John Betjeman

There have been a few JB related programmes on the BBC recently to mark (I think) 120 years since JB's birth. Stimulated by these, I've been reading a detailed biography and some of his poetry.
I was very intersted why JB and CS Lewis (his tutor at Oxford) didn't get on at all and JB detested Lewis for the rest of his (JB's that is) life. This I can understand. But was Lewis right about JB wasting his talents? I'm trying and failing to like JB as a person, and can't decide whether his poetry, though much loved by most, but so derided by others, is actually awful.
So I'm ambivalent about him, great TV communicator and amous Anglican though he was (and now (hopefully) in Glory).
How do other shipmates rate JB? Was he not really 'real' and always putting on an act? And then there's thewretched teddy bear ....
Help!

Comments

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    I know who I'd rather read.
  • I'm not a big Betjeman fan but occasionally he hits the spot.

    I wouldn't 'deride' him but neither would I laud him.

    I admire his work on conservation - saving St Pancras station for instance and enjoyed visiting some of the churches he loved in Cornwall.

    Tell it not in Gath, I'm not an enormous Lewis fan either but again I wouldn't 'knock' him.

    Both of them hit the nail on the head at times but other times were well wide of the mark. A bit like all of us.

    I'd wish neither Betjeman or Lewis any harm. I read both from time to time.
  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    edited September 1
    Betjeman was less cosy than usually regarded. I identify with the speaker of Sun and Fun, since I think I too will end up 'old and ill and terrified and tight'.

    'The firm's Cortina' pins this poem to a particular period, but the satire is still relevant.

    What I like about Betjeman - and possibly Lewis didn't - is that he makes poetry out of the mundane, the shallow, the unromantic. Not a high elf in sight.
  • Jane RJane R Shipmate
    Lewis wasn't really into high elves either. Tolkien (and I know this is heresy) critiqued the first draft of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe on the grounds that it was an illogical mishmash of different mythologies. Which, as an adult, I think is fair comment.
  • FWIW, Tolkien was right...

    Betjeman's film about the old Somerset & Dorset Railway's original main line - Burnham to Highbridge and Evercreech Junction - is worth watching:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2NZU3S-0iM
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Jane R wrote: »
    Lewis wasn't really into high elves either. Tolkien (and I know this is heresy) critiqued the first draft of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe on the grounds that it was an illogical mishmash of different mythologies. Which, as an adult, I think is fair comment.

    It is fair comment, but it's not like Lewis didn't know that - he was as much an expert as Tolkien. Tolkien was, to my eyes, a perfectionist and a world builder. Lewis was a storyteller. And I love them both.
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    I think Tolkien is the better storyteller, but you're right that Lewis is up to something different from Tolkien.

    Betjeman's Westminster Abbey is a great poem in its way.
  • This article may shed some light on the Betjeman/Lewis feud: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/apr/14/cs-lewis-john-betjeman-oxford-feud

    I think too that their backgrounds were so different: Lewis from, by all accounts, a pretty dour Belfast childhood, Betjeman the son of a north London business- and craftsman. We know too that Betjeman, social climber and would-be aesthete, despised "hearties" and may have regarded Lewis as one of that ilk. Lewis, too, had served (and was wounded) in the First World War trenches while the younger Betjeman had not.
  • I can't claim to have done the research to support what is basically a gut feeling. But I can very well imagine what a man like Lewis might feel, attempting to teach a student who kept showing up unprepared and appearing not to find that a situation that needed amendment. I gather that there'd not be a great deal for Lewis to do during their sessions if Betjeman came in without an essay prepared?

    To have him later ask for support in a bid for an honors degree--well, I'm not surprised Lewis said no.

    Betjeman clearly had talents. To some teachers, the student with gifts who refuses to use them is much more frustrating than the one with little or nothing who nevertheless is trying his/her best.
  • I had a somewhat unconventional English teacher at school. One student, in his end-of-term report, was rightly given an A for the quality of his work, but a U for his effort.

    (To explain, effort was graded Good, Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory. Plus or minus signs could be added at the teacher's discretion).

  • I like JB's poetry.
    Some of that is because some poems are about the Harrow region where I grew up.

