Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
. Here's a corner of the poet Philip Larkin's life that he kept pretty well concealed from public view in his lifetime. Then his biographer, Andrew Motion, spilled the beans; Larkin wrote racy girls' school stories under a feminine pseudonym! Shock, horror, outrage! Well, not really. Some find the stories funny and clever, some merely creepy. Others purport to find interesting links between these yarns and Larkin's mature verses. It's an amusing insight into what lay behind that po-faced exterior, of which, regrettably, no non-copyright images appear to exist. So if you know of one, let me know. Otherwise I'd be pleased if you would just review the article. Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Malleus Fatuorum

Lead

• Why is the opening "Brunette Coleman" between quotation marks?

• "Larkin's Oxford years had been a period of confused sexuality". Confused sexuality for whom? The period of for Larkin?

• "The manuscripts had been stored in the Brynmor Jones Library at the University of Hull, where Larkin was chief librarian between 1955 and 1985." I'm a bit uncomfortable about the tense there; I'd probably prefer "were stored" over "had been stored".

• above three points all addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Thereafter Larkin's career as a prose writer declined; despite repeated attempts, no further novels were published." Is it really fair to say that his career as a prose writer declined, rather than that he increasingly turned his attention to poetry? Despite repeated attempts at what? Writing or publication? It looks like it's publication that's being referred to, but my understanding is that Larkin failed to complete any further novels after A Girl in Winter, not that he failed to get them published.

• I think it is fair to say that his career as a prose writer declined, in view of his repeated and unsuccessful attempts to write novels which continued into the mid-1950s. But I agree that "completed" rather than "published" is a better summary. Brianboulton (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

• "From 1942 the character of much of Larkin's "secret" writing changed, as a result of his friendship with his fellow-undergraduate from St John's ...". Should "fellow-undergraduate" really by hyphenated?

• "After Amis's departure into the army ...". How can you depart into? Departure for the army?

Trouble at Willow Gables

Synopsis

• "The third paragraph begins by telling us that "Marie's absence is discovered", but the second paragraph has already told us that Hilary catches Margaret on a night expedition in pursuit of Marie, therefore at least Hilary must already have discovered that Marie was missing.

No, Hilary was in pursuit of Mary, who has just been mentioned as the object of her lustful desires. It's a pity Larkin didn't anticipate the possible Marie-Mary confusion, but there we are. Brianboulton (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I must admit I mixed up Mary and Marie several times, and had to keep re-reading to make sense of it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Marie is exonerated, and her £5 returned to her." I'm not fond of that "her ... her".

Commentary

• "The presence of a publisher's inkstamp on the typescript's containing wallet, indicate that the story may have been submitted by Larkin for publication. I'm afraid I don't follow that at all; is that the wallet containing the typescript? In what way does the presence of a publisher's inkstamp indicate the Larkin submitted it for publication? And finally the apparent subject (presence) is obviously singular, so it ought to be "indicates that the story ..." anyway.

• I have changed the clumsy wording. I think it is reasonable, as does the source, to infer from a publisher's stamp that the script might have been sent for publication, and returned to Larkin, though there is no further evidence. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The surnmanes of the characters, which were changed in Trouble at Willow Gables, are unaltered". Surnames?

Influences

• "Richard Canning suggests that the influence of these early works persists not only Larkin's attempts at novel-writing but in his poetry". I don't think that "novel-writing" should be hyphenated?

Sugar and Spice: A Sheaf of Poems

• "They are an early demonstrations of Larkin's talent for finding depths in ordinariness ...".

"What Are We Writing For?"

• "'Brunette' is pleading for what she calls 'the Classic Unities': Unity of Place, which is the school and its inhabitants ...". Why is Brunette in italics? "She's" called Coleman in the following paragraph anyway.

• I think you mean quotes not italics. I thought I had got rid of the quotes for all but the initial mention of the name in the main text, but I'll recheck. In the sources, "Brunette" and "Coleman" are used interchangeably. think I've more or less standardised it to Coleman, but again I'll check. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

• "They are not even valid pornography". Whose opinion is that? Diski's? The same with "Unlike serious pornographers ...". I presume that all of this material is Diski's opinion, but it perhaps ought to be made clearer.

• "In a similar vein, Richard Canning in The Independent found the Willow Gables fiction vibrant". Shouldn't Willows Gables"" be in italics?

Influences

• "The effects of Larkin's Coleman phase are clearly evident in his first novel, Jill, in which he makes copious use of Willow Gables material". As above, shouldn't Willows Gables be italicised?

