We can't expect anything cheerful from Philip Larkin. Many people feel that their love was one-sided. I think it was Catullus, who said, "In love there is always the one who kisses and the one who offers the cheek." It isn't true, but to people who are disillusioned by love, it seems true.
The word 'love', when it is used in the romantic sense, has two meanings. When love describes an emotion, it is essentially one-sided. When reading a love poem one has sympathy with the recipient. There's something so oppressive about being loved intensely. What did Maud Gonne do to deserve William Butler Yeats' constant bombardment of criticism masquerading as love?
Love, the emotion, is uncomfortable state unless it changes into love, the relationship, which is a happy state of being. The Romeo and Juliet folie-à-deux isn't a happy state for lovers even when it's mutual. They place huge demands upon one another. Such relationships usually burn out because both sides are in love with a projection. What they love isn't the other person. Such lovers assign to their beloved an ideal role in their lives, then complain bitterly when the loved-one fails to follow their script.
Love, the relationship, is entirely different from the passion of falling in love. It is the sharing of one's life with another for mutual benefits, being there to help them, making sure that their needs and wants are satisfied. It's not about getting your lover to play a role for you, even though you must allow them to make you the object of their attention and concern. Dostoievski said, "It is not Hell to be unloved, but it is Hell to be incapable of loving."
Love the relationship is a joint account. Both parties pay in and withdraw assets of similar value. If there isn't equity then the relationship will fail. If one party pays in things of communal value, say attention, concern, assistance or even money - while the other party constantly withdraws and pays in nothing, then the relationship has failed - or, rather, it just doesn't exist.
This equity idea isn't an invention, it's simply the way things are. There are so many lonely hearts, so many women looking for men, so many men looking for women. What stands in the way is the paradigm of an ideal partner, a role that nobody will audition for and nobody could play anyway.
Rule 1. Don't pay in much more or less than the other person.
If you have a fancy for a girl, do her a small favour. At one time if a girl liked you, she would give you the opportunity. She would drop her handkerchief or her books. When she expresses gratitude invite her to go for a drink and a ten minute chat. Nothing more than that.
Don't pay in or withdraw more than is appropriate or you'll ruin the relationship. Most budding romances are ruined by one party coming-on too strong, too soon.
Rule 2 Don't screw it up
Love, the relationship, grows in strength by the exchange of small tokens of affection and intent. The problem here is that tokens can be counterfeit, empty expressions of emotion that you don't feel, pleasantries and white lies. If you want true love, then the tokens you exchange must be genuine. If honesty ruins the affair then at least you didn't waste more precious time.
Talk to her, find out the essentials. Mostly. does she seem to be subscribing to a relationship with you? The signs of subscription may be small, such as proximity, body language and eye-contact.
Withdrawal is an important part of progress, which might seems contradictory but it is true. There's always a period of testing. How you deal with setbacks is critical. She doesn't want too much of your company too soon. Just imagine how you'd feel if she kept turning up on your doorstep. If she pays in, then you pay in too, but if she withdraws her affection, then you pull-out by the same amount.
If she says, "I can't come out on Thursday, I'm washing my hair", then the correct reply is something like, "Well okay, I promised my mother I'd mow her lawn. And the kids down at the hospital are expecting me to amuse them Friday evening. How about Tuesday?" Don't lie: you should have other important things to do. she shouldn't be your whole existence.
There are no other rules.
Look after her needs and let her look after yours. If she does something nice, respond with something nice. Anticipate her needs. Relationships depend on how useful the parties are to one another. This seemingly unromantic remark is nothing less than the plain truth about all relationships. People don't judge you by what you say or do, they go by how you make them feel.
If she wants freedom, let her have it. Love is giving her what she wants, so what other choice do you have? Love, like happiness, is eventually nothing but set of good habits.
The painting is "Woman At A Piano" by Giovanni Boldini, 1870.
Loading...
You take a gloomy view of love. Surelythe problem with the Veronese delinquints was that they had barely reached puberty. Sexis wasted on the young and relationships need bottle age
ianskidmore 1 year ago
wonderful poem! and oh so true...
"It is not Hell to be unloved, but it is Hell to be incapable of loving."
Thank You so much for this! I'm afraid we tend to forget about this in the overwhelmind self-pity sometims... as long as it hurts, it is alive...
sourissourissouris 2 years ago
I've never heard of Philip Larkin. This is my first experience. It's lovely and sad.
I love the choice of illustrative painting, also. It's a surprisingly lively piece for the Impressionist style, especially with a woman as the subject -- aren't women supposed to lounge around languidly on the sofa or the lawn?
crywalt 2 years ago
i absolutely adore your readings larkin, they always sound exactly as they should
TomRAFC 2 years ago
wow!!! Soooo good! -C
scifiwritir 2 years ago
The poem that turned me on to Larkin; I think it was that rime between 'chord' (musical notes blend) and 'word' (words will only stick together).
And I never find it as bleak as most readers. This love 'had not done so then/ And could not now'. There is a tiny amount of wriggleroom there: perhaps a different type of love might have succeeded then, and now alike.
Larkin may not be saying love is incapable, only the kind of love he has seen.
'An Arundel Tomb' may be a revisiting of the topic.
thallassocracy 2 years ago