This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- study help
- ChiefKwen's Journey to 4A*S and OCRE
- A-level English literature paper 1 help
- OCR A-level Latin Paper 3 (H443/03) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- A and A* students... Share your revision tips
- Exam Scripts Marking Abbreviation
- Revision Techniques That Helped Me
- How do you revise A level Sociology?
- OCR A-level Latin Paper 4 (H443/04) - 20th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Revision
- A level ancient history 30 mark essays
- A level biology help pls
- I’m rlly bad at English lit and lang
- Politics Edexcel A-level Advice and Preparation
- A levels
- Edexcel A-level English Lit Exemplar Essays?
- I need to go get up to A's- please help.
- chemistry or economics a level
- Computer doubt
- Study Tips and Tricks
WWI A2 Exam - Exempler Essays and Exam Technique
This is supposed to be a partner thread to the poetry, prose and quotes thread. I'm going to c+p all the exempler essays, planning techniques etc from the previous thread to make everything a little bit more organised! If you want to help, let me know and I'll allocate you a page (there are 30+ so this might take me a while!).
Hope this helps!
Hope this helps!
Scroll to see replies
[From OppressedMass]
Intro: Something vague but applicable. The extracts [as they doubtless will be] are from different periods / genders etc, but do share a several broad trends found throughout literature of the First World War. These include [Theme 1], [Theme 2], [Theme 3], [Theme 4].
Theme 1: Discuss presence in extracts / compare, occasionally referring to WR. Then at the end: This is also a theme in....
Theme 2: And so on.
Intro: Something vague but applicable. The extracts [as they doubtless will be] are from different periods / genders etc, but do share a several broad trends found throughout literature of the First World War. These include [Theme 1], [Theme 2], [Theme 3], [Theme 4].
Theme 1: Discuss presence in extracts / compare, occasionally referring to WR. Then at the end: This is also a theme in....
Theme 2: And so on.
[EmilyRichards]
Question 1a: Basing your answer on Extract A and Extract E, you should:
• Write a comparison of the ways the writers present ideas about slaughter and sacrifice
• Say how far you agree with the view that Scott’s poem is more effective than Owen’s in communicating its message
Both poets explore slaughter and sacrifice in their respective poems. Scott does so through his description of the drum rounding up the troops, almost as though they are being sacrificed by society to be sent away and slaughtered. Owen takes a darker and more suspicious tone to create the concept of troops being tricked into fighting, again sacrificed by society but in this case, against their knowing. The structure of Scott’s ‘The Drum’ is far more straightforward and at first glance, easier to follow than the jolty structure of Owen’s ‘The Send-off’. While this at first could work to Owen’s disadvantage in creating a poem that expresses its message cogently, it does have benefits. It creates a style that is arguably more fitting with its heavy and uncomfortable content.
Scott seems to express his view of the way in which soldiers are slaughtered in such large quantities as confusion that not everyone can see how ridiculous it is. The way that he says “to me it talks of…” comes across as surprise that everyone else has not interpreted the sound of the drumbeat in the same way as him. He creates a rhythm that imitates the drumbeat to which he refers, by churning out a list of the horrible consequences of war. In this way, “mangled limbs and dying groans” and all of the other horrible images that Scott mentions are directly linked to the beating of the drum, in this context a means of rounding up troops. The reader is given a direct link between the parade of drums that lure in the “thoughtless youth”, and the horrific ends that the youths later meet as a result. Scott also makes a point of linking the ambition that a society at war encourages in its troops, and the misery that follows. By personifying and capitalising the word ambition - “Ambition’s voice commands” – Scott emphasises the power and influence that it has on soldiers. The fact that the word misery is given similar treatment – “Misery’s hand bestows” – suggests that it is because of the way that society encourages soldiers to be ambitious that they go on to be senselessly slaughtered, causing misery and a “catalogue of human woes”. With both of these techniques, Scott seems to be blaming propaganda, and a society that “lures” soldiers into war, for the slaughter of “thoughtless youth”.
Owen however seems more sickened than confused. He seems to watch the soldiers go to war as though they are already dead, describing their path as “darkening lanes” and noting the “wreath and spray” on their breasts, “as men’s are, dead”. The way that he refers to “a lamp winking to the guard” also seems to imply that Owen feels that the soldiers are being tricked into going to war. They are the only ones unaware of the horrific nature of what they are about to face, and everyone else is encouraging them to go, “like wrongs hushed up”. The juxtaposing of the words “grimly” and “gay” to describe the soldiers faces reflects the disgust that Owen feels, their gaiety misplaced considering their impending doom. He describes them almost as a product that has “lined the train” like stock on a shelf; to be shipped to war. Perhaps the fact that Owen is present in the situation as opposed to Scott who is passive and therefore can look on objectively. The result is a poem with a darker, bitterer tone. It reflects the repulsion that Owen feels for the fact that the men were encouraged by a society celebrating war, “drums and yells”, and scornful women “who gave them flowers”, only to become the country’s sacrifice.
Both poems conform to a consistent rhyme scheme, but the effect of each differs greatly. ‘The Drum’ follows a neat pattern of two stanzas of equal length, in rhyming couplets. Part of the effect of this is that the rhythm is very straight forward and flows easily, meaning that the focus is entirely on the content of the poem, without distractions created by the structure. It also creates – with its iambic rhythm - the almost dizzying effect of a drum “parading round and round and round”, emphasising Scott’s dislike for the rounding up of troops. The relatively long stanzas allow the pace to build up and become more intense. It becomes almost overpowering towards the end of the poem as the horrible images of “dying groans” and “orphans moans” are reeled out. This comes across as a parallel with the way in which propaganda, in many people’s eyes, was overpowering and unavoidable for the troops. While the rhyme scheme of ‘The Send-off’ is consistent, the short stanzas and lines of varying length mean that the poem reads in a jolty, almost disjointed manner. There is no clear rhythm to the poem and it does not flow easily. It feels heavier than ‘The Drum’ as a result. The fact that Owen had experienced so much more of war first hand than Scott, who had never fought, could explain this. Owen has experienced the slaughter of war by seeing friends die. He has seen the sacrifices that men have had to make. Consequently his poem is heavier and more difficult to read, and cannot disengage himself in the way that Scott can.