    I have three of the four albums of his poetry set to music. I think they came out in the 60s.
  • I had a somewhat unconventional English teacher at school. One student, in his end-of-term report, was rightly given an A for the quality of his work, but a U for his effort.

    (To explain, effort was graded Good, Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory. Plus or minus signs could be added at the teacher's discretion).

    I had a history teacher like that. He graded me an A on internal exams but I did very little prep and homework so I had a “does no work!” remark added.
    In the subsequent O level exam, I got grade A. I really was an appallingly lazy student.

  • I love both Lewis and Tolkien, and I think Narnia is fine as it is, having centaurs and dwarves and Father Christmas and more. <3
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I know who I'd rather read.

    I literally don't know which one you mean here.

    Aw, the teddy bear has his own Wikipedia page. <3

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archibald_Ormsby-Gore
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    sionisais wrote: »
    I had a somewhat unconventional English teacher at school. One student, in his end-of-term report, was rightly given an A for the quality of his work, but a U for his effort.

    (To explain, effort was graded Good, Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory. Plus or minus signs could be added at the teacher's discretion).

    I had a history teacher like that. He graded me an A on internal exams but I did very little prep and homework so I had a “does no work!” remark added.
    In the subsequent O level exam, I got grade A. I really was an appallingly lazy student.

    What is wrong with being efficient ?
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    edited September 2
    There is a little nugget early in "Surprised by Joy" where Lewis is discussing the childhood "Boxen" stories he made up in conjunction with his brother. He mentions a rebellious young bear who is always trying to resist the machinations of the powers-that-be ("Lord Big", maybe a frog if I remember rightly). He says (obviously looking backwards from a 1955 viewpoint) that to get an idea of the bear's character you should imagine John Betjeman. So that makes me think that he may not really have disliked Betjeman that much.
  • I don't know him really, but that poem Executive, cited above by Firenze, is ghastly. Very snobbish, and the language is inane. But maybe that's unfair.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    I don't know him really, but that poem Executive, cited above by Firenze, is ghastly. Very snobbish, and the language is inane. But maybe that's unfair.
    It is unfair. The poem is satire, not poetry. The target and those of his ilk fully deserve it. The language is deliberately inane, and that is the point.

    I have no difficulty at all in imagining why Lewis and Betjeman irritated each other so much. I think @Baptist Trainfan has explained that sufficiently for all general purposes. Yes, Lewis was not a 'hearty' but he may have looked like one, and one can certainly understand why a serious young don might have found the young Betjeman's facade of dilettante entitlement insufferable.

  • I’m with Firenze, I like Betjeman’s reflections on the everyday (I am a social historian) and I am very fond of satire so these qualities combine well for me.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    Of course Betjeman's time at Oxford (1925-28) pre-dates Lewis's conversion. So our image of the older, Christian Lewis based on his later writings is probably rather different from the young atheist don Betjeman met in the flesh.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    As far as Betjeman himself goes I rather enjoy his poetry. I like the slightly melancholy, regretful tone embedded in the cheery, accessible forms.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    What on earth is a "hearty"?
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    edited September 2
    I always hated “Come, friendly bombs, and fall on Slough”. Betjeman hated urbanisation, an understandable opinion. But the poem is full of snide snobbery. Apparently Betjeman’s daughter apologised later to the Mayor of Slough.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    Enoch wrote: »
    I don't know him really, but that poem Executive, cited above by Firenze, is ghastly. Very snobbish, and the language is inane. But maybe that's unfair.
    It is unfair. The poem is satire, not poetry. The target and those of his ilk fully deserve it. The language is deliberately inane, and that is the point.

    Yes, but the satire is snobbish. The message is: "these awful nouveaux riches (unlike you and me) have no taste, can't use language properly and don't understand the importance of old buildings, and yet somehow they're really rich, successful and pleased with themselves - no wonder the country is going to the dogs"...

    I guess it depends whether or not you agree with @Enoch that the targets deserve it!
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    edited September 2
    Yes, but the satire is snobbish. The message is: "these awful nouveaux riches (unlike you and me) have no taste, can't use language properly and don't understand the importance of old buildings, and yet somehow they're really rich, successful and pleased with themselves - no wonder the country is going to the dogs"...

