I'm sorry to have come to this so late, especially as it was me who recently took time to criticise J.B., having fallen in to what could, I discover above, be called 'the Larkin Trap'. Yes I do think Betjeman is a divisive figure, although I agree with Shekhar about his technical skill.
He's the kind of figure that tells us so much about British culture in the middle part of the 20th century, and will be useful to historians. I was interested to hear Oliver's information about JB's diplomatic role- I do agree about the Cocktail parties.
It seems to me that Betjeman was essentially an ameliorating figure, part of the 'feel-good factor' that would have held classes and society together. Amongst the upper classes he was a figure of fun and affection.
I don't know how 'high' his background was, but I wonder whether Larkin's feelings towards him were governed by a cool analysis of poetry or by the sense that the society Larkin wanted to protect revered Betjeman as a reassuring old buffer/ High Church type? Larkin was the son of a Coventry Councillor, and would have been no stranger to the Cocktail Party himself, nor to the mechanics of social climbing.
My basic thesis is that the figure Betjeman became anaesthetised his poetry, rendering its technical skill somewhat redundant. This was a great pity, making him a dealer in dodgy stereotypes, a shuffler of nostalgic images. I agree again with Shekhar about 'In Westminster Abbey'. This is also one of my favourites, but it's also a noticeably patriotic poem, satirising on safe ground.
In summation of my view, Betjeman shows us how to waste a gift beautifully, to the detriment of the general poetic environment.
[This message has been edited by edeverett (edited March 05, 2003).]
|