Both poems seem to express that soldiers were tricked into going to war. Owen’s winking lamp and his description of “grimly gay” faces as well as Scott’s drum “parading round and round” as it “lures from cities and from fields” all evoke images of secrecy and deception. Both poets seem to hold society and propaganda responsible for the mass slaughter of the soldiers. They do not seem to see the sacrifice as being the soldiers themselves – more the sacrifice of integrity that society must have made in order to willingly send the men to their death.
Overall, it could be said that Scott’s poem is more effective in conveying its message. His pattern and presentation of content is clear and easy to read. He uses a simple yet effective technique of creating a drumbeat to mock the way in which troops are lured into going to war by “glittering arms” and “charms”. His point is expressed clearly. He openly claims to “hate that drum’s discordant sound” and directly links it to the suffering – of both troops and humanity in general – that is a consequence of war. Owen’s poem though is heavy and more confused. It reads jumpily, and at first this does arguably distract from the content. However, while this may seem to work against it, perhaps it is in fact a far more appropriate style. When properly considering the content – secrecy, trickery, betrayal, sacrifice and slaughter – perhaps Owen’s more demanding structure is more fitting. It is more involved, and evokes a more bitter feeling than ‘The Drum’. The fact that Owen himself experienced war first hand is certainly passed on to the reader through the poem, and creates a more consuming and intense experience. In this way, he produces the more effective poem, and the more absorbing presentation of slaughter and sacrifice.
Sorry to just post that straight in, but I dunno how else to put it up. Just thought it might be useful, as I got 20/20.
xx
Question 1a: Basing your answer on Extract A and Extract E, you should:
• Write a comparison of the ways the writers present ideas about slaughter and sacrifice
• Say how far you agree with the view that Scott’s poem is more effective than Owen’s in communicating its message
Both poets explore slaughter and sacrifice in their respective poems. Scott does so through his description of the drum rounding up the troops, almost as though they are being sacrificed by society to be sent away and slaughtered. Owen takes a darker and more suspicious tone to create the concept of troops being tricked into fighting, again sacrificed by society but in this case, against their knowing. The structure of Scott’s ‘The Drum’ is far more straightforward and at first glance, easier to follow than the jolty structure of Owen’s ‘The Send-off’. While this at first could work to Owen’s disadvantage in creating a poem that expresses its message cogently, it does have benefits. It creates a style that is arguably more fitting with its heavy and uncomfortable content.
Scott seems to express his view of the way in which soldiers are slaughtered in such large quantities as confusion that not everyone can see how ridiculous it is. The way that he says “to me it talks of…” comes across as surprise that everyone else has not interpreted the sound of the drumbeat in the same way as him. He creates a rhythm that imitates the drumbeat to which he refers, by churning out a list of the horrible consequences of war. In this way, “mangled limbs and dying groans” and all of the other horrible images that Scott mentions are directly linked to the beating of the drum, in this context a means of rounding up troops. The reader is given a direct link between the parade of drums that lure in the “thoughtless youth”, and the horrific ends that the youths later meet as a result. Scott also makes a point of linking the ambition that a society at war encourages in its troops, and the misery that follows. By personifying and capitalising the word ambition - “Ambition’s voice commands” – Scott emphasises the power and influence that it has on soldiers. The fact that the word misery is given similar treatment – “Misery’s hand bestows” – suggests that it is because of the way that society encourages soldiers to be ambitious that they go on to be senselessly slaughtered, causing misery and a “catalogue of human woes”. With both of these techniques, Scott seems to be blaming propaganda, and a society that “lures” soldiers into war, for the slaughter of “thoughtless youth”.
Owen however seems more sickened than confused. He seems to watch the soldiers go to war as though they are already dead, describing their path as “darkening lanes” and noting the “wreath and spray” on their breasts, “as men’s are, dead”. The way that he refers to “a lamp winking to the guard” also seems to imply that Owen feels that the soldiers are being tricked into going to war. They are the only ones unaware of the horrific nature of what they are about to face, and everyone else is encouraging them to go, “like wrongs hushed up”. The juxtaposing of the words “grimly” and “gay” to describe the soldiers faces reflects the disgust that Owen feels, their gaiety misplaced considering their impending doom. He describes them almost as a product that has “lined the train” like stock on a shelf; to be shipped to war. Perhaps the fact that Owen is present in the situation as opposed to Scott who is passive and therefore can look on objectively. The result is a poem with a darker, bitterer tone. It reflects the repulsion that Owen feels for the fact that the men were encouraged by a society celebrating war, “drums and yells”, and scornful women “who gave them flowers”, only to become the country’s sacrifice.
Both poems conform to a consistent rhyme scheme, but the effect of each differs greatly. ‘The Drum’ follows a neat pattern of two stanzas of equal length, in rhyming couplets. Part of the effect of this is that the rhythm is very straight forward and flows easily, meaning that the focus is entirely on the content of the poem, without distractions created by the structure. It also creates – with its iambic rhythm - the almost dizzying effect of a drum “parading round and round and round”, emphasising Scott’s dislike for the rounding up of troops. The relatively long stanzas allow the pace to build up and become more intense. It becomes almost overpowering towards the end of the poem as the horrible images of “dying groans” and “orphans moans” are reeled out. This comes across as a parallel with the way in which propaganda, in many people’s eyes, was overpowering and unavoidable for the troops. While the rhyme scheme of ‘The Send-off’ is consistent, the short stanzas and lines of varying length mean that the poem reads in a jolty, almost disjointed manner. There is no clear rhythm to the poem and it does not flow easily. It feels heavier than ‘The Drum’ as a result. The fact that Owen had experienced so much more of war first hand than Scott, who had never fought, could explain this. Owen has experienced the slaughter of war by seeing friends die. He has seen the sacrifices that men have had to make. Consequently his poem is heavier and more difficult to read, and cannot disengage himself in the way that Scott can.
Both poems seem to express that soldiers were tricked into going to war. Owen’s winking lamp and his description of “grimly gay” faces as well as Scott’s drum “parading round and round” as it “lures from cities and from fields” all evoke images of secrecy and deception. Both poets seem to hold society and propaganda responsible for the mass slaughter of the soldiers. They do not seem to see the sacrifice as being the soldiers themselves – more the sacrifice of integrity that society must have made in order to willingly send the men to their death.
