Talk:Relationships that influenced Philip Larkin

Untitled

The purpose of this article was to collate information about Patsy Strang, the inspiration for several of Philip Larkin's poems. It is noteworthy, I feel, because many people study Larkin's poetry and biographical information about the subjects of his poetry is often illuminating.

That's fair enough, but the article needs a stronger opening. To identify her firstly as one of Larkin's sexual partners doesn't make her seem noteworthy. Macphysto (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Monica Jones: DOB

The date of birth given in this article is incorrect. Motion has the DOB as 8th May 1922, but the Bodleian Library records it as 7 May 1922. See: http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/scwmss/wmss/online/modern/larkin/larkin-jones.html#larkin-jones.E

Unfortunately, most of the obituaries record it as Sutherland, as 22nd May

allriskinrev — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.65.230 (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this noteworthy? / Merge?

Whether or not she contributes to an understanding of Larkin, she is solely here, as the no-nonsense introduction honestly and openly states, because she had sex with someone. Where are the articles on the Parisian prostitutes Joyce frequented? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.106.137 (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Doing a quick Google shows that many authors and reliable sources regard her as a significant part of his life; and their correspondence has proved to be very revealing and useful. The question is, though, should this material be merged with the article on Larkin, or should it remain as a stand alone? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

A merge could be a good option...? GiantSnowman 10:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It's worth seriously considering. There's already some material in Philip Larkin on his women, including Strang, but it's spread through the history section, and putting too much material there could unbalance it. There's a standalone article on Monica Jones, which contains a fair amount of material, too much for a merge - and I would have difficulty seeing that Jones has a significantly greater notability than Strang, given the intense relationship he had with Strang, and their important correspondence. My feeling is that if there was to be a merge, it would be more effective and useful to create a section in the Larkin article on his women. If the material proves to be too much for that article, then consideration could be given to having a standalone article on Philip Larkin's women, into which Patsy Strang and Monica Jones could be merged. Ideally I think it would be useful to have a dedicated section in Philip Larkin which summarises his relationships, linking to a standalone article which would be able to deal with the topic in greater depth. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Coming here after seeing the note on the Larkin talkpage. Two issues: some of the material that will belong on the pages relating to Strang et al would seem a bit irrelevant on the Larkin page itself. Secondly, the Larkin page is verging on being too long as it is: some sections of it would probably to better spun off into separate articles. My suggestions, for what its worth, would be to have a page on the women who influenced Larkin's life. The section on Monica Jones can just sum up what's on her page. I'm not sure each of these women would be in themselves notable (not that I'm a specialist on this kind of thing) - but I think its clear that the subject of Larkin and Women is very notable. I would think that such a page would need sections on

1. Larkin's mother
2. Ruth Bowman, his girlfriend/fiancee in Shropshire
3. Patsy Strang
4. Winifred Arnott, the girl he knew well, also in N Ireland, the subject of some of his poems
5. Monica Jones
6. Maeve Brennan
7. Betty Mackereth, his secretary

I hope that's helpful! almost-instinct 15:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

PS as for a title, I can imagine objections to "Philip Larkin's Women" - how about Women influential on the life and work of Philip Larkin? almost-instinct 15:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Further thought: each section would need (a) a biog of the subject (b) details their relationship to Larkin (c) which poems have been shown to relate to the subject (Sourcing that shouldn't be a problem, in my estimation) almost-instinct 15:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of sources on the matter. How I long for the days with access to my University library... GiantSnowman 16:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

What Almost-instinct says makes sense, and I would be in favour of merging Patsy Strang and Monica Jones into a standalone article and developing it along the lines suggested. I think Women influential on the life and work of Philip Larkin is rather long, and not as snappy as Philip Larkin's women, but it does seem a more appropriate title. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Create it where you feel is appropriate, and we can always have a RM in the future. One should probably redirect to the other. GiantSnowman 18:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Once the article exists I'll be happy to write something for the other women. almost-instinct 23:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Article has now been started. Monica Jones and Patsy Strang now redirect into this article, which has been renamed Philip Larkin's women - though another name could be used. Work needs to be done to improve it, and then a section created in the Philip Larkin article which summaries the women in his life, and directs readers to this article for more detailed information. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am about to be away from WP for a fortnight. Here are some sources that might be helpful: Martin Amis "Philip Larkin's women Maeve Brennan reviews a play about her PL, MJ and BM almost-instinct 12:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Off the top of my head I have written a brief biog for each of the women not yet represented. I have ordered in chronology of their becoming meaningful in Larkin's life. Sorry its so thin, but that's all I've got time for before I go away. If no one else has done so before then, I'll expand them when I return in a fortnight. Sorry not to have formatted the references :-( almost-instinct 20:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This article does not make sense as a coherent topic. The material should be merged into Philip Larkin and if longer sections are required for certain people, they can be spun off as separate articles. Grouping them into a separate article (that isn't Philip Larkin) doesn't make sense though. Kaldari (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for advice

