Philip Larkin - Toads Revisited - Analysis. Poetry Lecture by Dr. Andrew Barker 

Nicely done! It is a pleasure to hear a professor explain a poem without getting overly technical or philosophical and yet shed perfect light on the poem. The poem is quite powerful, sad, excellently depicting an unsatisfying life and as morbid as my own life.

You make it fun learning poetry. I hope I can make reading poetry a hobby by watching your videos even though English isn’t my first language. It’s kind of fun now.

Amazing insight into the Irish psyche. Clear and crisp. Andrew barker has a gift for teaching.

Why do not more people like these videos? They are awesome! Many thanks :)

A really clear and interesting discussion. Fresh delivery, good explanation, useful analysis. Great insights for students of literature.

Wonderful! This is my new favorite youtube channel. Thank you for these excellent videos.

thank you very much

Thank you Dr. Andrew!

Detailed and thorough explanation. Extremely helpful. Thankyou.

I'm warming to Dr. Barker. He's rather hunky.

I love your lectures, warts and all. Sorry if I sound like a toady.

Thank you very much. This analysis helps me understand better the general tone of some of Larkin's poems as well as organise the analysis. The lecture was incredibly useful.

The main message of the poem is that we have a distorted opinion of unemployment.The opening stanza suggests that not working is complete.However, the first word of the following stanza is 'blurred' which suggests that this notion is delusional. Alternatively it is the idea of the narrator at work, thinking of the faint enticements of infinite spare time. The half rhyme between; 'noises and nurses' suggests the desire is whole but it is actually only half of what we dream of. In my opinion, the reader must have read Toads in order to fully understand this follow up poem. He seems to have realized that without work whilst living off "windfalls and tinned sardines" you will not get through life happily however you will walk down "cemetery road" alone. This poem is a much more mature approach towards the ideas surrounding work and Larkin seems to have realized, without work what else will aid us to our final chapter, so to speak.

Wonderful explanation. Thanks a lot.

In Toads, we can see that Larkin hopes that he is able to discard his security from his job and pursue what he wants and is forbidden to do so by his conscience. He celebrates middle class people’s lives at the same time criticises them. There is no solution or much improvements in his working life, his dissatisfaction remains unresolved but manages to find an extra reason to stick to his routine life. His dreams and ideals are shattered by the reality, this struggling mentality or the toads is what commonly shared and understood among middle class people at the the time. While reading Toads Revisited, it is hard to neglect his presence within the poem for his close observations towards middle-class people. The way he describes the middle class people is more like a tourist who is in the park for the first time, finding the ordinary scene somewhat distinct. He does not seem to involve in the middle-class lives and differentiate himself from people who lost their working abilities, however, he himself is just a normal middle class man who is living with nothing but work.

Thank you so much for such great insight! your explanation has helped me a lot. RESPECT!!

I thought the black-stockinged nurses meant nannies, given that this is a production piece of the 60s.

Somebody please help me here. The lines, "When the lights come on at four At the end of the coming year?" Dr Barker mentioned something about New Year resolutions. I can't figure how this relate to the verses. Light don't come out at four? - am or pm? Why there is a question about "coming year." Thanks in advance. I studied in Hull University in 1986. I missed seeing Larkin by one year, I think

The "old toad" brings to my mind "Toad of Toad Hall" - in his latter years, slowed down. Exasperating, but lovable. The toads of "Toads" were monsters; the toad of "Toads Revisited" has mellowed into a cartoonish companion.

Good lecture. Some points and questions raised by the poem for me were: 1) The line, "Being one of the men / You meet of an afternoon," recalls Prufrock. 2) These toad poems seem quite comic. You mention comedy in your explanation of perfect rhyme. Is there any chance the comic element pushes the poem over into irony? Is he channeling a voice here? 3) The word "lobelias" seems to refer back to the first toad poem with its L words, especially "loblolly boys". 4) The "characters in long coats / deep in litter baskets" - that choice of word 'characters' actually seems to signal a small amount of respect.

The previous 'Toads' seemed like the poet was confused and unsettled about his own work. However, the persona in 'Toads Revisited' seems more secure and accepted his reality. He avoids the toad that he hated taking a day off and spends his time in the park like the folks that he talked about in the poem 'Toad' doing nothing, but he says that the place isn't for him. 'They don't end as paupers, they seem to like it, and no one actually starves' all changes to 'think of being them!'. He reveals negative perception or even hostility of those kind of life style/people who seem like do not put any effort to toad work. Walking around the park and watching those people who dodge toad work and being weak and stupid to strive working in his perspective, he realizes and feels that he doesn't want to end up living like them. Even if he didn't like the toad work that squats on his life, he finally admits in the final stanza that he cannot live without working, probably his vocation. It was funny to see how his perception changes but since the gap between two poems is 9 years, I guess the second poem was written after Philip gained somewhat higher position on his job and got more stabilized. Even if he once disliked his work but he had to admit the fact that the toad was like his destiny that he could do well and it even supported him in various ways throughout his life.