Overall, it could be said that Scott’s poem is more effective in conveying its message. His pattern and presentation of content is clear and easy to read. He uses a simple yet effective technique of creating a drumbeat to mock the way in which troops are lured into going to war by “glittering arms” and “charms”. His point is expressed clearly. He openly claims to “hate that drum’s discordant sound” and directly links it to the suffering – of both troops and humanity in general – that is a consequence of war. Owen’s poem though is heavy and more confused. It reads jumpily, and at first this does arguably distract from the content. However, while this may seem to work against it, perhaps it is in fact a far more appropriate style. When properly considering the content – secrecy, trickery, betrayal, sacrifice and slaughter – perhaps Owen’s more demanding structure is more fitting. It is more involved, and evokes a more bitter feeling than ‘The Drum’. The fact that Owen himself experienced war first hand is certainly passed on to the reader through the poem, and creates a more consuming and intense experience. In this way, he produces the more effective poem, and the more absorbing presentation of slaughter and sacrifice.
Sorry to just post that straight in, but I dunno how else to put it up. Just thought it might be useful, as I got 20/20.
xx
[pinkie 101]
Quite a few people are asking about the srtucture of this question and I panicked, too, and so asked my teacher what she would suggest. However, the suggestions are just a guideline and it's up to you whether to follow them or not; I find essay writing to be something very personal and one individuaal's style of writing can be very different to another's without the quality being any different. ANYWAY....
In the question, the examiners give you bullet points: language, form and structure, writers' thoughts and influence, time composition and gender. My teacher said that probably the easiest way to tackle the essay is to go through each extract and comment on the bullet points in turn, referring to wider reading as you do so. The next step is to somehow link the next extract to it, which should be fairly easy, as they are generally different in terms of form. For example: "Where extract C is a from a fictional novel, extract D contrasts in that it is in the form of a poem" (OK, so that's a pretty stupid way of putting it, but you get the idea).
Another good thing about this question is that the bullet points can link together too. For example, the feelings and thoughts on war of the writer can be linked to the time composition, because that was very important: early WWI literature (with exceptions) tends to express honour, patriotism, pride, propangand, etc. such as the earlier works of Rupert Brooke, Jessie Pope, Julian Grenfell, etc. But during the later years of the war, when it seemed as though the war would never end, we see bitterness and anger becomming one of the more typical attitudes towards war (e.g. Owen, Sassoon, Graeme West, Brittain) Again, there are always exceptions.
The most important thing about this question is not to get involved in analysing the extracts; that is what 1a is for. 1b is purely for you to illustrate how much war literature you have read and how well you manage to convey it in an essay. I hope I've helped!! Xxx
Quite a few people are asking about the srtucture of this question and I panicked, too, and so asked my teacher what she would suggest. However, the suggestions are just a guideline and it's up to you whether to follow them or not; I find essay writing to be something very personal and one individuaal's style of writing can be very different to another's without the quality being any different. ANYWAY....
In the question, the examiners give you bullet points: language, form and structure, writers' thoughts and influence, time composition and gender. My teacher said that probably the easiest way to tackle the essay is to go through each extract and comment on the bullet points in turn, referring to wider reading as you do so. The next step is to somehow link the next extract to it, which should be fairly easy, as they are generally different in terms of form. For example: "Where extract C is a from a fictional novel, extract D contrasts in that it is in the form of a poem" (OK, so that's a pretty stupid way of putting it, but you get the idea).
Another good thing about this question is that the bullet points can link together too. For example, the feelings and thoughts on war of the writer can be linked to the time composition, because that was very important: early WWI literature (with exceptions) tends to express honour, patriotism, pride, propangand, etc. such as the earlier works of Rupert Brooke, Jessie Pope, Julian Grenfell, etc. But during the later years of the war, when it seemed as though the war would never end, we see bitterness and anger becomming one of the more typical attitudes towards war (e.g. Owen, Sassoon, Graeme West, Brittain) Again, there are always exceptions.
The most important thing about this question is not to get involved in analysing the extracts; that is what 1a is for. 1b is purely for you to illustrate how much war literature you have read and how well you manage to convey it in an essay. I hope I've helped!! Xxx
[pinkie101]
Originally Posted by diamonds_glitter_trauma_tears
for the a) question, what sort of comparisons should you make? do you just compare the themes, attitudes and language, or do you also have to compare the gender/time?
THIS question is about proper analysis. That means, you've got to look at form, language, imagery, rhyme and rhythm, tone/diction, structure, etc. For 1a they will always give a pre-WWI poem and a post-WWI poem, so comparison between the time CAN be referred to, but I'd only put it in the introduction or conclusion or something, because they are mainly looking for analysis of the points above. What I always do to plan for this question, is I make a table.. in one column is the first poem, and the other in the other column. I then go about writing the similarities between the columns, putting down quotations to remember, and I then go through everything that is different. The important part that most people forget, is they don't comment on what EFFECT language/form/structure etc. brings to the poems. THe writer will have written the poem in the way they have for a REASON. For example, In "Dulce et Decorum est", Owen uses the comparison of a dead soldier's face to the "devil's sick of sin" in order to convey the ghastly horrors that he experienced in the war, and the sarcasm in the phrase "my friend" echoes his bitter tone towards jingostic poetry, such as that of Jessie Pope's. Then, use all this to compare the poems. I fthat makes any sense? !
Originally Posted by diamonds_glitter_trauma_tears
for the a) question, what sort of comparisons should you make? do you just compare the themes, attitudes and language, or do you also have to compare the gender/time?
THIS question is about proper analysis. That means, you've got to look at form, language, imagery, rhyme and rhythm, tone/diction, structure, etc. For 1a they will always give a pre-WWI poem and a post-WWI poem, so comparison between the time CAN be referred to, but I'd only put it in the introduction or conclusion or something, because they are mainly looking for analysis of the points above. What I always do to plan for this question, is I make a table.. in one column is the first poem, and the other in the other column. I then go about writing the similarities between the columns, putting down quotations to remember, and I then go through everything that is different. The important part that most people forget, is they don't comment on what EFFECT language/form/structure etc. brings to the poems. THe writer will have written the poem in the way they have for a REASON. For example, In "Dulce et Decorum est", Owen uses the comparison of a dead soldier's face to the "devil's sick of sin" in order to convey the ghastly horrors that he experienced in the war, and the sarcasm in the phrase "my friend" echoes his bitter tone towards jingostic poetry, such as that of Jessie Pope's. Then, use all this to compare the poems. I fthat makes any sense? !
