Mar 06, 2006 14:27
How could I not feel inspired to write my entry after that lecture? Stephen Voyce did a wonderful job of situating the poems we looked at today in what their original context may have been. And what captivating details about WWI, I am nearly ashamed to admit it, but I understand how war could have been romanticized. The details Stephen shared with us were like those of a movie, it doesn't at all seem real. What I am feeling now is what I imagine the soldiers enlisting in the war felt about hearing war stories, they, like I probably only heard the adventure, excitement and opporunity for valor. But, unlike them, I know the truth, can easily snap my fingers and wake up to the reality that was WWI and not have to go through it to know it. All I need to do to see the reality of war is speak to my grandfather-in-law, visit this website > www.firstworldwar.com or I could read the poetic works of the "WWI poets", such as Rupert Brooke or Wilfred Owen.
Stephen mentioned something quite poignent in lecture, that these men (and women, although he didn't say this, I must add it) didn't know what the war would be like and this would have influenced their decision to enlist, what they wrote pre-war and then what they wrote once they experienced warfare. This statement came from Stephen when he was emphasizing the error in dividing the "WWI poets" into two groups, first the "early" poets of 1914-1916 and consider these poets naive, while the "later" poets as experienced and thus more realistic and somehow more respectalbe. Again, I must recommend Timothy Findley's The Wars, this novel tells the story of a young Canadian soldier enlisting and entering combat in WWI and his ultimate tragic fate. Many of the themes we discussed today in lecture and tutorial that the "WWI poets" would have written about are present in this text, such as nationalism, simply not knowing what they would face, propaganda, ideas on masculinity, loss of religion, reversion to nature, alienation and the list goes on.
I think the reason poems such as the ones we discussed today affect me so much is because I know I could never do what the authors of those works have done. Namely, writing such meaningful poetry, while voluntarily sacrificing their lives. It seems that despite the horrors they saw, they were still able to write thoughfully and beautifully about their horrifying experiences. I suppose writing may have been a coping mechinism for these individuals, much like the writing of an elegy may console the mourning poet. However, the reasons for writing poetry were more pratical than that, according to Professor Kuin the soldiers had plenty of down time between battles and little else to do for entertainment. The other answer to the question, why was there so much poetry from WWI soldiers in comparion to WWII is that the early 20th century was a time of poetic revival in England among the Georgians. This does make sense, especially in the case of Rupert Brooke who was a famous poet before his involvement in the war. Perhaps continuing to write was a way of maintaining some sense of normalcy in the chaos of war. I think the ultimate war-related deaths of Brooke and Owen say something about the nature of war, that it is indiscriminate, evil by-passes no one, irregardles of who you are, upper class or lower class, artistically inclined, British or otherwise, good-hearted or bad. War simply destroys, but thankfully literature can endure and from such, we can learn, remember and never go to war again. Too bad that hasn't happened, how easily humans forget.
Janice