Comparing Poet Laureates: Ted Hughes and Philip Larkin

The plain idea of Poet Laureates goes time and back to history, the term was first allowed in England in the seventeenth century for poetic perfection. In the United States, a comparable position was made in 1936. In the past times, it was a custom passed on until the demise of the selected poem laureate (by the king or the queen or the ruler) who served in as the official poet and composed wonderful verses for the important occasions. Presently, it's a simple salaried job. Its holder is an individual from British regal family who has come to be free of particular obligations that were to be done in before times. The holder is now basically required to just prepare poems if something extremely essential happens – for example, on the occasion Prince William getting married. This tradition was considered to be a job for life until, on the death of Ted Hughes in 1999, Andrew Motion was appointed for a fixed term of 10 years.

Ted Hughes became Poet Laureate in 1984 after the death of John Betjeman. It was believed after John’s death Philip Larkin would take over the position, but he put the offer down due to his health conditions and just after that Ted Hughes was appointed as the new Poet Laureate of the British Crown by the queen. Since the Queen appointed him, it was necessarily a good choice. But some people still had oppositions and they further remarked that the post was not occupied by the most brilliant poet of the generation, this perhaps lead to a huge controversy all around between the chosen poet Laureate Ted Hughes and Larkin, who refused to be the Laureate. Ted Hughes knew the implications of accepting this offer, beforehand. He realised that it wouldn’t be long enough of time when he was burnt in figure. According to him honours are only the prelude to insults. While Hughes received an allowance of £70 per annum with a 42-gallons of Canary wine as a poetic Laureate. All that Philip Larkin had to say, whether out of jealousy or just a statement was-‘ of course, in a sane world Ted would not be Poet Laureate; he'd be the Village Idiot’ The joke was greeted by apparently discomfited laughs, which so often in England are the conformist disguise of an all too sincere feeling of hilarity. Ted Hughes would later say that Philip Larkin could not have been Poet Laureate himself in truth, because politically he leaned too much to the right. By now, Hughes was certain that the chance had a little part in his rendezvous, which was rather an acknowledgement of the actuality that he was exactly built-in for the purpose of official poet of the English realm. He saw that there was a link between his role and that of the sovereign. Ted Hughes, after all, was a convinced monarchist. He would say in a famous short poem that the nation was a soul and this soul a wheel of which the crown was a hub to keep it whole. To have the title of Poet Laureate conferred on him was to accede to a position that was equivalent to that of a shaman in certain primitive societies. His mission, he believed, was to intervene, on the suggestive plane of myth, to take care of the collective unconscious of his contemporaries and, if possible, to influence it through his poems.

In February 1985, he wrote Rain-Charm for the Duchy, in which he had envisioned, from the dead of winter, a mid year storm breaking on the Duchy of Cornwall to praise the immersion of Prince Harry. Ruler Charles and Princess Diana had sent him a letter stating how much they cherished his poetry.

However, the poems he wrote as laureate, collected in Rain-Charm for the Duchy And Other Laureate Poems, are frequently reprimanded and have been reproached in a few quarters for their unquestioning patriotism. Indeed, even a superficial look at Hughes' Laureate lyrics proposes that his patriotism was sincere and completely genuine. He ended up laureate at a troublesome time for the government. The Royal Family, as Hughes portrays it, is the country's bolster in troublesome occasions, a center around which the entire nation spins. It could be contended that he is keeping in touch with the Royal Family: the poems can be viewed as exclusive's tribute to an extraordinary foundation and its living representative.

Philip Larkin, poet of the post-World War II, attempted to catch basic experiences in reasonable terms. His poetry abstains from romanticizing and moves away from the abstract. He has regularly been seen as a dismal poet, skeptical and negative about on-goings. Additionally it is said that Larkin sees Ted Hughes and Dylan Thomas as his British adversaries. Larkin, unlike Ted Hughes and Dylan Thomas was never a Poet Laureate. Many felt he should have been offered the post in 1972, however John Betjeman was favored and later after his passing Larkin needed to reject the position because of his poor health conditions. In 1982 Larkin stated that “poetry” and “sovereignty” are both “very primitive things”, I like to think about their being joined along these lines, in England". Larkin further created poems in wonderful melodic refrains which were seen and understood clearly by all. He additionally expounded on the dread of death, better than any other individual.

