tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5873009918100574338.post296642791387736929..comments2024-02-05T09:17:53.322-08:00Comments on Adrian Barlow's blog: John Betjeman and WindleshamAdrian Barlowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04526714501872493961noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5873009918100574338.post-85976285573647074822017-04-14T03:20:46.065-07:002017-04-14T03:20:46.065-07:00I am grateful for both your comments. I’m glad to ...I am grateful for both your comments. I’m glad to hear I have been able to make the apparently unfindable not so! Your question about the date of its publication has unsettled me, however. My distinct memory is of reading the poem - and indeed of reading it aloud to friends - for the first time while I was still at school, 1966 or 67. But perhaps I am suffering from false memory syndrome. I have just come across an excellent online discussion by Patrick Cormerford of JB’s ‘Lenten Thoughts of a High Anglican’, a poem first published in 1974; he suggests that ‘Lovely lady in the pew’ was a Private Eye parody by E. Jarvis Thribb (aged 17 3/4) of that poem. In which case you are right, and I am in error. Many thanks for pointing this out, all the same!<br /><br />[You’ll find Patrick Cormerford’s blog here: http://www.patrickcomerford.com/2012/02/poems-for-lent-4-lenten-thoughts-of.html]Adrian Barlowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04526714501872493961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5873009918100574338.post-9477232915419920532017-04-13T17:50:49.328-07:002017-04-13T17:50:49.328-07:00The other thing is, I am surprised to see you desc...The other thing is, I am surprised to see you describe Private Eye as "infant" when this was published. Founded in 1961; assuming I read the parody at the time of publication (I certainly didn't wade through back copies) I doubt it appeared before say 1973, when I was 14. Perhaps you have the original? Interested to hear. Thank you for an entertaining blog I shall take some time to look through. stephen dot haxby at business-proposals dot co dot uk (I don't suppose this naive subterfuge works any more.)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17123291626896116607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5873009918100574338.post-44106862525607795902017-04-13T17:39:03.043-07:002017-04-13T17:39:03.043-07:00A very memorable parody, which I have just quoted ...A very memorable parody, which I have just quoted to someone a propos of Betje's letch being somewhat similar to the fixed gaze of Tiffany Atkinson towards her gardener in Tea. I was delighted to find it quoted in full! I think I remember it from so long ago because it captures male sexual rationalisation so well. The thought that it was written by JB himself is intriguing. The rhythm of "What I wouldn’t give to do<br />Unmentionable things to you!" is pretty JB-esque, with that lovely long word lingering (or perhaps fingering) between the monosyllables. But the "old" in "If old God..." is a weak filler even for JB, capable, let us recall of such crimes against poetry as "No soda, please, just plain -", which got a big laugh at the Queen Elizabeth reading I attended, I don't know, around 1977 I guess. Anyway, thanks for making the seemingly unfindable not so.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17123291626896116607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5873009918100574338.post-4742775528374669912012-03-16T04:32:38.757-07:002012-03-16T04:32:38.757-07:00Many of Betjeman's muses have been identified ...Many of Betjeman's muses have been identified but this one remains tantalisingly elusive. The specificity of location (Hook Heath, between Woking and Windlesham - the poet was usually precise in topographical matters) suggests a real garden and a real person behind the poem; but like you I'm puzzled by Butterfield's intrusion (as Betjeman was usually precise in matters architectural too). He was on the poet's mind around this time: 'Myfanwy at Oxford' gestures to his Keble Chapel Bells. Is 'Up the Butterfield aisle' a crude undergraduate-style joke at the expense of the life-long bachelor architect? There's more than one suspiciously corporeal passageway in the poem (eg 'the slippery third path'). Betjeman was seriously depressed for a time at the end of the 30s and may have seen an analyst; he was fully and amusedly aware of Freudian sexual symbolism. He was also tormented by horses (Penelope's passion & his pet hate) and prams (Paul was born in 1937 - the year Myfanwy Piper also had her first child - he was not at all keen on babies). Was he feeling neglected? It might explain his symbolic reluctance to take the path by the pram (the reproductive tract) & the wish-fulfillment with a manly daughter at the end. Whatever, this is a bit ruder than its Victorian namesake! There's more to it than first meets the eye.THhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02575934326510838209noreply@blogger.com