[pinkie101]
Just decided to post up a 1a question I did a while ago, because the last one someone posted up really helped me with structure and what to say. My teacher gave me full marks for this answer, although I'm not entirel sure I would agree with her. However, it might help other people? I don't know, I just wanted to give and example of what I've been talking about when I've advised people on the structure of this question. Although I don't think it's that great, please don't criticise, especially with the exam so close...I'm already panicking a lot and it won't help if other people tell me that I'm doing everything wrong . ANYWAY!!! here it is. The poems to compare were "A Wife in Lond" by Thomas Hardy and "Perhaps" by Vera Brittain (I couldn't be bothered to type them out as well, I'm sure you can very easily google them!!)
1)a) Compare the ways in which the poets convey the loss of a loved one.
b) How far do you agree that Hardy’s poem is more moving than Brittain’s poem about grief?
Loss of relatives, friends and lovers during the war is a great theme concerning any war literature. Although similarities can be seen in the ways both Brittain and Hardy convey the feelings and effects of losing a loved one to the war, there are comparable differences in both which lead to a distinguishing difference in tone and ideas.
“Perhaps” is written in the first person, indicating the more personal and direct tone that coincides with Brittain depicting her own personal loss of her fiancé. By beginning the first four stanzas with the words “perhaps”, Brittain highlights a reflective mood, indicating her reflection on the death of her loved one. It could also be argued that this word emphasises the idea that, although good things can happen, the deprivation of a loved one will still remain.
“A wife in London” is, in contrast, written in the third person, allowing the reader the ability to “look on” the situation that Hardy creates. This structure may also reflect Hardy’s lack of personal experience of the loss of a loved one to war, but it can be concluded that this specific choice of narrative voice gives the reader and insight into the experience of an unknown character, which is highlighted by the fact that this character, indeed, is unnamed in the poem.
Both writers use imagery in their poems, but each to a different effect. Brittain creates vivid images of the beauty of nature, with mention of the “blossoms sweet” and “crimson roses” and, with this, depicts the seasons passing by. By illustrating the beauty of each season, Brittain uses the last line of each stanza to conclude the idea that “although” all the beauty of the year is passing by, she cannot help but think of her loved one. The repetition of the similar last lines emphasise this idea that the thought of her loved one never escapes her mind: “Though you have passed away”, “Although you are not there”. Hardy uses similes and other similar poetic techniques not only to bring out the tone of the poem, but also to foreshadow certain ideas. For example, by including how the street-lamp “glimmers cold”, Hardy conveys the sadness the absence of loved ones at war creates, but also foreshadows the “cold” event that is about to be uncovered. By comparing the lanes of the Thames to “a waning taper”, Hardy emphasises the idea that the absence and loss of loved ones causes the deprivation of all good things, including light and happiness.
Hardy depicts the shock and hurt caused by learning of the death of a loved one by referring to receiving the news of the death as “flashed news” and mentioning how “shortly” it was written, emphasising the contrast between how concisely and simply the news of death is phrased and the large amount of hurt and pain the woman feels in receiving this news.
By splitting the poem into two sections, Hardy effectively conveys a contrast between the day before and the day after receiving the news of the death of a loved one. Hardy symbolises the increased melancholy and mournfulness in the way that the fog “hangs thicker”. The reader is shown how simple things become meaningless, such as when the postman “nears and goes”.
The concluding stanza in “A wife in London” summarises the sadness of the poem. Hardy presents the image of the soldier full of life, emphasised by the alliteration of “fresh”, “firm”, and “feather”. The idea that this soldier was writing with ideas of “hoped return” and “new love that they would learn” causes great sadness to be evoked in the reader, as it is evident that this will never happen and the wife must now live knowing that her husband wished to come home and not die.
Brittain emphasises a similar type of importance of the lost one to an individual, but does this by capitalising “You” when referring to her loved one, indicating how dear she held this person. Brittain, like Hardy, uses her concluding stanza to reflect the general tone of the poem. However, unlike Hardy’s conclusion of sadness and unhappiness, Brittain’s ultimate stanza creates a feeling of emptiness and lack of hope. With reference to the “greatest joy” that she “shall not know”, it is evident that the loss of a loved one causes a great void and this causes the tone of dissatisfaction and melancholy to be highlighted.
Both poems are very different in style and approach, and it is because of this that a very personal opinion must be taken in deciding which poem is more “moving” about grief.
Although it can be argued that Hardy’s approach in writing his poem in the third person is effective in terms of the reader being able to view the grief of all characters involved, the first person narrative seen in Brittain’s poem is more effective in that it brings the readers “closer” to the fried and sadness of Brittain’s loss, whereas the approach of Hardy can be seen to perhaps detach the readers too much from the intensity of the feelings of grief involved.
By comparing the amount of detail and structure of both poems, it can be observed that Brittain’s poem is also lengthier, which is effective in the sense that her grief is conveyed through the long, slow-moving poem, representing her own slow progression through life without her loved one.
Brittain also repeats a similar line at the end of each stanza, to emphasise how her loved on is always on her mind and that the grief is constantly there to deal with, in spite of the beauty of the seasons passing her by.
Hardy’s poem, on the other hand, gives less insight into the grief and pain caused by the death of a loved one. Although certain moods are reflected in images, such as the “fog hangs thicker”, Hardy does not ever provide an obvious insight into the feelings of the wife and this can be argued to be lacking in movement and feeling.
The readers also witness the significance of Brittain capitalising the word “You” in order to chow the importance this lost person had to her. By directing the poem at him, it is also very effective in revealing Brittain’s feelings and emotions and one last regret, that her heart was “broken long ago” by the death of her fiancé.