    I guess it depends whether or not you agree with @Enoch that the targets deserve it!
    I suppose if one is minded to find snobbery under every stone one can read it that way, but if you have ever had dealings with some of the dodgy types who drive a flash sports car, 'do some mild developing', and brag about how to fix the Mayor, the Borough Engineer etc. I can assure you, they deserve to be targets.

    Besides, some of them have been to the sort of schools that give one that sort of facile ability to schmooze and swan about. There is an Old Alleynian who springs to mind.
    And yes, I did have to look that up on Google.
    

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    I don't know him really, but that poem Executive, cited above by Firenze, is ghastly. Very snobbish, and the language is inane. But maybe that's unfair.
    It is unfair. The poem is satire, not poetry. The target and those of his ilk fully deserve it. The language is deliberately inane, and that is the point.

    Yes, but the satire is snobbish. The message is: "these awful nouveaux riches (unlike you and me) have no taste, can't use language properly and don't understand the importance of old buildings, and yet somehow they're really rich, successful and pleased with themselves - no wonder the country is going to the dogs"...

    I guess it depends whether or not you agree with @Enoch that the targets deserve it!

    The message I got from it was people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing carving their destructive way through life.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    The message I got from it was people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing carving their destructive way through life.
    Exactly. Well said.

  • One thing that surprises me is how twee his poetry is.
  • Jane RJane R Shipmate
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    I always hated “Come, friendly bombs, and fall on Slough”. Betjeman hated urbanisation, an understandable opinion. But the poem is full of snide snobbery. Apparently Betjeman’s daughter apologised later to the Mayor of Slough.

    I don't see why. It's not her fault her father was rude about Slough, is it?
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    Betjeman's poetry is very much the target of literary snobbery.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Betjeman's poetry is very much the target of literary snobbery.

    God forbid anyone should be able to understand poetry! Can't be any good!
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited September 2
    sionisais wrote: »
    I had a somewhat unconventional English teacher at school. One student, in his end-of-term report, was rightly given an A for the quality of his work, but a U for his effort.

    (To explain, effort was graded Good, Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory. Plus or minus signs could be added at the teacher's discretion).

    I had a history teacher like that. He graded me an A on internal exams but I did very little prep and homework so I had a “does no work!” remark added.
    In the subsequent O level exam, I got grade A. I really was an appallingly lazy student.

    What is wrong with being efficient ?

    I was one of these, too, though more for reasons of depression and abuse than for true laziness. But I drove my teachers mad, because I never turned in homework, read novels under my desk while they were lecturing, and pulled off the highest score in California on the PSAT test that year. They came and bodily hauled me out of class, all but swearing, and demanded an explanation. Which of course I could not give...

    Today I'd say it was due to a near-photographic memory and very wide reading.

    Graduate school was where things came apart (mildly). I'd never learned to study--some of you call it "revision"--and suddenly I needed to. I had a lot of making-up to do.

    But yeah, I can see why some of my teachers resented me. It looks very disrespectful when you're reading comic books under the table, and your teacher aims a Spanish declension question at you, intending to catch you out--and you answer it correctly without looking up.
  • SparrowSparrow Shipmate
    I'll forgive Betjeman a lot for this:

    "No love that in a family dwells,
    No carolling in frosty air,
    Nor all the steeple-shaking bells
    Can with this single Truth compare -
    That God was man in Palestine
    And lives today in Bread and Wine."
  • Sparrow wrote: »
    I'll forgive Betjeman a lot for this:

    "No love that in a family dwells,
    No carolling in frosty air,
    Nor all the steeple-shaking bells
    Can with this single Truth compare -
    That God was man in Palestine
    And lives today in Bread and Wine."

    That poem occurred to me as well.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited September 2
    Yes, it's lovely. I wish he'd written more frequently along this line. I suspect it's the flippancy of tone in so many of his poems that would put Lewis off--I mean, he's obviously enormously clever, why not put it to work (as here) in praising or creating something worthwhile? Instead of tearing stuff down quite so much.
  • I think a lot of Betjeman's snobbery is ironic. He's sending himself up to a certain extent.

