The Meaning of Recognition (16 page)

Permit me to add that
Winter Spring
is still very much available from the Pete Atkin website. During a recording session for BBC radio’s
Loose Ends
I thrust a copy of our
cruelly neglected disc on Tony Bennett. Ever the gentleman, he examined its cover carefully, in the manner of a Japanese executive taking pains not to insult the owner of a proffered business card
by putting it into his pocket after too brief an interval. For all his politeness, it was a doomed move on my part, which I could have compounded by telling him that I had managed to write a whole
article about popular singers without even once mentioning him, the most scrupulous technician of the lot. Katie Melua was in the studio too. It was the first time I had heard her sing, and her way
with the words made my tiny eyes moist with gratitude. Diana Krall had already affected me the same way. On a flight to Australia I watched a video of Krall’s Paris concert three times in a
row. The following year she sold out the Albert Hall for a week. How marvellous that what we thought was gone should come back with confidence, and find an audience even among the young.

Before explaining my belief that Jack Nicholson is the only choice to play Philip Larkin on screen, I should pay tribute to how well Tom Courtenay plays him on stage. A one-man
show that had the audience at the Comedy shouting its approval on opening night,
Pretending To Be Me
has a booby-trap for a title. When Larkin coined that phrase, he wasn’t saying
that he was short of a personality. He only meant that he didn’t want to waste his time, effort and creative energy on making public appearances to bolster the career of the famous name he
had accidentally become by writing poems quietly at home. (Now, post mortem, someone else is doing it for him: a paradox we might have to examine.) Luckily Tom Courtenay, the principal deviser of
the show, is well aware that Larkin, whatever else he was short of, was never short of a sense of self. If he wound up as a reclusive curmudgeon, it was a role he chose for himself and studied with
relentless application from quite early on: an act of assertion if ever there was one. With appropriate decisiveness if implausible aplomb, Courtenay’s Larkin is up there like Judy Garland at
the Palladium. After the third encore, Judy would promise, or threaten, that the evening wasn’t over yet (‘I could sing all night!’) A two-hour monologue from Larkin, all of it
drawn from his marvellous prose except when studded with his incomparable poetry: what could be more riveting? And what could be less likely?

There, of course, lies the show’s first and most glaring problem with verisimilitude. In real life, holding forth at length always rated high on the list of things Larkin could never be
imagined doing. A weekend in Acapulco with Julie Christie: perhaps yes. But a long uninterrupted speech? Not a chance. The only reason he would ever talk for more than two minutes at a stretch was
his fear that if you said something he wouldn’t understand it. He was deaf. The life that had begun with difficulties in speaking ended with difficulties in hearing. Courtenay retains a hint
of the stammer, but uses it as a device for varying the pace and emphasis in a flow of speech that Larkin could never have contemplated. His prose gives us the sense that he could talk like that,
but good prose always does, and great prose can almost be defined as the illusion of what can be said concentrated until it sings. Larkin wrote the way he did because he could never talk that way.
So the piece rests on an anomaly: reticence on the rampage.

Luckily the theatre, despite Brecht’s best efforts, remains a place where we are content to fool ourselves by accepting the patently anomalous. The experimental writer B. S. Johnson once
told me that he didn’t think Shakespeare’s plays were up to much, because real people do not speak poetry. B. S. Johnson is no longer with us, and Shakespeare remains the experimental
writer that counts. Similarly, nobody in real life speaks continuously for hours on end unless he is Fidel Castro: but whereas Havana is full of people who wish he wouldn’t, and Miami full of
people who wish he hadn’t, we wish that other people would. Larkin was already near the head of that wish-list before we first-nighters entered the theatre, some of us well armed with
memories of every word he had written; but others, presumably, not.