Comparison between the last stanza of both poems is also important in concluding which is more moving in terms of grief. Hardy’s ultimate stanza is similar to Brittain’s, in the way that there is suggestion of a loss of hope for what might have been, but although Hardy does create an immense sense of sadness with the image of the hopeful soldier wishing to come home to his wife, it can be argued that Brittain’s is much more moving in that it brings a conclusion to the build-up of the poem, but this conclusion is broken, reflecting how “broken” she must feel with her “broken heart”.
Although both poems are moving in their own style, it can be confirmed that “Perhaps” conveys emotions associated with grief more effectively than Hardy and this is, perhaps, due to Brittain’s personal experiences of grief.
Just decided to post up a 1a question I did a while ago, because the last one someone posted up really helped me with structure and what to say. My teacher gave me full marks for this answer, although I'm not entirel sure I would agree with her. However, it might help other people? I don't know, I just wanted to give and example of what I've been talking about when I've advised people on the structure of this question. Although I don't think it's that great, please don't criticise, especially with the exam so close...I'm already panicking a lot and it won't help if other people tell me that I'm doing everything wrong . ANYWAY!!! here it is. The poems to compare were "A Wife in Lond" by Thomas Hardy and "Perhaps" by Vera Brittain (I couldn't be bothered to type them out as well, I'm sure you can very easily google them!!)
1)a) Compare the ways in which the poets convey the loss of a loved one.
b) How far do you agree that Hardy’s poem is more moving than Brittain’s poem about grief?
Loss of relatives, friends and lovers during the war is a great theme concerning any war literature. Although similarities can be seen in the ways both Brittain and Hardy convey the feelings and effects of losing a loved one to the war, there are comparable differences in both which lead to a distinguishing difference in tone and ideas.
“Perhaps” is written in the first person, indicating the more personal and direct tone that coincides with Brittain depicting her own personal loss of her fiancé. By beginning the first four stanzas with the words “perhaps”, Brittain highlights a reflective mood, indicating her reflection on the death of her loved one. It could also be argued that this word emphasises the idea that, although good things can happen, the deprivation of a loved one will still remain.
“A wife in London” is, in contrast, written in the third person, allowing the reader the ability to “look on” the situation that Hardy creates. This structure may also reflect Hardy’s lack of personal experience of the loss of a loved one to war, but it can be concluded that this specific choice of narrative voice gives the reader and insight into the experience of an unknown character, which is highlighted by the fact that this character, indeed, is unnamed in the poem.
Both writers use imagery in their poems, but each to a different effect. Brittain creates vivid images of the beauty of nature, with mention of the “blossoms sweet” and “crimson roses” and, with this, depicts the seasons passing by. By illustrating the beauty of each season, Brittain uses the last line of each stanza to conclude the idea that “although” all the beauty of the year is passing by, she cannot help but think of her loved one. The repetition of the similar last lines emphasise this idea that the thought of her loved one never escapes her mind: “Though you have passed away”, “Although you are not there”. Hardy uses similes and other similar poetic techniques not only to bring out the tone of the poem, but also to foreshadow certain ideas. For example, by including how the street-lamp “glimmers cold”, Hardy conveys the sadness the absence of loved ones at war creates, but also foreshadows the “cold” event that is about to be uncovered. By comparing the lanes of the Thames to “a waning taper”, Hardy emphasises the idea that the absence and loss of loved ones causes the deprivation of all good things, including light and happiness.
Hardy depicts the shock and hurt caused by learning of the death of a loved one by referring to receiving the news of the death as “flashed news” and mentioning how “shortly” it was written, emphasising the contrast between how concisely and simply the news of death is phrased and the large amount of hurt and pain the woman feels in receiving this news.
By splitting the poem into two sections, Hardy effectively conveys a contrast between the day before and the day after receiving the news of the death of a loved one. Hardy symbolises the increased melancholy and mournfulness in the way that the fog “hangs thicker”. The reader is shown how simple things become meaningless, such as when the postman “nears and goes”.
The concluding stanza in “A wife in London” summarises the sadness of the poem. Hardy presents the image of the soldier full of life, emphasised by the alliteration of “fresh”, “firm”, and “feather”. The idea that this soldier was writing with ideas of “hoped return” and “new love that they would learn” causes great sadness to be evoked in the reader, as it is evident that this will never happen and the wife must now live knowing that her husband wished to come home and not die.
Brittain emphasises a similar type of importance of the lost one to an individual, but does this by capitalising “You” when referring to her loved one, indicating how dear she held this person. Brittain, like Hardy, uses her concluding stanza to reflect the general tone of the poem. However, unlike Hardy’s conclusion of sadness and unhappiness, Brittain’s ultimate stanza creates a feeling of emptiness and lack of hope. With reference to the “greatest joy” that she “shall not know”, it is evident that the loss of a loved one causes a great void and this causes the tone of dissatisfaction and melancholy to be highlighted.
Both poems are very different in style and approach, and it is because of this that a very personal opinion must be taken in deciding which poem is more “moving” about grief.
Although it can be argued that Hardy’s approach in writing his poem in the third person is effective in terms of the reader being able to view the grief of all characters involved, the first person narrative seen in Brittain’s poem is more effective in that it brings the readers “closer” to the fried and sadness of Brittain’s loss, whereas the approach of Hardy can be seen to perhaps detach the readers too much from the intensity of the feelings of grief involved.
By comparing the amount of detail and structure of both poems, it can be observed that Brittain’s poem is also lengthier, which is effective in the sense that her grief is conveyed through the long, slow-moving poem, representing her own slow progression through life without her loved one.
Brittain also repeats a similar line at the end of each stanza, to emphasise how her loved on is always on her mind and that the grief is constantly there to deal with, in spite of the beauty of the seasons passing her by.
Hardy’s poem, on the other hand, gives less insight into the grief and pain caused by the death of a loved one. Although certain moods are reflected in images, such as the “fog hangs thicker”, Hardy does not ever provide an obvious insight into the feelings of the wife and this can be argued to be lacking in movement and feeling.
The readers also witness the significance of Brittain capitalising the word “You” in order to chow the importance this lost person had to her. By directing the poem at him, it is also very effective in revealing Brittain’s feelings and emotions and one last regret, that her heart was “broken long ago” by the death of her fiancé.
