Using the ‘Marxist ways of reading’ section of the Critical Anthology, explore the view that ‘Betjeman is the Licensed Fool of the wealthy; he points out the foibles but in no way, advocates a change to the system’
It is clear that Betjeman is advocating for a change to the highly flawed class system of capitalist elitism in his poetry. However, his intentions could simply be to entertain through the laughable criticism of the minor shortcomings presented in the capitalist hierarchy. In ‘Hunter Trials’ we cannot detect many highly damnatory attacks at the elite, as in ‘Executive’. Nonetheless, one may argue that ‘Executive’ indirectly points fingers at the bourgeoisie in which Betjeman believes they have a hand in governing society and shaping the inequality of the class system to benefit themselves at the expense of the less fortunate.
In ‘Hunter Trials’ Betjeman uses ‘sophisticated’, nonsensical language to demonstrate the pretentious attitudes of the speaker, which is symbolic of the infatuation of the upper classes. Surprisingly, he uses comic devices to convey a light-hearted mockery as opposed to setting up a stimulus for societal change. On initial reading, one may expect the poem to explore serious, fast-paced, sombre issues in the reflection of the title ‘Hunter Trials’. Similarly, in Betjeman’s other poetry one can detect a more serious tone with mentions of war and industrialisation. This serious tone allows the triviality of ‘Hunter Trials’ and horse racing to be highlighted, based merely on the social activity and self-interest of the corrupted elite creating a bathetic drop. This situation is exemplified in the speaker’s use of ‘Mummy’, ‘Prunella’ and ‘Mrs. Geyser’. Betjeman conjures up this stereotypically, a superficial upper-class voice that comes across almost child-like and whiny. This use of stereotyping alongside the bounce created by the rhyming couplets (‘threw it’, ‘Blewitt’) allow the reader to gently mock the excitement of scandal and the characters’ tendency to gossip. Betjeman allows his readers to reflect on the true priorities of this social class. Alongside the triviality prevalent throughout, Betjeman uses a punchline story with a flippant ending to depict the irony; following the dramatic stanza break, we learn it was simply a ‘silly’ collarbone that arose from the drama and gossip presented previously. This is increasingly bathetic, as the reader is a victim of fallen expectations, evoking a sense of comic relief. Although one is inclined to make judgments on the foolish attitudes of the character through her display as a whiny child, we are not critical as she is not portrayed as totally, malicious character, but merely a symptom of the flawed societal upbringings.
Similarly, in ‘In Westminster Abbey’ Betjeman clearly highlights the flaws in upper-class culture through the fallible narrator. The form of dramatic monologue allows the audience to reflect on the accidental revelations the woman unwittingly unfolds. For instance, her lack of true direction and priorities in which ‘democracy and proper drains’ hold equal importance to her. The placement of syntax provides humorous effect through bathos in which any rationality one may see for the woman when addressing the commodities and freedoms that make England so great are soon diminished. The readers are reminded of the woman’s foolishness and lack of empathy beyond her own superficial concerns. The speaker’s patronising commentary and juxtaposition of pious language versus consumerist priorities evoke a comic tone in which one witnesses the idiocy of the bourgeoisie. However, Betjeman strengthens the effects of the satire by allowing individuals to place a magnifying glass on the egomaniacal themes that underscore the poem, and British society, exposing the flaws and revelations through the dramatic monologue. Beyond the comedy, Betjeman’s main purpose is to characterise the upper class through the ‘lady’s cry’ as ridiculous and enlighten them with his anti-establishment views as a cry for active movement towards change in the future.
Betjeman deepens this criticism even further through the structure and intention of the poem as a prayer in which one can infer the plea for change beyond the frivolous references to upper-class luxuries. This cynicism is further reinforced by the religious references and liturgical language giving her prayer a sense of importance and greater value. The speaker uses the conventional language of praise. However, instead of connecting these prayers to her devotion to God, the impression is that her religious motivation, or lack thereof, stems from her own base motives in which she perhaps references God as the sinner that needs to be ‘pardon[ed]’. The supporting idea is that the society must change their hypocritical attitudes if they claim to commit to religious practice yet openly blasphemies. The trochaic tetrameter creates a jaunty rhythm allowing the reader to capture the demanding tone of the speaker in which she commands to ‘let [her] take’ off her ‘glove’ alluding that everyone including God himself is beneath her command which draws into the irony of the poem being a prayer. A symptom of the selfish calibre of the upper class, according to Betjeman that they complacently corrupt the spiritual relationship and respect that one must hold for God. Betjeman perhaps blames capitalism for alienating oneself from their religious identity due to the preoccupation in world affairs such as ‘shares’ and crowns’ over promises of eternal life and piety, criticising the perversion of religion into a political, wealth-making system under the umbrella of capitalism. The Marxist theory may suggest that it is this ‘profit motive of capitalism that is at the root of most of the world’s problems’ including ‘alienation’[1].
