Response Paper #3- “Toads” by Philip Larkin

            The poem “Toads” by Philip Larkin conforms and differs from the conventional concepts of poetry in many ways.  It conforms to the standard concepts of poetry, for one, because of the use of polysemy, polysemy being when the words in poems have different meanings, and the multiple meanings can apply to the meaning of the poem.  For one example, there is the use of the word “toad” to represent the idea of work.  In the poem there is the problem proposed of working, what happiness and fortune may come about when people do and do not work.  There are the lines “Why should I let the toad work/ Squat on my life?”, (lines 1-2).  These lines lead to the idea of the poem that people that don’t work can be happy, and that those that do aren’t necessarily happy.  The idea that this “toad” soils (lines 5-7), to me, depicts the idea that people need to work hard for money.  The lines “For something sufficiently toad-like/ Squats in me too” (lines 25-26), portrays how the author works and still doesn’t feel satisfied with his life, while at the same time painting the image of a toad squatting, which is a habitual action of a toad.

            Also this poem has the conventional concept of rhyme scheme.  There is the rhyme scheme ABAB, CDCD, EFEF, etc., with nine quatrains (quatrains being stanzas of poetry with four lines).  Oftentimes there is the use of slant rhyme, the type of rhyme scheme where there is rhyme in which either the vowels or the consonants of stressed syllables are identical.  This takes place, for example, in the first quatrain, where the lines of “B” end with “life” and “off,” where the ending consonant but not the ending vowel sounds match.  There is slant rhyme in every quatrain. 

            Another way in which this poem shows a conventional poetry form is the performative aspect, where the author proposes to the reader the concept that not working is better than working, and although this seems ridiculous and contradictive in an objective way.  In a more obvious way, it is entertaining to read why and how the author argues his point with the use of figurative language.  One example of figurative language is the simile and the metaphor in lines 3-4; “Can’t I use my wit as a pitchfork,” is a simile in line 3, and the depiction of the “toad” of work as a “brute” is a metaphor in line 4.  Also there is the metaphor of “hunkers,” the hips of the toad, in line 27, where the hips of a toad sitting are portrayed, “All in one sitting,” (line 32) where the action of the toad has a double meaning (using polysemy) of time.  There is also the simile “cold as snow” in line 28. 

            This poem also violates the expected features of poetry and the registers of poetry where it doesn’t follow a normal Mode of Discourse of poetry.  This is because of the lack of public language, the lack of jargon/slang; where the author does use an expression that could be considered jargon, “Stuff your pension!” (line 22), it is in italics, so the fact that it is jargon doesn’t stand out as much.  There is also the conclusion of the poem, where the author takes his point that working and wealth aren’t the most important thing, but rather happiness is, and he makes a concluding statement where he places himself in the narrative by saying that what he wants in life is “The fame and the girl and the money” (line 31).  This makes the pacing read as not constant, and the opinion of the author is more stressed at the end of the poem.  Also there is the lack of formal language in the diction, and formal language in the diction is expected in the mode of discourse of poetry.  In the third quatrain, there is the use of consonance with the letter “l,” with the words “losels,” “loblolly-men,” and “louts:” these words are all very informal ways of defining awkward, worthless people.  These are words that ought to be used in dialogue rather than in formal writing. 

            Finally, the poem goes against the ideal register of poetry in some other ways.  It doesn’t follow the ideal Field of Discourse of most poetry because most fields of discourse in poetry have universal or timeless themes, but this poem has the theme that not working has more benefits than working, a theme that is unusual.  Also the poem lacks the normal functional tenor of discourse, because instead of the didactic quality that most poetry has, the intent is more to express an opinion that the reader may interpret as awkward.  Reading this poem, I thought that the writer didn’t have a good argument, but it was interesting how he used polysemy and descriptive language to make his point.