In the ‘Toads’, he tried to escape from ‘Toads’, but after nine years, in the'Toads Revisited' , he still complains about his work, this situation makes me so interesting. Actually I think he could make some difference or he has the ability to change this situation, but he did not. I think nine years could change a lot of things, he could have enough funds to turn the occupation, he could tender his resignation, but he didn’t. so why he still insists on this occupation. I think in nine years, he realized: he has time to write poetry, he has time to enjoy the sunshine in the park, he has time to observe others. He realized his work are much easier, and he was more fortunate than others. Eventually ‘toads’ won, and he has resigned himself to the fact.

After reading this, I still do not know what would suit him then. After 9 years after "Toads", he was still complaining about his work. But when he got a day's rest from his work, he was complaining about the rest he could get from his "boring and hating" job. What did he really want then? In the end, we knew that he preferred to have a work rather than none but that is just reality and he did not want that but he had to do it. But what did he want? I think that this was the 2nd "toad" in himself was still actively affecting him. His character flaw still affected him. He still looked down on people which he did not want to be associated with the people that lingered in the park. So for me, when he said "Give me your arm, old toad", it was not him (the poet) talking but the 2nd "toad" in his heart. The use of imageries are good in both poems, but here it was somehwhat comical which these are what we associate as the pople in the park. But I have a question. Did he work until his death in this job? If it was, it was a really sad one because he did worked until his death in this job as suggested in the final stanza, which it also meant that the toads won. The toad (work) crushed his life and the toad (character flaw) was afraid to leave this job.

Larkin pretty much sees himself above all and looks down on everyone even though he is as stuck as everyone else. Isn't he basically in the park escaping work just like everyone else? And for me, I think it's not the matter of preference between a life with and without work, but more of a resignation that this is the only way, as work is the only company he has and always will have. There's a lot of connotation of loneliness and miserable emotions surrounding the park, which is supposedly to be a place for gathering and fun. Yet all he could see were people having monotonous life, with no friends. The phrase "empty chairs" is actually pretty interesting as it indicates there were once friends, so maybe he is suggesting the only company that will always stick with me is the old toad, and I might as well enjoy the company, at least it won't leave him.

In the ‘Toads Revisit’, his perception of work and attitude to work does undergo a subtle change when compared to that of nine years ago. However, in fact he still does not like his job and cannot find any ways to escape from the exterior and interior toads. He cannot imagine being one of those ‘men’ who are old and have nothing to do. He just don’t want to be live like them, just doing nothing and wasting all the rest of time. Put it in another way, he realizes that he does not willing to end up living like those people in the garden. At that moment, he might think that kind of living style is much more awful and unacceptable than having a ‘boring job’. He just realize how awful it is if one just cannot find anything to do. The life of doing nothing will be horrible and miserable. He might prefer to continue to do his work rather than be one of the people in the park. He in the end realizes that he have to work until he died and accept this kind of cruel fact. And he might begin to accept that a life which involved a great deal of hard works and the exterior or interior toad which is squatting all over his life is not bad at all and it is bearable.