• "He imagines her at Willow Gables School, and writes her long letters to her there".

• "It received better reviews than Jill, and moderately good sales". I don't think you receive sales?

• "When Marie, having broken away from the school ...". "Broken away from" seems slightly odd phrasing.

... more to follow when I've read the article properly. Malleus Fatuorum 19:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Malleus. I have dealt with the minor issues, and replied, above, to your more substantial points. I look forward to the rest of the review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm done now, looks like a great article. Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, one more, from the Writing section: "the adoption of a female persona was in line with the pose of 'girlish narcissism' that Larkin was affecting at this time". When is "at this time"? Malleus Fatuorum 04:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• All fixes done now. Thanks again, and also for your useful edits. Brianboulton (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley comments

• Lead
  • "Poet and writer" – to be Beckmesserish about it, isn't a poet a writer?

• Yes, "writer" is inclusive. But somehow, to call Larkin a "writer" seems imprecise, and to call him "a poet" neglects his fiction and his copious literary and jazz reviewing. In the circumstances I feel that the slight tautology is allowable.

• Origins
  • A bit of a tease to tell us he failed his medical without telling us why. (I see the main Larkin article doesn't mention this.)

I haven't any of the books to hand, but IIRC the reason has always been a bit vague - I got the impression that his poor eyesight was a given reason, but that a nebulous sense of unsuitability clung to him (Hence my not giving a specific reason when writing the biog section of the main article) I'm sure Motion will give as much info as he can almost-instinct 22:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motion is quite explicit: "A letter came by special delivery telling him that he had failed his army medical. His eyes had been graded four; he would not be called up" (p. 72) I've added the detail to this article, and will do the same for the Larkin biography. Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a terrible bit of fanciful false memory on my part. Sorry for that almost-instinct 21:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Writing
  • "was rapidly abandoned and never resumed, but the Coleman name was taken up" – rather effortful passives here: could be turned into active voice to advantage, perhaps.
• Trouble at Willow Gables
  • "the Sugar and Spice poetry collection" – this is the first mention of Sugar and Spice, and would benefit from a word or two here to put it in context
  • "the story follows the parameters of schoolgirl fiction" – I take an austere view of "parameters", but I see the OED has sold the pass: "Any distinguishing or defining characteristic or feature, esp. one that may be measured or quantified; an element or aspect of something; (more widely) a boundary or limit." Heigh ho!
• Sugar and Spice
  • "Ballade des Dames du Tems Jadis" – "temps", I assume
  • "Femmes Damnées" or (unlikely, second mention) "Femme Damnées"?
• Critical reception
  • "Before his death in 1985 Larkin had instructed his companion" – séances apart, it would indeed have been before. Perhaps "the year before", "some months before" or whatever it was?
  • "that broke the writing block that had afflicted" – "which" for the second "that", possibly? (even Fowler allows that)
  • "prelude to 'intensest time'" – definite article lacking here, one feels

Those are my few gleanings. A most unexpected and distinctly strange article. One can't imagine it being better done. Tim riley (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much. I have made the fixes you suggest, with the exception as noted. Thanks also for your helpful edits. Brianboulton (talk) 11:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I notice that the Lead says, "Larkin's Oxford years had been for him a period of confused sexuality and limited literary output." But he destroyed five completed novels; so "limited ... output" might be qualified by a footnote: He was very productive, he just didn't try to publish them. If he had not destroyed them, they would have been published after he became famous. Just a thought. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC) -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you give me the sources for the destruction of five completed novels written by Larkin at Oxford? I can't find any mention in Motion's biography. Brianboulton (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I find the claim that he wrote five novels during his three years studying at Oxford to be highly implausible. Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. I don't think he could possibly have written five novels in his three Oxford years, as well as the stuff we know he wrote there, and on top of that, getting first-class honours with his degree. Also, if by some miracle he had written these novels, he would surely not have destroyed them all; he was a great keeper of his unpublished stuff. But above all, why would Motion not mention these works? I'd really like to know where this information comes from. Brianboulton (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments:

Origins

• "A prolific writer since his schooldays... " - Maybe add a clarifying adjective before "schooldays" since he's still technically in school at Oxford. Or perhaps something like "since age 5" or since childhood?

• In the UK we don't consider university years as part of "schooldays", but to avoid possible confusion for my hordes of transatlantic readers I've made it "childhood". Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "a pastiche of sentimental woman's-magazine prose... " - "Women's" rather than "woman's"?