Comparison between the last stanza of both poems is also important in concluding which is more moving in terms of grief. Hardy’s ultimate stanza is similar to Brittain’s, in the way that there is suggestion of a loss of hope for what might have been, but although Hardy does create an immense sense of sadness with the image of the hopeful soldier wishing to come home to his wife, it can be argued that Brittain’s is much more moving in that it brings a conclusion to the build-up of the poem, but this conclusion is broken, reflecting how “broken” she must feel with her “broken heart”.
Although both poems are moving in their own style, it can be confirmed that “Perhaps” conveys emotions associated with grief more effectively than Hardy and this is, perhaps, due to Brittain’s personal experiences of grief.
[pinkie101]
Just decided to post up a 1a question I did a while ago, because the last one someone posted up really helped me with structure and what to say. My teacher gave me full marks for this answer, although I'm not entirel sure I would agree with her. However, it might help other people? I don't know, I just wanted to give and example of what I've been talking about when I've advised people on the structure of this question. Although I don't think it's that great, please don't criticise, especially with the exam so close...I'm already panicking a lot and it won't help if other people tell me that I'm doing everything wrong . ANYWAY!!! here it is. The poems to compare were "A Wife in Lond" by Thomas Hardy and "Perhaps" by Vera Brittain (I couldn't be bothered to type them out as well, I'm sure you can very easily google them!!)
1)a) Compare the ways in which the poets convey the loss of a loved one.
b) How far do you agree that Hardy’s poem is more moving than Brittain’s poem about grief?
Loss of relatives, friends and lovers during the war is a great theme concerning any war literature. Although similarities can be seen in the ways both Brittain and Hardy convey the feelings and effects of losing a loved one to the war, there are comparable differences in both which lead to a distinguishing difference in tone and ideas.
“Perhaps” is written in the first person, indicating the more personal and direct tone that coincides with Brittain depicting her own personal loss of her fiancé. By beginning the first four stanzas with the words “perhaps”, Brittain highlights a reflective mood, indicating her reflection on the death of her loved one. It could also be argued that this word emphasises the idea that, although good things can happen, the deprivation of a loved one will still remain.
“A wife in London” is, in contrast, written in the third person, allowing the reader the ability to “look on” the situation that Hardy creates. This structure may also reflect Hardy’s lack of personal experience of the loss of a loved one to war, but it can be concluded that this specific choice of narrative voice gives the reader and insight into the experience of an unknown character, which is highlighted by the fact that this character, indeed, is unnamed in the poem.
Both writers use imagery in their poems, but each to a different effect. Brittain creates vivid images of the beauty of nature, with mention of the “blossoms sweet” and “crimson roses” and, with this, depicts the seasons passing by. By illustrating the beauty of each season, Brittain uses the last line of each stanza to conclude the idea that “although” all the beauty of the year is passing by, she cannot help but think of her loved one. The repetition of the similar last lines emphasise this idea that the thought of her loved one never escapes her mind: “Though you have passed away”, “Although you are not there”. Hardy uses similes and other similar poetic techniques not only to bring out the tone of the poem, but also to foreshadow certain ideas. For example, by including how the street-lamp “glimmers cold”, Hardy conveys the sadness the absence of loved ones at war creates, but also foreshadows the “cold” event that is about to be uncovered. By comparing the lanes of the Thames to “a waning taper”, Hardy emphasises the idea that the absence and loss of loved ones causes the deprivation of all good things, including light and happiness.
Hardy depicts the shock and hurt caused by learning of the death of a loved one by referring to receiving the news of the death as “flashed news” and mentioning how “shortly” it was written, emphasising the contrast between how concisely and simply the news of death is phrased and the large amount of hurt and pain the woman feels in receiving this news.
By splitting the poem into two sections, Hardy effectively conveys a contrast between the day before and the day after receiving the news of the death of a loved one. Hardy symbolises the increased melancholy and mournfulness in the way that the fog “hangs thicker”. The reader is shown how simple things become meaningless, such as when the postman “nears and goes”.
The concluding stanza in “A wife in London” summarises the sadness of the poem. Hardy presents the image of the soldier full of life, emphasised by the alliteration of “fresh”, “firm”, and “feather”. The idea that this soldier was writing with ideas of “hoped return” and “new love that they would learn” causes great sadness to be evoked in the reader, as it is evident that this will never happen and the wife must now live knowing that her husband wished to come home and not die.
Brittain emphasises a similar type of importance of the lost one to an individual, but does this by capitalising “You” when referring to her loved one, indicating how dear she held this person. Brittain, like Hardy, uses her concluding stanza to reflect the general tone of the poem. However, unlike Hardy’s conclusion of sadness and unhappiness, Brittain’s ultimate stanza creates a feeling of emptiness and lack of hope. With reference to the “greatest joy” that she “shall not know”, it is evident that the loss of a loved one causes a great void and this causes the tone of dissatisfaction and melancholy to be highlighted.
Both poems are very different in style and approach, and it is because of this that a very personal opinion must be taken in deciding which poem is more “moving” about grief.
Although it can be argued that Hardy’s approach in writing his poem in the third person is effective in terms of the reader being able to view the grief of all characters involved, the first person narrative seen in Brittain’s poem is more effective in that it brings the readers “closer” to the fried and sadness of Brittain’s loss, whereas the approach of Hardy can be seen to perhaps detach the readers too much from the intensity of the feelings of grief involved.
By comparing the amount of detail and structure of both poems, it can be observed that Brittain’s poem is also lengthier, which is effective in the sense that her grief is conveyed through the long, slow-moving poem, representing her own slow progression through life without her loved one.
Brittain also repeats a similar line at the end of each stanza, to emphasise how her loved on is always on her mind and that the grief is constantly there to deal with, in spite of the beauty of the seasons passing her by.
Hardy’s poem, on the other hand, gives less insight into the grief and pain caused by the death of a loved one. Although certain moods are reflected in images, such as the “fog hangs thicker”, Hardy does not ever provide an obvious insight into the feelings of the wife and this can be argued to be lacking in movement and feeling.
The readers also witness the significance of Brittain capitalising the word “You” in order to chow the importance this lost person had to her. By directing the poem at him, it is also very effective in revealing Brittain’s feelings and emotions and one last regret, that her heart was “broken long ago” by the death of her fiancé.