I see the internal toad - ‘something sufficiently toad-like/ squats in me’ as the false belief that he and so many of his working class readers share: that through honest work one could realise one’s dreams of having ‘the fame, the girl, and the money.’ And I think in the poem Larkin is trying to make out a case for those people such as himself (as a librarian) who work very hard to get by against those who ‘live on their wits’ and those who ‘live up lanes.’ In the poem Larkin describes work as toad - ‘the toad work’ - that is not only unattractive, but also barbaric and base like ‘the brute.’ It has made life miserable for him because he has to work - ‘soil’ - ‘six days of the week.’ If work is so poisonous, why doesn’t he simply resign his job and find another one like those, say lecturers, who ‘live on their wits’? Surely he believes he’s in possession of such wit, as evidenced by his saying that ‘can’t I use my wit as a pitchfork/ And drive the brute off?’ Or why can’t he be one of those homeless people who ‘live up lanes.’ As he says, ‘they seem to like it’ and ‘no one actually starves.’ For me, what’s holding Larkin back are his hopes and aspirations, which, he knows ‘all too well’, can only be realised through hard work. And it is this internal toad, this deeply held belief, that stops Larkin from using his wit as a shortcut to ‘blarney’ his way of ‘getting the fame and the girl and the money.’ Larkin doesn’t want a life like those living on their wits because they are essentially losers - ‘losels’ - and they wouldn’t end up having the money as he wishes - even though ‘they don’t end as paupers.’ And surely he wouldn’t want to be a homeless person because he wants more than subsistent living - he wants a decent life with ‘the fame and the girl and the money.’ Whether hard work can indeed make the ‘dreams’ come true is debatable; but I think it is a belief that many, who have jobs that they don’t see as particularly inspiring, hold on to so that they can carry on with their lives - even if they know somehow it may not be true. After all, what is left of their work if they abandon this belief? And this dilemma is best explained with the last two lines of the poem: ‘when you have both/ it’s hard to lose either.’ If Toads is about what to become, then Toads Revisited is about what not to become. In Toads Larkin doesn’t deny the fact that those living on their wits and living up lanes aren’t doing so bad, as they ‘don’t end as paupers,’ ‘they seem to like it,’ and ‘no one actually starves’; it’s just that his life is potentially better. However, in Toads Revisited, he quite openly attacks those who he thinks don’t work as hard as he does, accusing them of ‘dodging the toad work’ and calling them as being ‘weak’, ‘stupid’ and ‘failures.’ His accusations of and self-distancing with the elderly, the patients, the homeless etc. (‘think of being them!’), coupled with his calling his work ‘old toad’, has reflected a change in his attitude towards work: It’s better work than not work, even though it may lead not to any sort of success - ‘the fame and the girl and the money’ - but death ‘down Cemetery Road.’ Both poems are self-consolatory in nature I should think; but if Toads shows any sign of false hope in Larkin, any such hope has long gone in the years leading up to his writing Toads Revisited, in which we can only see Larkin’s somehow resigned acceptance to his toad work. In any case, I think it’s rather unfair that Larkin should look down upon people just because they are leading a life different from his. Say he criticises lecturers for living on their wits when I am sure it takes more than wit for those lecturers to do their job properly; and he also accuses the old and the sick and the homeless of being weak and stupid when their conditions very often are beyond their total control.

I personally do not think Larkin loved his job. I think he just did not want to be one of those people he saw in the park. It is apparent that his attitude towards his job had changed from his first writing of Toads to Toads Revisited, while he still did his job because of money, as an obligation to survive. Seeing those people in park just provided Larkin with one more reason not to give up his job because he did not want to be like them, he did not want to be a useless person. Yet I do not really agree that Larkin loved his job after 9 years.

It's too difficult.

I have commented on 'Toads' that I don't agree with his pessimistic thoughts on his job because he could earn money from that and he could find his own interests and purpose of life apart from his boring work. But after reading this poem, I feel sympathetic for him, because he compares the things that even worse than his work to attempt to make his job a nice thing. I think he sees himself having this boring job is a failure, because he failed to find a new interesting job for himself due to his inner weaknesses. To me, comparing to the people he considered in the 'Toads Revisited' who are being too stupid to find a job, Larkin is as stupid as them because he is a guy who cannot find a 'better job' and rethink his failures again and again, like other people he saw sitting at the park and thinking of their past. Actually, he is also that kind of failed person. The only difference between them is that he has a job, others in the park didn't, except the nurses mentioned a lot the first stanza. Therefore, I think he is comparing to those jobless people to make himself feeling contented at the outside, but inside they are pretty much the same. It is very sad for him trying to find boost his courage comparing with people who had nothing.

Previously in “Toad”, I think the persona is a bit cynical and he has his pride to look down on people who live without purpose. Here, in “Toad Revisited”, his pride has gone away and he is scared of becoming the kind of people who is miserable because they do not have the ability to work. I think one of the differences between “Toad” and “Toad Revisited” is that he portrays people who live without purpose in a very different way. In “Toad”, those people who live in the street seem quite satisfied with their life even they are homeless and eat cheap food. However, in “Toad Revisited”, those jobless people are lonely and miserable because they lost the ability to work and they do not have a place they belong to. His fear of leaving his job is much stronger than 9 years ago which reflects in the way he sees jobless people.

Lifewriting 2020.

Larkin lacked the courage, appreciation and emotional depth to be a great poet. It´s always the same sundry amalgam of disappointment and boredom. No great loss, but he could have been a major poet like Cummings, had he possessed some very fundamental grace, though I usually avoid that particular word. I just became a worse writer just by my adjacency. I don´t think it was worth the candle. Good work anyway, Thanks.