Steven
07-03-2006, 09:55 PM
For a few reasons this poem, 'Ape Experiment Room' by Philip Larkin (Collected Poems, 1988), has always been one of my favourite Philip Larkin poems. I'd like to discuss how it serves as a discussion of our approach to sympathy and compassion for others through a masterful manipulation of tone.
'Ape Experiment Room'
Buried among white rooms
Whose lights in clusters beam
Like suddenly-caused pain,
And where behind rows of mesh
Uneasy shifting resumes
As sterilisers steam
And the routine begins again
Of putting questions to flesh
That no one would think to ask
But a Ph.D. with a beard
And nympho wife who -
But
There, I was saying, are found
The bushy, T-shaped mask,
And below, the smaller, eared
Head like a grave nut,
And the arms folded round.
One of the things that has always impressed me with Larkin's writing is his technical ability: I think he is underestimated by some critics (Greer, for instance) as being technically ordinary, yet although perhaps metrically unadventurous, Larkin's syntactical fluidity is such that he can write a poem of one sentence and yet still, within that sentence, modify the tone of the speaker with the dexterity of trapeze artist. As such, any change in the speaker's point of view can, as in this poem, seem spontaneous, evoking the way the human mind thinks about things as constantly revising ('there, I was saying') its own contentions.
At this point, I would like to look at the poem in three sections to analyse the progression of Larkin's tone in this piece, and show how it elucidates further his opinions on animal testing, and also the double-edged nature of compassion.
Buried among white rooms
Whose lights in clusters beam
Like suddenly-caused pain,
And where behind rows of mesh
Uneasy shifting resumes
As sterilisers steam
And the routine begins again
Of putting questions to flesh
For a protest poem, this stanza is at times alarmingly dispassionate in tone. The sympathy and outrage the poet feels is held in check by the disinterested description of the first two lines, broken only by 'suddenly-caused pain' that implies a recipient that anyway is cautiously omitted by Larkin (there is no direct indication as to who is 'buried among'). From a perspective point of view, Larkin almost seems to be viewing the operation from the scientists' side at this point: for instance, I notice the exact nature of Larkin's description of the medics: 'uneasy shifting resumes', 'the routine', which coldly reflect the duties themselves, as they would be perceived by a person doing the job 24/7. Larkin could be an inspector, busily poking round the building ticking a clipboard.
However, the tone turns on 'flesh', that is incidentally, the first mention of the body; at last something that is not electrical or concerned with cool implements: it awakens Larkin's anger.
That no one would think to ask
But a Ph.D. with a beard
And nympho wife who -
This could easily be batted away as hot air by a disapproving critic, which, let's face it, Larkin was prone to at times: but for me this demonstrates Larkin's skill again: 'flesh' (the body) is seen as something to be protected, and this is what this violent outburst sets out to do. The consciousness is stirred into action, is shown to be discriminatory ('nympho wife') and scattergun and flippant in its targets ('beard'). Also, we see a shift from longer vowel sounds to the short and snappy, the plosivs spitting off the page. In effect, it is an exploration of our protection of others: how it brings out the best in us (in genuinely caring), and also the worst (in that it gives rise to self-righteous, bigotted violence), leading to the supposition that almost any good action we do seems to carry a 'bad' element, something that diminishes the good intention.
And also, look at the nature of the vitriol, it seems overstated, outrageous: but really, it is the antithesis of the cool, dispassionate description of the first stanza: this shows how too much forced rationalism can lead to volcanic rage, outpourings of spite beyond what is necessary; and so, in this way, the Apollonian/Dionysian dynamic is at work in Larkin's exploration of the human consciousness.
But
There, I was saying, are found
The bushy, T-shaped mask,
And below, the smaller, eared
Head like a grave nut,
And the arms folded round.
And here is the masterstroke: we have the outburst of the second stanza followed by the shame of the third, a progression that we all experience: the tone of embarassment and clearing of the throat is evident in the isolated 'But') and the convoluted syntax of the next line that tries to stutter manners back to the fore.
From here Larkin brings home the real point of the poem, his aim to create pathos not for himself but for the apes: and so the language concerns itself almost entirely with images and not with human emotions, but unadorned simplicity. It is almost as if the poet is castigating his own preciousness. So the poem becomes 'about' not just the injustice of the apes' treatment, but our approach to compassion, our struggle to maintain its honesty and to stop it from corrupting into bigotry.
Amazingly, the poet has constructed all these diversions in tone in just one sentence: the sentence itself is incredibly simple in intention and what it reveals: it sets out to describe 'where' the apes are 'buried', and the final stanza only reveals that they are 'there'. So Larkin's sentence does not make extravagant demands on itself, it just shows a thing in its place, yet it seems to open up so many questions about the speaker's position, about compassion and our approach to it.
