|
Comment 7 of 7, added on September 29th, 2009 at 10:23 AM.
I think in the line "but it soon wears off somehow" (the novelty) "Mam were playing funerals now"... i think this suggests that they killed the animal because they got bored of it, and wanted to play a new game "funerals" hmmmmmm.
Lou from United Kingdom
Comment 6 of 7, added on June 9th, 2006 at 4:59 AM.
The animals in this poem lead lives without quality: 'On shallow straw, in shadeless glass'. They also get no sympathy or proper love. Is Larkin suggesting that this theory can be extended to the way that humans live their lives?
Larkin hated children because of the spiteful way that they treated him when he was at school. He portrays their unfeeling and unthinking nature because of their underdeveloped emotions at this stage in their life in the sections of direct speech at the end of each stanza.
His use of the colloquial word 'Kiddies' in the title is a contextual reference as this was a commonly used word in Larkin’s time as well as being derogatory because of his dislike of them.
Abel from United Kingdom
Comment 5 of 7, added on June 2nd, 2006 at 12:00 PM.
I think on a more general scale and in the context of, not just The 'Whitsun Weddings' anthology, but his poetry in general, the relevance of the poem is through its context. A poem such as this one is just another way of Larkin conveying his disdain for society, just portraying a different angle. A scholar, whose name I forget, recently wrote an essay in which he points out that the large majority of Larkin's poetry, especially in the WW anthology, is homogenous by nature, and in this light it is very easy to read each poem as one continuous text due to the strikingly similar mood and tone found in the majority of his poems (I am aware there are exceptions, as was he). Therefore, this poem is an apt addition and, in my opinion, worthy of its position in the anthology because of it. However, as an individual poem in itself, then, yes, I agree that it is anything but spectacular :)
Walker
Comment 4 of 7, added on April 10th, 2006 at 3:49 AM.
The poem length perhaps reflects the lifespan of the 'living toys' also the fact they are still children when they bury the animal also supports this.
Larkin has a negative attitude towards children, always portrayed as nagging. Afternoons for instance uses the same approach. Quite amusing for a man who never had children him self to describe them in such a negative manner. I agree that Larkin feels sympathy with the animals, when he opens the poem the first two lines contain the words 'shallow', 'shadeless' and'empty' which sound as though the animals are under nourished.
Liam from United Kingdom
Comment 3 of 7, added on December 9th, 2005 at 7:40 AM.
i believe this poem is desighned to undermine larkins need for small furry animals possibly children, and the fact he loves beastality
Bean from Cuba
Comment 2 of 7, added on March 23rd, 2005 at 6:51 AM.
well I personally hate this poem. The syntax is wrong in my opinion, as in 'As bad as a mile'. I can sum this poem up in one sentence,basically "Life is a Game"- so nothing new there then. This poem is unsurprisingly filled with alliteration, rhyming couplets, and proverbs. Not one of his greats.
louise from United Kingdom
Comment 1 of 7, added on March 18th, 2005 at 4:23 AM.
The first stanza allows you to build up sympathy for the poor animals 'huddled' in a pet shop. Then, all of a sudden, 'oh what bad children' was my immediate response when we read this poem in my A Level class! Larkin is showing a sympathy for animals, which is unexpected; you do not find him giving people the same sympathy. He is also showing the cruelty and the lack of emotion from children. One of my personal favourites.
Jenny C from United Kingdom
|
I think in the line "but it soon wears off somehow" (the novelty) "Mam were playing funerals now"... i think this suggests that they killed the animal because they got bored of it, and wanted to play a new game "funerals" hmmmmmm.
Lou from United Kingdom