The curtain opened on a set consisting of nothing except a few boxes pretending to be the packed goods Larkin had just moved from one Hull house where he was reasonably content to another Hull
house that he hated on sight. Postponing the task of unpacking the ‘specially chosen junk’ that he once evoked in a poem, he began by speaking prose. Clearly he would speak the prose
well. How well he would speak the poetry remained to be heard. The prose was cunningly spliced together from articles, interviews and letters. I could spot nothing that had been posthumously
invented for the occasion. This was a mercy, because it would have stood out like a Big Mac at the Last Supper. Courtenay brought to the prose a commendable respect for its tone and rhythm. He
varied both without notably distorting either, and apart from a few physical effects he held the attention by the quality of the words alone. (Except for one member of the audience who had attended
the event in order to die of diphtheria, there was scarcely a cough all evening.) Admittedly some of Courtenay’s physical effects were a bit weird. Prominent among them was his periodic
adoption of a wide-legged, knee-trembling, goal-covering stance as if he had suddenly been required to save a penalty from David Beckham. But the only real question about his delivery arose over
the poems, and even that question, except at one telling point, was not about the way he spoke them. Last week in this paper Hugo Williams, who had attended a preview, properly raised a general
objection to the way actors recite poems. No mean reciter himself, he was well qualified to speak, and he was right. Most actors do bury the rhymes, mangle the rhythms, and comprehensively ruin the
poem by trying to put emotion in instead of just contenting themselves with getting it out. But Williams left it politely vague as to whether Courtenay himself was included in this indictment.

I think he should have said specifically that Courtenay wasn’t. All of Larkin’s poems invite recitation. Even the big poems whose long stanzas would resist being spoken in a single
breath always invite you to try. Courtenay was good even with ‘The Whitsun Weddings’, which is a very hard number to read aloud, because it stretches single sentences over rhymed and
rhythmic frames to an extent that Yeats himself, though he pioneered the practice, never pushed quite so far. While making every poem flow like a spontaneous utterance, Courtenay was careful to
respect the punctuation, which includes the line-endings, each of them doubling as the phantom comma that a thespian in quest of conversational naturalism typically leaves out. Courtenay’s
respect for syntax was immaculate, sometimes to the point of pedantry. On the last line of ‘An Arundel Tomb’ (‘What will survive of us is love’) he hit the word
‘us’ as if we who are alive were being contrasted with the figures on the tomb. Professor Ricks has made a case for this possible stressing as part of the last line’s putative
complexity. But if Larkin had meant that, he would have found a way to stress the point that left less room for Professor Ricks to crash the party. The word to hit is ‘survive’, because
we are being included, along with the effigies, in the contention that our only immortality might consist of a remembered gesture. (The ‘might’ is covered in the penultimate line:
it’s only
almost
an instinctive belief, and it’s only
almost
true.) But an actor who can get your mind working about textual points like that isn’t doing too
badly, and we can be sure that for listeners coming fresh to Larkin it wasn’t the quibbles that mattered: it was the imagery, sent over the footlights like an arrow shower, and right there
becoming rain. On the whole Courtenay read the poems better than I ever hoped to hear them read. That wasn’t the problem.

The problem with the poems – the second problem of verisimilitude dogging the production – was with the spontaneity, not the utterance. Mercifully never preceded by a drum-roll or
postluded by a curtsey for applause, each poem seemed to arise from the surrounding prose, which Courtenay was successfully endeavouring to make sound as if it was being thought up on the spot. The
result was that the poems sounded as if they were being thought up on the spot too. If Larkin had been capable of that, either his entire poetic output as we now have it would have been composed in
a fortnight, or else he would have spent his lifetime making the torrential Victor Hugo look like the parsimonious Ernest Dowson. But Larkin had to work hard at his craft, and the demands of that
work defined his life. In Courtenay’s all too accomplished readings, the poetry was respected but the real career, that of poet, was diminished. A poet with Larkin’s fanatical standards
of quality control must spend a lot of time waiting. Even while he works, he might spend hours trying to fit a single phrase in the right spot. Sometimes Larkin spent decades trying: a long
patience. There could be no activity less dramatic, but some attempt might have been made to dramatize it. Courtenay could scarcely have paused for a month or so before reciting each poem. A less
impossible device might have been for him to recite one of the poems that Larkin eventually abandoned for want of a single line, and then to supply an appropriate line of prose that might point
that fact out. But even in the absence of any means to show the length of time involved in composition, it should have been possible to indicate that the poems had been composed in a way the prose
wasn’t. (Actually the prose took time too, but much less of it.) Lighting effects are the obvious answer, and at the climactic point, near the end of the show, when Courtenay’s recital
of the magisterial ‘Aubade’ marked the oncoming finale of a night out and of a man’s life, a lighting effect was actually used. Everything went dark around him, to make him look
isolated, instead of just alone.