I hope this is just a building block for discussion of the poem itself (if anyone finds it interesting), but also if anyone else has any other examples of such excellent manipulation of tone by other poets.
Thanks,
Steven
'Ape Experiment Room'
Buried among white rooms
Whose lights in clusters beam
Like suddenly-caused pain,
And where behind rows of mesh
Uneasy shifting resumes
As sterilisers steam
And the routine begins again
Of putting questions to flesh
That no one would think to ask
But a Ph.D. with a beard
And nympho wife who -
But
There, I was saying, are found
The bushy, T-shaped mask,
And below, the smaller, eared
Head like a grave nut,
And the arms folded round.
One of the things that has always impressed me with Larkin's writing is his technical ability: I think he is underestimated by some critics (Greer, for instance) as being technically ordinary, yet although perhaps metrically unadventurous, Larkin's syntactical fluidity is such that he can write a poem of one sentence and yet still, within that sentence, modify the tone of the speaker with the dexterity of trapeze artist. As such, any change in the speaker's point of view can, as in this poem, seem spontaneous, evoking the way the human mind thinks about things as constantly revising ('there, I was saying') its own contentions.
At this point, I would like to look at the poem in three sections to analyse the progression of Larkin's tone in this piece, and show how it elucidates further his opinions on animal testing, and also the double-edged nature of compassion.
Buried among white rooms
Whose lights in clusters beam
Like suddenly-caused pain,
And where behind rows of mesh
Uneasy shifting resumes
As sterilisers steam
And the routine begins again
Of putting questions to flesh
For a protest poem, this stanza is at times alarmingly dispassionate in tone. The sympathy and outrage the poet feels is held in check by the disinterested description of the first two lines, broken only by 'suddenly-caused pain' that implies a recipient that anyway is cautiously omitted by Larkin (there is no direct indication as to who is 'buried among'). From a perspective point of view, Larkin almost seems to be viewing the operation from the scientists' side at this point: for instance, I notice the exact nature of Larkin's description of the medics: 'uneasy shifting resumes', 'the routine', which coldly reflect the duties themselves, as they would be perceived by a person doing the job 24/7. Larkin could be an inspector, busily poking round the building ticking a clipboard.
However, the tone turns on 'flesh', that is incidentally, the first mention of the body; at last something that is not electrical or concerned with cool implements: it awakens Larkin's anger.
That no one would think to ask
But a Ph.D. with a beard
And nympho wife who -
This could easily be batted away as hot air by a disapproving critic, which, let's face it, Larkin was prone to at times: but for me this demonstrates Larkin's skill again: 'flesh' (the body) is seen as something to be protected, and this is what this violent outburst sets out to do. The consciousness is stirred into action, is shown to be discriminatory ('nympho wife') and scattergun and flippant in its targets ('beard'). Also, we see a shift from longer vowel sounds to the short and snappy, the plosivs spitting off the page. In effect, it is an exploration of our protection of others: how it brings out the best in us (in genuinely caring), and also the worst (in that it gives rise to self-righteous, bigotted violence), leading to the supposition that almost any good action we do seems to carry a 'bad' element, something that diminishes the good intention.
And also, look at the nature of the vitriol, it seems overstated, outrageous: but really, it is the antithesis of the cool, dispassionate description of the first stanza: this shows how too much forced rationalism can lead to volcanic rage, outpourings of spite beyond what is necessary; and so, in this way, the Apollonian/Dionysian dynamic is at work in Larkin's exploration of the human consciousness.
But
There, I was saying, are found
The bushy, T-shaped mask,
And below, the smaller, eared
Head like a grave nut,
And the arms folded round.
And here is the masterstroke: we have the outburst of the second stanza followed by the shame of the third, a progression that we all experience: the tone of embarassment and clearing of the throat is evident in the isolated 'But') and the convoluted syntax of the next line that tries to stutter manners back to the fore.
From here Larkin brings home the real point of the poem, his aim to create pathos not for himself but for the apes: and so the language concerns itself almost entirely with images and not with human emotions, but unadorned simplicity. It is almost as if the poet is castigating his own preciousness. So the poem becomes 'about' not just the injustice of the apes' treatment, but our approach to compassion, our struggle to maintain its honesty and to stop it from corrupting into bigotry.
Amazingly, the poet has constructed all these diversions in tone in just one sentence: the sentence itself is incredibly simple in intention and what it reveals: it sets out to describe 'where' the apes are 'buried', and the final stanza only reveals that they are 'there'. So Larkin's sentence does not make extravagant demands on itself, it just shows a thing in its place, yet it seems to open up so many questions about the speaker's position, about compassion and our approach to it.
I hope this is just a building block for discussion of the poem itself (if anyone finds it interesting), but also if anyone else has any other examples of such excellent manipulation of tone by other poets.
Thanks,
Steven