The Large Cool Store Analysis

The poem 'The Large Cool Store' was written by Philip Larkin and concerns a description of a Marks and Spencer shop in the time in which it was written (the 1950s), which was then more substantially lower end than it is now- selling cheap, poor quality 'fashionable clothes', similar to the fashion sold in Primark today. A clear theme that can be observed throughout the poem is that of the attitudes towards the fashion of the lower classes: Larkin is looking down on them, saying that regardless of how they dress, they can never become one of the upper classes that they strive to be. He says that they're deluded by the fact that their clothes will never free them from the depravity of a working-class lifestyle.

Another theme that can be demonstrated in the poem is the reoccurrence of ambiguity, firstly seen in that of the title. The word 'cool' in the large cool store can be seen to mean trendy and fashionable, but can also symbolise something that is literally cold. These antithetical definitions of metaphorical and positive, and literal and negative underline that everything is not always as it seems. Something can appear to be one thing on the surface but when examined closer can in fact be something completely different. As is demonstrated in the title, Larkin is giving the reader an idea that the message portrayed in the poem might not be what was originally thought.

The first stanza introduces the setting of the poem- giving the audience an initial thought into what the poem may concern, and to allow them to form an opinion of what they think the poem is about, before revealing the real truth towards the end. Also in the first stanza is a demonstration of Larkin's structure- as it can be seen that he used an ABABA rhyme scheme. This may have been used by Larkin to represent the tedious and mundane lifestyles experienced by the lower-class workers in the poem. This structure used to show this is further seen in the overall layout of the poem as it at no point strays from five lines per stanza, which also can be said to represent how trapped the workers would have felt as they had the inability to stray from the status quo. In this, Larkin could be inferring that the only way to be free is through money, which working-class people would, of course, have been short of.

The reader gets another impression of the lives of the workers as soon as the poem begins- on the first line. The enjambment seen on lines one and two could be said to demonstrate how there is no stopping for the lives of the working-class, as their financial status would mean that they were unable to have control of the length of their working day. An additional idea of Larkin's view towards the lower classes can be seen in his mention of 'cheap clothes'. For the workers, this would normally have positive connotations but in the poem it contrasts this, and it is as if it is from the perspective of someone of a higher status, by saying that cheap clothes represent something that is vulgar and nasty.

In the second line the reader is told that the clothes were laid out in 'simple sizes plainly' which is a further example of ambiguity in the poem. It can be appear that something so practical would be beneficial thing but in this sense it could have been used by Larkin to metaphorically represent the shoppers, by which he is commenting on their simple nature and saying that they are all the same. This means that with the life of a worker, you soon become indistinguishable, less individual and more a part of the society that was owned by the Bourgeoisie- who was part of the superstructure that controlled the base in which the workers were a product of. Consequently, they become nothing more than an object that could be exploited by the Bourgeoisie in order to increase their power and wealth.

The reader is again presented with a negative interpretation of the working-class when Larkin describes their clothes using dull and sombre colours such as 'browns and greys, maroons and navy'. One elucidation that can be made about this is that it's representing the atmosphere of the lower-class society in the sense that they live the same cyclical lifestyle day after day. It can be also said to literally symbolise the clothes that the working-class can afford and can be further said to appear to represent their work clothes. As they are portrayed as having only work-like clothes available to them, it presents the idea that they will always be wearing the clothes they work in, enhancing the idea that the lower classes are never able to escape a working lifestyle.

After giving the reader the focus of the poem, Larkin begins to increase the knowledge of the audience by introducing the style of worker to build up to the climax at the end when the aim of the poem is eventually revealed and the poet's opinions are clearly seen. As the readers are told that the workers are ones that 'leave at dawn', we get the impression of the extent of time in which these people are working in menial, unskilled jobs.

As the poem continues, the ambiguity of words and phrases becomes less common and less equivocal  as the poet is beginning to show that, due to the reader developing a greater knowledge of his intentions, he no longer needs to avoid the subject and present it as something which it is not. This is seen when the workers are described as living in 'low terraced housing' as, even though the word 'low' is ambiguous, it is no longer said in a way which has both positive and negative connotations. It is used to represent the type of housing that the lower class can afford- by low meaning small but also meaning low-cost.

This condescending attitude towards the lower classes may have been the result of Larkin's higher status, as from a child he was from a relatively wealthy family and brought up in a respectable detached home. Due to the fact that he was educated well at home and secured a place at Oxford, it would have meant that he would have had little to do with the lower-classes, therefore may have been the result of his lack of understanding of the harshness of the lives of the working-class. In addition, his father was a self-made man and did very well for himself, regardless of his slightly poorer upbringing, which in turn may have contributed further to the patronising views in which Larkin held. This influence from his father may have resulted in Larkin believing that, with hard work and dedication, one would be able to escape poverty and hardship and create a better life for themselves, consequently turning him against the idea that you could escape it by merely dressing as if you were better off. In addition, Larkin may have inherited attitudes from the epoch in which he was brought up in, as the '20s were rife with strong racist opinions which could have in turn developed a stronger set of class views.