Comparison between the last stanza of both poems is also important in concluding which is more moving in terms of grief. Hardy’s ultimate stanza is similar to Brittain’s, in the way that there is suggestion of a loss of hope for what might have been, but although Hardy does create an immense sense of sadness with the image of the hopeful soldier wishing to come home to his wife, it can be argued that Brittain’s is much more moving in that it brings a conclusion to the build-up of the poem, but this conclusion is broken, reflecting how “broken” she must feel with her “broken heart”.
Although both poems are moving in their own style, it can be confirmed that “Perhaps” conveys emotions associated with grief more effectively than Hardy and this is, perhaps, due to Brittain’s personal experiences of grief.
Just decided to post up a 1a question I did a while ago, because the last one someone posted up really helped me with structure and what to say. My teacher gave me full marks for this answer, although I'm not entirel sure I would agree with her. However, it might help other people? I don't know, I just wanted to give and example of what I've been talking about when I've advised people on the structure of this question. Although I don't think it's that great, please don't criticise, especially with the exam so close...I'm already panicking a lot and it won't help if other people tell me that I'm doing everything wrong . ANYWAY!!! here it is. The poems to compare were "A Wife in Lond" by Thomas Hardy and "Perhaps" by Vera Brittain (I couldn't be bothered to type them out as well, I'm sure you can very easily google them!!)
1)a) Compare the ways in which the poets convey the loss of a loved one.
b) How far do you agree that Hardy’s poem is more moving than Brittain’s poem about grief?
Loss of relatives, friends and lovers during the war is a great theme concerning any war literature. Although similarities can be seen in the ways both Brittain and Hardy convey the feelings and effects of losing a loved one to the war, there are comparable differences in both which lead to a distinguishing difference in tone and ideas.
“Perhaps” is written in the first person, indicating the more personal and direct tone that coincides with Brittain depicting her own personal loss of her fiancé. By beginning the first four stanzas with the words “perhaps”, Brittain highlights a reflective mood, indicating her reflection on the death of her loved one. It could also be argued that this word emphasises the idea that, although good things can happen, the deprivation of a loved one will still remain.
“A wife in London” is, in contrast, written in the third person, allowing the reader the ability to “look on” the situation that Hardy creates. This structure may also reflect Hardy’s lack of personal experience of the loss of a loved one to war, but it can be concluded that this specific choice of narrative voice gives the reader and insight into the experience of an unknown character, which is highlighted by the fact that this character, indeed, is unnamed in the poem.
Both writers use imagery in their poems, but each to a different effect. Brittain creates vivid images of the beauty of nature, with mention of the “blossoms sweet” and “crimson roses” and, with this, depicts the seasons passing by. By illustrating the beauty of each season, Brittain uses the last line of each stanza to conclude the idea that “although” all the beauty of the year is passing by, she cannot help but think of her loved one. The repetition of the similar last lines emphasise this idea that the thought of her loved one never escapes her mind: “Though you have passed away”, “Although you are not there”. Hardy uses similes and other similar poetic techniques not only to bring out the tone of the poem, but also to foreshadow certain ideas. For example, by including how the street-lamp “glimmers cold”, Hardy conveys the sadness the absence of loved ones at war creates, but also foreshadows the “cold” event that is about to be uncovered. By comparing the lanes of the Thames to “a waning taper”, Hardy emphasises the idea that the absence and loss of loved ones causes the deprivation of all good things, including light and happiness.
Hardy depicts the shock and hurt caused by learning of the death of a loved one by referring to receiving the news of the death as “flashed news” and mentioning how “shortly” it was written, emphasising the contrast between how concisely and simply the news of death is phrased and the large amount of hurt and pain the woman feels in receiving this news.
By splitting the poem into two sections, Hardy effectively conveys a contrast between the day before and the day after receiving the news of the death of a loved one. Hardy symbolises the increased melancholy and mournfulness in the way that the fog “hangs thicker”. The reader is shown how simple things become meaningless, such as when the postman “nears and goes”.
The concluding stanza in “A wife in London” summarises the sadness of the poem. Hardy presents the image of the soldier full of life, emphasised by the alliteration of “fresh”, “firm”, and “feather”. The idea that this soldier was writing with ideas of “hoped return” and “new love that they would learn” causes great sadness to be evoked in the reader, as it is evident that this will never happen and the wife must now live knowing that her husband wished to come home and not die.
Brittain emphasises a similar type of importance of the lost one to an individual, but does this by capitalising “You” when referring to her loved one, indicating how dear she held this person. Brittain, like Hardy, uses her concluding stanza to reflect the general tone of the poem. However, unlike Hardy’s conclusion of sadness and unhappiness, Brittain’s ultimate stanza creates a feeling of emptiness and lack of hope. With reference to the “greatest joy” that she “shall not know”, it is evident that the loss of a loved one causes a great void and this causes the tone of dissatisfaction and melancholy to be highlighted.
Both poems are very different in style and approach, and it is because of this that a very personal opinion must be taken in deciding which poem is more “moving” about grief.
Although it can be argued that Hardy’s approach in writing his poem in the third person is effective in terms of the reader being able to view the grief of all characters involved, the first person narrative seen in Brittain’s poem is more effective in that it brings the readers “closer” to the fried and sadness of Brittain’s loss, whereas the approach of Hardy can be seen to perhaps detach the readers too much from the intensity of the feelings of grief involved.
By comparing the amount of detail and structure of both poems, it can be observed that Brittain’s poem is also lengthier, which is effective in the sense that her grief is conveyed through the long, slow-moving poem, representing her own slow progression through life without her loved one.
Brittain also repeats a similar line at the end of each stanza, to emphasise how her loved on is always on her mind and that the grief is constantly there to deal with, in spite of the beauty of the seasons passing her by.
Hardy’s poem, on the other hand, gives less insight into the grief and pain caused by the death of a loved one. Although certain moods are reflected in images, such as the “fog hangs thicker”, Hardy does not ever provide an obvious insight into the feelings of the wife and this can be argued to be lacking in movement and feeling.
