. The suggestion is that Larkin is angry at the state of religion, but he feels that vigorous washing with water could purify it. Larkin is suggesting that organised religion is no longer truly spiritual due to it being so strict and controlled by men. If it were given the freedom, purity and clarity of nature’s power, water, then perhaps it would be more useful and godly.

The depth of this poem is disguised somewhat by its brevity. Some other interpreters have seemed to allow as short a time for their analysis as it takes to read Water. It is easy for one to hastily and flippantly describe the work as ‘a comment on religion’ (Anderson 2004), yet it somehow falls far short of doing justice to the piece. More than simply being a comment, it is a distinct expression of an ideology. The poem gives the reader a glimpse into the mind of the poet.

To conclude, Water is an intentionally enigmatic piece. Larkin seems to toy with his reader, whether they are religious or not. The underlying message is that religion seems a foolish fancy, yet one cannot dismiss or ridicule it fully, due to the power it holds over so many people and the fact that one can never be absolutely certain whether or not God exists. Larkin seems at ease with the idea of there being a God, but not with the way organised religions manipulate this idea. A deeply religious audience may find much at fault with Larkin’s egotistical opinions of their church. An atheist reader of this poem may feel slightly disappointed that Larkin seems to hold back from a knockout blow on occasion. It is Larkin’s uncertainty, however, which makes the poem so beautiful. The lack of a totally clear-cut message mirrors the beliefs of the poet. As an agnostic, Larkin had not dismissed spirituality completely, even though he did not embrace Christianity.