I was such a happy reader in my childhood when I knew nothing about the writers whose books I read. It is difficult to be able to appreciate the work of a writer who you find repulsive as a person. The problem is that if we were only to read the works of writers who were persons of unimpeachable character our potential reading material would shrink to Lilliputian proportions. (Was it John Braine who said it's impossible to be a writer and a good person? Or was it John Osborne?)
Speaking about Larkin's work, I think it is a pity that the quality of his poetry tends to obscure the fact that he was also a novelist. He wrote two novels while still in his twenties, Jill and A Girl in Winter, which I think are rather good but sold rather bad, which I guess was probably a good thing, as successful first novels usually lead to a string of mediocre output - it was just as well that Larkin was forced to restrict his efforts to poetry, although he personally would have liked to be a successful novelist.