    On poetry in general ... as an aside that I hope doesn't become a whopping big tangent, I think poetry is becoming very elitist and incomprehensible again after a period of more demotic and accessible verse.

    This time, I'm afraid, it's an elitism of the left, not the right. If you don't believe me read Poetry Review.

    Anyhow... yes, Betjeman can be twee but he was a better poet than some up-their-own-backsides literary pundits allow.

    I prefer Larkin and Heaney but Betjeman has his moments.

    Lewis used to be quite bibulous. I don’t know whether that made him a 'hearty'. He'd regularly have 3 or 4 pints at lunchtime and walk it off during the afternoon.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Yes, it's lovely. I wish he'd written more frequently along this line. I suspect it's the flippancy of tone in so many of his poems that would put Lewis off--I mean, he's obviously enormously clever, why not put it to work (as here) in praising or creating something worthwhile? Instead of tearing stuff down quite so much.
    I am not sure that it was Betjeman's poetry that antagonised Lewis. I think it went back much earlier than that. They had already antagonised each other because Betjeman read English at Magdalen. Lewis was his rather serious young supervisor/tutor. The undergraduate Betjeman had rather a flippant, disdainful attitude both towards study and those who thought that was what a University was for.

    In the days before people drove everywhere, 3-4 pints at lunchtime was not that unusual.

  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    This thread has made me dig around in some anthologies for Betjeman. Some of it I can take or leave. But I came across Under the Anaesthetic, which I think is pretty impressive. I suppose some kinds of atheist could dismiss it as believing on God because he's afraid of death; I think what's good about the poem is that it doesn't fend that reading off but incorporates it.
  • Sure. I'm not saying that Lewis was unusual in that respect.

    I went through a phase of disliking Betjeman's poetry intensely but now I appreciate it. Not my favourite poetry by any means but more varied than is often thought.

    The albums with musical backing are quite interesting. Very much of their time.
  • @Lamb Chopped said
    It looks very disrespectful when you're reading comic books under the table

    This could be its own thread, but I would love to know which comic books you read back then. I think I did actually have a thread on comics some time back but it’s been a long time.
  • Sparrow wrote: »
    I'll forgive Betjeman a lot for this:

    "No love that in a family dwells,
    No carolling in frosty air,
    Nor all the steeple-shaking bells
    Can with this single Truth compare -
    That God was man in Palestine
    And lives today in Bread and Wine."

    That poem occurred to me as well.

    I recognised it too - and I can't stand it.
  • ChastMastr wrote: »
    @Lamb Chopped said
    It looks very disrespectful when you're reading comic books under the table

    This could be its own thread, but I would love to know which comic books you read back then. I think I did actually have a thread on comics some time back but it’s been a long time.

    I was quite boring--I had a ton of Charlie Brown books!
    Enoch wrote: »
    Yes, it's lovely. I wish he'd written more frequently along this line. I suspect it's the flippancy of tone in so many of his poems that would put Lewis off--I mean, he's obviously enormously clever, why not put it to work (as here) in praising or creating something worthwhile? Instead of tearing stuff down quite so much.
    I am not sure that it was Betjeman's poetry that antagonised Lewis. I think it went back much earlier than that. They had already antagonised each other because Betjeman read English at Magdalen. Lewis was his rather serious young supervisor/tutor. The undergraduate Betjeman had rather a flippant, disdainful attitude both towards study and those who thought that was what a University was for. ...

    No, I did realize that. I had an earlier post dealing with Lewis' reaction to him as a student--and indeed, I suspect the flippancy toward--well, everything in general, I suspect-- was noticeable then, too. And would be hard for someone wounded in the Great War to cope with.
  • My understanding, possibly wrong, of "Come, friendly bombs" is that Betjeman was referring to the newly-developed trading estate rather than the town.
  • Sort of. The "friendly bombs" can be read as referring to the fact that part of the site of Slough Trading Estate was a large ammunition dump, hence the reference to "friendly" bombs.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Sort of. The "friendly bombs" can be read as referring to the fact that part of the site of Slough Trading Estate was a large ammunition dump, hence the reference to "friendly" bombs.

    I think the bombs are friendly because they'd blow up something ugly.
Sign In or Register to comment.