Writing

• "In his letters to Amis, Larkin maintained a straight-faced pretence that Coleman was a veritable person... " - Maybe just plain "real" instead of "veritable"?

• Could be; I'll think about it. I rather like "veritable", though. Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "a veritable person: in one letter he wrote... " - This is the third colon in this section. I'd consider a semi-colon, or am I just being tetchy?

• "Nevertheless, a week later Amis is told that Brunette was helping Larkin write a novel... " - The passive voice causes a bit of a lurch because the reader briefly wonders "told by whom"? It might be better to say "Nevertheless, a week later he tells Amis that Brunette is helping him (Larkin) write a novel... ".

Synopsis

• "She means to leave Willow Grange for good... " - Willow Gables rather than Willow Grange?

Commentary

• "Booth argues that, whatever Larkin's motive in writing it was, the story follows the parameters of schoolgirl fiction with some fidelity." - Delete "it was"?

  Certainly delete "was", but I think "it" has to stay"

Synopsis

• "Mary's ambition to play in the college hockey team... " - "In" sounds strange to these Yankee ears. Would "for" be better?

Commentary

• "Miriam was an acquaintance of Larkin's... " - This seems to be how we say it, but isn't "of Larkin's" a double possessive?

  I was uncertain about this when I wrote it. I've now resolved it by a complete rephrasing. Brianboulton (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Motion suggests that the loss of erotic impetus, and Larkin's evident loss of interest, are the main reasons why the story peters out. - In this context, "peters out" is funny, so maybe it is just right. If "peters out" was intentional, OK. If not, maybe "Fades out?"

  "peters out" is a common English (UK) expression meaning dwindling to nothing. "Fades out" has a slightly different meaning. "Dries up" might be OK, but I'd really prefer to leave it unless it will cause problems for the aforementioned hordes. Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Peters out" has that meaning here too, and everybody will understand it. What amuses my naughty self is "peter" 's vulgar secondary meaning, "penis". However, the more I think about "peters out", the better I like it. Unless Puritans begin to shout, "Put that thing away!", it should be fine. Finetooth (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, we must definitely keep it in! I'm tempted to changed the article's title to "Peters Out"...(well, maybe not). Brianboulton (talk)@

Critical reception

• "Shortly before his death in 1985 Larkin had instructed his companion Monica Jones to burn his diaries. His instructions did not cover other writings, therefore the Coleman material remained in the archives of the Brynmor Jones Library at the University of Hull, where Larkin worked as chief librarian since 1955." - I'd like the verbs better if "had instructed" were changed to "instructed" and "worked" to "had worked".

• "when Larkin's Selected Letters were published... " - "Was published" since the collection is singular?

• in his 1999 essay "Unreal Girls: Lesbian fantasy in Early Larkin" - Cap F on Fantasy?

Notes and references

• "of the 1975 Faber & Faber paperback edition" - The main text says "Faber and Faber", which seems to be what the company calls itself here.

• The notes include two more references to "Willow Grange". Should they be "Willow Gables"?

Images

• Should the date on the license page of File:Schoolgirl01.jpg be 1918 rather than 1980?

Fine article, well-illustrated. Hope these few comments prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, most helpful. If I have not commented it means I have followed your suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jappalang

Images

• Using the cover of Philip Larkin: Trouble at Willow Gables and Other Fictions as a lede image: I can see arguments for and against doing this. Firstly, all the writings of Larkin as Coleman are compiled in this book and the article describes them; however, the primary focus of this article seems at first glance (based on the title) to be the persona adopted by Larkin and not the published material. It might be semantics (change title of article to "Writings of Brunette Coleman" or "Philip Larkin: Trouble at Willow Gables and Other Fictions"?), since the material covering the persona and the writings are pretty much closely interleaved with each other.

Just the above. Jappalang (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review. I have addressed all your general points, and will deal with the images issues shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re images: I agree that your images for St John's College are all much better than the tower, which I lazily took from the college's WP article. I have replaced it with File:St johns college oxford SP5106.jpg. I have added the Project Gutenberg links to the two pics you mention. On the cover, if its fair use can only be justified by a change of title such as you suggest, I don't think it's worth it. As you seem to accept, the persona and the writings are really one and the same, and I can't see the justification becoming stronger by adopting one of what I think are manifestly weaker titles ("Writings of Brunette Coleman" is diminished by her non-existence, the other doesn't mention Brunette Coleman). For the time being I will leave things as they are. For the benefit of other reviewers who may have a view, this is the book cover in question. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]