Hi, I'm back from foreign parts. I've placed a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism, asking for guidance on what name this page should have, and on how else we should develop it. (see above for initial thoughts on the possible title) almost-instinct 15:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The title it was changed too is pretty bad. As it was stated on WP:Feminism "I'm pretty sure Larkin didn't own any women." I know it is in good faith, but, I think it should be something different. "Notable female figures in Philip Larkin's work" perhaps. SarahStierch (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! I like "Notable female figures in Philip Larkin's work" - is there anyway of getting in the point that they were influential in his life and that influence was then shown in his poetry? Another suggestion from WPF is Women associated with Philip Larkin almost-instinct 18:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is the scope limited to women? Why not Philip Larkin's relationships or Relationships that influenced Philip Larkin? (Note that my top preference is merging with Philip Larkin.) Kaldari (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Larkin page is too long already: if one page was merged into it, we would need to start spinning off other sections. (In fact I think things should be spun off from it anyway, but that's not so relevent here). As projected at the moment I can see the usefulness of this page in its giving greater detail to these important people, information which would interrupt the flow of the biographical sections of the Larkin page itself. I see your point about the gender restriction. I suppose the answer as to why this current arrangement felt natural is that (a) the only male who was influential on his life to the degree of these seven was Kinsley Amis, who obv has his own page [my own, and thus irrelevent, opinion, is that Amis does not appear as a subject in Larkin's poems in the manner these seven do - he's competition, not a muse] (b) there's been a fair amount of writing on Larkin and Women as a subject, to a Notable degree - which would perhaps suggest that the page could be titled along the lines of The influence of women on the life and work of Philip Larkin and include coverage of that writing? (Please don't read these thoughts as my trying to defend how things are - these words are merely explanation. I think we need a fair amount of discussion! Silk Tork? GiantSnowman....?) With apologies for jetlagged grammar almost-instinct 21:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but right now none of this article is about the influence of women (in general) on the life and work of Philip Larkin. Right now it's just a list of seven people who influenced Philip Larkin through his relationships with them. If the article is going to have "women" in the title, it needs to explain why. Is it just a coincidence that the seven people listed are women, or was there something unique in how Larkin perceived and interacted with women that was different than how he perceived and interacted with men? If so, the lead needs to explain that. Was the reason his father didn't influence him due to his father's gender? If so, explain. Otherwise, I don't see any reason for restricting the scope to women. We could just as easily title the article Philip Larkin's Caucasians by the current content. Kaldari (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It also looks like the Philip Larkin article currently doesn't include any information about Philip Larkin and women (as a specific subject). It does, however, prominently mention the importance of his relationships. Kaldari (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone regards this article as anything other than a tentative beginning at the moment. Hence my requesting advice so we can have a discussion almost-instinct 16:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've boldly moved the article to Relationships that influenced Philip Larkin for the time being. Other titles may work as well. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 20:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I like this, especially the slight change of emphasis: not so much on the not really notable people, as on the notable interactions :-) Does this new title suggest things that will need to go into the introduction? I did a rather basic start and am keen for thoughts on how to progress. Richard Bradford's recent book makes it clear that one can talk about the relationship between Kingsley Amis and Larkin for hundreds of pages. My feeling is that it is covered clearly enough on the Larkin page, and that biographical details are to be found on the Amis page. However maybe I've been a bit skimpy.... almost-instinct 18:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Patsy Strang

Strong words: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/23/books/review/philip-larkin-life-art-and-love-by-james-booth.html?emc=edit_bk_20141121&nl=books&nlid=52791032