"This Be The Verse" by Philip Larkin
Remember to read thoroughly the “Read Me First” post on this blog before responding to this post. You may discuss any—or a combination—of the following as long as it results in three (3) 5-7 sentence paragraphs.
Be sure to attach your name, and the person's name to whom you're responding, at the beginning of your responses. Comments that do not meet the minimum requirements will be deleted.
Read the poem below and answer the following questions:
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.
Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.
--Philip Larkin
- Larkin's message is fairly obvious, but why do you suppose he's showcasing this message? Is there something within th epoem itself that might give some clue as to why he feels the way he does?
- What is Larkin implying about the past, the present, and the future in l. 9-10?
- Comment on Larkin's resultion in the poem. Is this logic of the intellect or of the heart...or perhaps some odd combination of both? Explain.
Prof. Ferrante
posted by Garth Ferrante @ 11/13/2006 04:16:00 PM
13 comments
13 Comments:
To : Professor Ferrante
from: Vienna Mouzon
I feel that Philp Larkin is broadcasting this message because he feels the need to rebel against conforming to society standards. In the last verse he quotes "And don't have any kids yourself" , to present the idea of not having a family in the 1960's and 1970's is ironic. Once again the author does not want the reader to conform to society
To Professor Ferrante
From: Vienna Mouzon
The resolution that Larkin comes up with is not to reproduce. As long as man kind does not make children than they can't follow in their parents foot steps. It is very difficult for a person to not take some of the qualites of their parents. Thats why if there are no children created there is no risk for the cycle to repeat.
"A random thought"
By: Vienna Mouzon
Usage of the word "FUCK" through out this poem is used in an aggressive matter. Verse one "They fuck you up, your Mum and Dad". The text "fuck you up" refers to youth as the victim and their parents as the one who harmed them. Than verse five uses the term again "but they were fucked up in their turn" which is interupted to mean that they parents were brain washed up and they have no choice but to keep the system going. Generation after generation will be messed up and suffer from generational curses.
To: Professor Ferrante and classmates:
My explications of Larkin’s poem from reading into the text are:
The writer is definitely angry about society in general, and he is disgusted with the way that this generation looks at life in a casual manner. By saying “They fill you up with the faults they had” (L.3) implies that mom and dad are drilling old fashion rules into this generation.
Regarding the past, present and the future, Larkin is implying that during the time of mom and dad they wore hats and coats but, now if one should be seen in them, they would be considered “nerds.”
Larkin’s resolution in the poem is both logical and from the heart, because in his poem
L. 12 he mentioned “And don’t have any kids yourself.” I interpreted that he is saying, if the next generation is going to be worst that this one, then why have kids, they will be even more “fucked” up than this one in terms of respect and morale.
Hope that my explication is not too far off from the real meaning, but that’s how I looked into it.
Jean Turner
To: Prof. G. Ferrante
From: P. Sellers-Bradford
Phillip Larkin’s poem stimulates our perception by highlighting the fact that most people emulate the same behaviors they learned from their parents. Parents, in turn, have a tendency to impose similar traits that they disliked while growing up upon their offspring. Seemingly, Larkin is bitter about dysfunctional parents “at one another’s throats”, mothers and fathers verbally or physically abusive with each other. Children witnessing these attitudes most likely repeat them as well when they have a family of their own.
Larkin implies misery is handed down through ignorance using old methods of discipline. Anger imbeds itself into people because of their experiences, stores away until a later time for revelation. He suggests that an individual needs to recognize their problem and not allow it to remain dormant.
I agree with Larkin’s resolution that people with emotional instability because of their past experiences should think twice before acting in deciding to have children. They could pass on grave emotional harm and irreversible damage to their offspring if both their hearts and minds are not operating correctly.
Response to Professor Ferrante
I feel that Larkin is obviously broadcasting this message for a reason,I think the reason he feels that way is because of something that he went through with his parents that might have screwed him over and hurt him in a way that can't be described. It might be that he felt that his parents didn't love him, or it might be that he was abandoned by his parents as a child and he just doesn't want this circle to keep on going.
Loreen Hanna
Response to Vienna
I agree with you,I think that whole point of this poem is to send us a message not to have kids or in other words not to reproduce for the simple fact that he doesn't want our kids to come out like us just how we came out like our parents and so on.That is true most kids inherit a lot of qualities from their parents whether it's good or bad,but not necessarily, sometimes kids who have the worst parents with the nastiest attitude who treat them like trash end up having kids who they treat with all the respect and provide them with everything such as love, care, and great lives. The reason they do that is because they don't want to end up like their parents, and they don't want to mistreat their kids the way they were mistreated because they know they will pass it on to their kids and so on.
Loreen Hanna
Response to Jean Turner
I agree with you, I think Larkin is mad at society, he's mad at everything that's going on, he's disgusted at how everything that is going on in our society and how much worst it keeps on getting everyday. He blames the parents for that and i agree with him, we as children look up to our parents, they are our role models and we have no body else to look up to but them. We like to follow our parent's footsteps, do what they do, say what they say, and act how they act. Ater that we pass it on to our children and then they pass it on to their children. So it's really up to us to change the world and make it a better place. The first step is to change the bad qualities and habits that we have and become better people for young children to look up to,and for the future children that we will reproduce. We can't be perfect and we can't make the world a perfect place but we could make it better. We also need to start at the source which is the schools.
last comment said by Loreen Hanna
To Professor Ferrante
Fr: Mary Garcia
Philip Larkin seems to be talking about the way it was years ago, when parents were able to discipline their children. It seems that he is angry with today's society. It could be that he see's today's children doing whatever they want and parents having no control over them. Since parents can't discipline their children today in the sense of a spanking because of the government laws. Parents can't control their children so Mr. Larkins feels that it's better not to have children.
Response to Jean Turner
Fr: Mary Garcia
I Agree that Mr.Larkins is angry with today's society. If years ago when parents were able to spank their children without the government interfering children were still rebellious. Imagine what it would be for the children of our future. Today's children disrespect their parents and everyone else. They know that if their parents lay one hand on them DYFS will get involved if they report it. Therefore, children today do whatever they want and parents suffer because they have no control over them.
Response to P. Sellers Bradford
Fr: Mary Garcia
I agree that Mr.Larkins could be impling how parents were at each others throats. Always fighting and arguing in fron of their children. Even parents taking things on their children that had nothing to do with them. Years ago parents use to discipline their children by hitting them. They way children were hit years ago wasn't nothing close to a spanking but more like abuse. This is one of the reasons that the government stepped in and stopped parents from discipling their children in that way.
To Jean Turner
From P. Sellers-Bradford
I agree with Jean that Larkin exemplifies anger at its best. He probably was subjected to the things he wrote about such as having hostile parents and looking at them as old fashioned in order to do whatever he desired to do. Most of us had some things that happened to us during our childhood that we disliked. At least we had an example of what not to do when it was our turn to raise our children. In many cases the things we learned not to do help us to become better parents.
As a parent you must work very hard at controlling your temper, inappropriate learned behaviors as well as the words that spew from your lips. Most of all, you cannot make excuses that your actions are okay and blame it on your parents’ teachings. Children deserve your respect and in most cases you do not have to use harsh behavior or beat them because they understand quite well without someone harming them. It is, however, understandable that some people need to know that they did not stop reacting to their childhood once they became an adult. This is when their true feelings and the real show begins.
Post a Comment
<< Home