Philip Larkin, poet of the post- World War II, tried to capture simple experiences in realistic terms. His poetry avoids romanticizing and moves away from the abstract. He has often been viewed as an ominous poet, misanthropic and pessimistic about goings-on. It is also often said that Larkin finds Ted Hughes and Dylan Thomas as his British rivals. Larkin unlike Ted Hughes and Dylan Thomas was never a Poet Laureate. Many felt he should have been offered the position in 1972, but John Betjeman was preferred and later after his death Larkin had to decline the post due to his deteriorating health conditions. In 1982 Larkin asserted “I like to think of their being united in this way, in England”. Larkin produced poems in beautiful musical verses which were understood clearly by all. He also wrote about the fear of death, better than anyone else.

It is learned about Larkin that he was an atheist, although he liked going to the church. He purchased a book of scriptures (bible) and viewed it as "all balls". He rejoiced at this statement of his which was an ultra-conservative comment and was considered politically flawed by everybody, with the exception of he-himself. Aside from this non constructive quality he seemed to have compassion with common individuals. He wrote on the inept sentiments of adoration that he- himself and numerous other individuals experienced when looking round old churches while not being able to believe in God.

The poem “Going, Going” by Philip Larkin was written in 1972 and it shows the way people handle nature in the past and present. It also shows what will become of England in future in the eyes of the speaker. He loved the country churches which knit the English landscape together. In his only positively charged poetic use of the word 'England', in Going, Going, he deplores pollution and urban sprawl: “And that will be England gone, / The shadows, the meadows, the lanes, / The guildhalls, the carved choirs. ” But, eloquent though this poem is, he derided it in a letter as “thin ranting conventional gruel”. What really moved him about churches was not nostalgia for an archaic England, but the fact that “so many dead lie round”.

Larkin passed away in 2011, with a memorial in Westminster Abbey. After his death, Alan Bennett wrote in his diary: “Though Hughes fits the popular notion of what a poet should be, many more of Larkin's writings have passed into the national memory. ” Both the poets had different ideologies and often wrote their poetry’s in accordance to their preferred subjects. But it can also be inferred that their poetry had some common elements. To elaborate on this point further, let’s take the example of Hughes Laureate poem ‘Rain-charm for the Duchy’ and Larkin’s ‘The Whitsun Weddings’, through these poems we can very closely examine the structural similarity in the usage of the words by both the poets. In a way, Hughes poems can be read as a partial rewriting of Larkin’s poems. The evidence of accuracy in this statement can be seen in the poems- as the ‘rain’ that ends in The Whitsun Wedding, and ‘sousing’ in water in Larkin’s poetry appear again as the turbulent downpour to celebrate the christening of Prince Harry. Moreover, some phases such as ‘bunting-dressed & coach party annexes’ from Larkin’s The Whitsun Weddings change to become the ‘tourist bunting’ in Ted Hughes poem Rain-Charm for the Daddy. Various other connections are also visible clearly, like of the usage of word ‘Swelling’ in The Whitsun Weddings and ‘Tors’ in Rain-charm for the Daddy. Larkin’s word swelling indicated the possibility of future breeding for the wedded couple whereas, Hughes uses the word tors originated from the Latin word ‘torus’ which means a swelling or bulge or cushion.

One of blogs celebrating Ted Hughes and Philip Larkin’s states – “In the world of poetry, Philip Larkin and Ted Hughes are not necessarily obvious compatriots. In many ways the poetry they wrote was markedly different. Yet the two poets, both beloved and revered by readers, did have something in common – they were born just days apart in August. Larkin was born on the 9 August 1922 and Hughes was born eight days and eight years later on the 17 August 1930. Another thing the poets would have in common for much of their life was Faber & Faber.”