The upside of this was that one of Larkin’s supreme achievements was put in a separate frame. The downside was that Courtenay felt inspired to go for broke. For one almost fatal moment the
extraordinary actor became an ordinary actor. Suddenly transforming himself into a human loud-hailer, he ranted a phrase that was begging to be whispered. I won’t mention which one it was,
because I very much hope that he changes his mind about this initiative, which added colour to the poem only in the way that the uninvited arrival of a circus barker would add colour to a funeral.
By then, luckily, the success of the evening was beyond sabotage even from himself. Against all the odds, he had given us the old curmudgeon’s tough love of language, the deep secret of his
acerbic charm. The question of whether some of the uncharming stuff had been disingenuously left out, however, lingered in the air, even as we stomped and cheered. This was the third problem of
verisimilitude, and the one that mattered most.

If some of the critics have been tepid about the show, this problem was their main reason. They have a point. There are cats out of the bag, and Courtenay put them back in. Larkin the pornophile
is only fleetingly present, and funny when he is. He complains with disarming bitterness about the way his new television set fails to provide the flood of filth he was threatened with before its
purchase, and there is a suggestion that his interest in well-developed schoolgirls might include their corporal punishment. But the pile of treasured top-shelf publications that he might have
produced from one of the crates – just to check that they had not been injured in transit – is not forthcoming. As for his racism, the point is raised only by implication, and solely in
his favour. He plays records by Louis Armstrong and Billie Holiday on his obsolescent radiogram, and dances about in silent ecstasy to the music. The implication – and it would have been the
right inference to draw – is that the man who was supposed to dislike blacks was grateful to black musicians for having made his life more bearable.

But to deal with the point fully would require at least two more elements. One of them would be a recital of his poem ‘For Sidney Bechet’, in which the great saxophonist is saluted
as the exemplar of all joyous creativity, the man of genius to whose eminence Larkin the mere poet can only aspire. No true racist would be capable of such homage. But in fairness to all the black
Britons who do not play jazz, there would have to be a set of quotations from the bigotry that cropped up in letters he wrote to close friends. I think a fair view of Larkin’s prejudices is
that he disliked multiculturalism because it altered his bolt-hole version of England, and that he could no more stand alteration than an institutionalized prisoner can stand being issued with a
new cup; but there can be no doubt that the way he said so is unpleasant to read, and doubly so because it comes from him. If those remarks were quoted, however, you would also need a disembodied
voice to explain that among his circle of unshockable correspondents, to write shocking things was a sport, and that in his public life as a librarian and a literary figure it was unknown for
Larkin to be less than courteous to anybody of whatever gender, creed or colour. The disembodied voice, which would need more time on the public address system than Courtenay has on stage, would
have to go further, raising the issue of whether or not Larkin made a mistake when he failed to engineer the bonfire of his private papers that he often contemplated. He was an archivist by nature,
but he might have foreseen that his impulse to preserve would injure his reputation as a poet after his death. He didn’t care about his career in the usual sense of the word, but about his
poetic reputation he cared passionately. Yet he would have had to be clairvoyant to guess that his literary executors, by showing us his prejudices, would open the door for a rush of dunces.

The diligence of the executors was perhaps foreseeable. The zeal of the dunces was something else. Invited to attack the man, they have downrated the poet as well, and though the absurdity of
this disparagement must eventually become apparent, in the meantime it will serve to ensure that the world’s path to the better mousetrap he built becomes an obstacle course. As Hugo Williams
noted last week, Bonnie Greer,
per media
the
Mail on Sunday
, recently instructed us to stay cool on the subject. In her view, there was no need to worry about Larkin the racist,
because Larkin the poet was not very good anyway. So in her view there was no real problem. Bonnie Greer’s sensitivity to poetry could be assessed when she appeared in an episode of BBC
2’s
Essential Poems (To Fall In Love With)
and gave her assigned poem the kind of working over calculated to make Hugo Williams take up gardening. Nevertheless, or all the more, she
needs to be told that there is a problem after all. Philip Larkin really was the greatest poet of his time, and he really did say noxious things. But he didn’t say them in his poems, which he
thought of as a realm of responsibility in which he would have to answer for what he said, and answer forever. He also thought there was a temporary and less responsible realm called privacy. Alas,
he was wrong about that. Always averse to the requirements of celebrity, he didn’t find out enough about them, and never realized that beyond a certain point of fame you not only don’t
have a private life any more, you never had one. But for treating these themes in
Pretending To Be Me
there is neither time nor room. They would have to be raised in class. Ideally it
would be a literature class in which race relations might occasionally be discussed, but the rule of dunces may soon ensure that it will be a race relations class where literature is occasionally
discussed, and only as evidence for the prosecution.