In ‘Executive’, a highly condemnatory message is created to voice the effects and products of the destructive new generations in response to bourgeoisie corruption. Betjeman portrays almost Marxist ideology, blaming hierarchy and power as corruptive forces fuelled by the capitalist system. Although the poem is bitingly satirical in criticising the onward march of an industrialising society through the ‘young’ business successors, one can acknowledge that perhaps tones of Betjeman accepting the repetitive system of the elite inheriting business is reflected and he simply pokes fun at the stagnant societal ideology. This message is clear in which Betjeman parodies corporate speech and creates a hubristic, stereotypical ‘liaison man’ which is amusing to the reader. The title itself, ‘Executive’ alludes to the idea that a man seemingly new to the role, which we can presume by his boastful language, has been artificially placed and elevated to this status, despite experience, which allows the reader to lightly mock his fallacious sense of entitlement. Nevertheless, the overarching satire is predominant in the multiple uses of empty adverbs used by the speaker - a deliberate attempt to prove himself on a higher footing to the rest of society. The specific use of ‘essentially’ and ‘basically’ is patronising in which he implies he is about to speak of complex matters assuming himself as more intelligent and articulate than his peers and audience. Nevertheless, the contradicting pattern of the iambic heptameter reflects his incoherency of thought and inexperienced childishness, perfectly conforming to the stereotypical yuppie of the 1980’s. This foolish prerogative is further exemplified when the speaker interrupts his monologue to instruct the waiter for a soda, ‘-just plain’ assuming the waiter will make a mistake, again purely in an attempt to consolidate his hierarchal power. The use of the hyphen reflects the division of classes and aids in criticising the typical, elitist exploitation in which the proletariat serve the wealthy and ‘P.R.O’s’ of Britain as opposed to fuelling growth in economy themselves. Therefore, ‘Capitalists grow rich’ and the ‘labourers’ get less for ‘their efforts that their labour is actually worth’.[2]
In this, it is evident that Betjeman’s anathema for a modernising, industrialising society in hands of the bourgeoisie. Through the amusing arrogance and stereotyping of the young narrator, Betjeman subtly indicates the minor ‘seed[s]’ of the political structure in order to strongly demonstrate the repulsive conformities to the hierarchal system and ‘yuppie’ lifestyle, pivoting the poem as the final warning to ‘interfere’. The narrator jumps from a variety of subject matters, cars to building plans, yet still discussing lux commodities perhaps depicting that the flawed structure isn’t as permanent as it might seem and the ‘modern style’ of ownership and exploitation can be revolutionised, yet only by the rich and successful. By enlightening his audience of the access to resources the bourgeoisie have, he is placing an emphasis, not on the proletariat which remains unmentioned but the building and business owners to respond to his plea for change, perhaps using these commodities as the fuel for an equal society in hopes that if everyone were to progress economically, perhaps the arrogance and divide between classes could close.
Ultimately, using the Marxist critical lens, Betjeman uses his light verse to play an active role in the conflict of the class system, rather than simply entertain, as a Licensed Fool. Betjeman uses this medium not ‘merely as a vehicle for satire or social commentary but as a means of expressing’ a ‘specialised form of aesthetic emotion’ in which accents of ‘humour is equally blended’[3]
to advocating reforms in the Capitalist system.
Works Cited
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9VzWDKou5A"list=PLisH6fbwJLhMHFnDXLgBtSEzhgqjwcOre"index=8
https://revisionforni.com/2013/01/25/in-westminster-abbey-revision-notes/
https://poemanalysis.com/in-westminster-abbey-by-john-betjeman-poem-analysis/
https://prezi.com/hpjj91cufr7w/executive-john-betjemen/
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/john-betjeman
[1] http://www.worldsocialism.org/english/what-capitalism
[2] 2015, AQA A Level English Literature B Critical Anthology, Pages 21-22
[3] https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/john-betjeman