The readers also witness the significance of Brittain capitalising the word “You” in order to chow the importance this lost person had to her. By directing the poem at him, it is also very effective in revealing Brittain’s feelings and emotions and one last regret, that her heart was “broken long ago” by the death of her fiancé.
Comparison between the last stanza of both poems is also important in concluding which is more moving in terms of grief. Hardy’s ultimate stanza is similar to Brittain’s, in the way that there is suggestion of a loss of hope for what might have been, but although Hardy does create an immense sense of sadness with the image of the hopeful soldier wishing to come home to his wife, it can be argued that Brittain’s is much more moving in that it brings a conclusion to the build-up of the poem, but this conclusion is broken, reflecting how “broken” she must feel with her “broken heart”.
Although both poems are moving in their own style, it can be confirmed that “Perhaps” conveys emotions associated with grief more effectively than Hardy and this is, perhaps, due to Brittain’s personal experiences of grief.
[cooksie5]
I feel that I haven't posted anything useful, evidently I've been revising too much...
Well here is a 1a that I got an A on. My teacher hardly ever gives As so I was quite proud. If anyone has any criticism though, I would actually welcome it!
How far would you agree that whereas, Brooke paints an attractive picture of war in ‘Peace’, Shakespeare gives a slightly more ambiguous view in the extract from Henry V?
Brooke does tend to explore the positive aspects of war in his poetry in general and this is certainly the case in ‘Peace’. In contrast, Shakespeare’s ideas in the extract from Henry V are far more ambiguous.
Perhaps one of the most important messages conveyed by Brooke in ‘Peace’ is the way in which war offers a chance to ‘find release’ from ‘shame’ and provides the soldier with ‘honour’. In some ways this is similar to what Shakespeare in saying in the extract from Henry V because he writes ‘dishonour not your mothers’. This is an extension of the idea in Brooke’s poem, because it also illustrates how there is a duty to family and ancestors to fight, therefore both appear to be in favour of war. However, while Brooke presents an image of ‘death’ as peaceful by making it comparable to ‘sleep’, Shakespeare does not devalue death in this way, so is therefore not being as positive as Brooke about war. This idea in Brooke’s poetry is important because loss of life is one of the main drawbacks of war, so by undermining it Brooke is clearly illustrating his beliefs about how war is attractive. Another stark difference between the two poems is how both writers discuss England in peacetime. Brooke describes England before war as ‘old and cold’ which suggests that there is little pride in the country. In contrast Shakespeare describes a ‘modest stillness and humility’ of man, which is present when there is no war. Hence, he is admitting that peacetime is good, whereas Brooke states that war is the only thing that can offer true reward in life. Both poems have a positive tone and a certain urgency about them which reflects the excitement of the prospect of war. Thus, in terms of ideas Brooke appears to praise war more than Shakespeare, who seems to take the view that if war is needed then it can be an attractive and thrilling thing, but peacetime is equally positive.
One way in which Brooke paints an attractive picture of war is through the use of Biblical language in ‘Peace’. The opening of the poem- ‘God be thanked’ -sounds like a form of worship or a prayer, which is important because Brooke is illustrating how people should be grateful for war. Brooke writes how ordinary men are transformed into ‘swimmers into cleanness leaping’. The sibilance in this phrase serves to soften the tone, suggesting that war is something which offers contentment and satisfaction. The word ‘swimmers’ also connotes the idea of games and competing which is clearly Brooke’s way of painting an attractive view of war. Similarly, Shakespeare illustrates a more positive view of war through the imagery of sport. This is especially evident when he compares the soldiers to ‘greyhounds in the slips’. This simile has the effect of suggesting an eagerness of the men to fight due to the image is conjures of the dogs ready to race. However, Shakespeare uses alliteration to hint at a more frightening view of war when he describes how ‘the blast of war blows’. These onomatopoeic words hint at the untameable power of war and this in itself is threatening. Therefore, by contrasting the image of war as a game, with the threatening sounds of war, Shakespeare is being far more ambiguous than Brooke. However, both writers use repetition to emphasise certain significant ideas about how attractive war can be. For example, in Brooke’s poem there is ‘no ill, no grief’ in death, indeed, this repetition sounds reassuring and calming, which reflects Brooke’s beliefs on death. Hence, if war leads to this state of calm, then it cannot be so bad. Similarly, Shakespeare’s continued use of the word ‘England’ reiterates the theme of duty to your country. This isn’t so explicit in painting an attractive picture of war, but it does imply that there is honour and glory attached to fighting for your country. Furthermore, animal imagery in this extract is used effectively by Shakespeare to command the men to ‘imitate the action of the tiger’. By using a ‘tiger’ which can be seen as a symbol of power and awesome nature, Shakespeare reveals how war offers the chance for heroes to emerge. However, this image is ambiguous because it could also mean that man loses his dignity during war and is reduced to bestial action. Thus, while Brooke identifies war as a way of redemption and a chance for competition, Shakespeare is not always so clear in displaying an appreciation of war.
Brooke’s poem is a Petrarchan sonnet, which he uses in order to split his ideas from positive thoughts of how war can improve the lives of individuals, to the peace and calm offered by death. This is effective in painting an attractive picture of war because it provides positive views of the before and after. Brooke reiterates this elevated view of war through half rhyme on the word ‘love’. By doing so, he is ensuring that the ‘emptiness of love’ is accentuated. This conveys the idea that love is insignificant when compared to war, which is effective in making war seem wonderful by comparison. Both Brooke and Shakespeare use enjambment to accelerate the pace of their poems, which suggests urgency and a sense of being carried away with the idea of war. However, Shakespeare extends this tone of exhilaration by writing in iambic pentameter which provides excitement. Variations in the expected pattern, such as on the word ‘Stiffen’ put emphasis on the imperative, making the poem powerful in suggesting men should go to war. Therefore, in terms of form, both poems appear to be strongly pro-war.
In conclusion, it seems clear that Brooke’s poem does paint more of a positive picture of war than Shakespeare’s. Indeed, ‘Peace’ is so rigorously pro-war that I would argue that it is more effective in conveying its message, particularly due to the prayer like quality it has and the way in which Brooke is thanking God for war. Shakespeare does however, use powerful images and play heavily on the readers’ patriotism, so this is still an effective extract.
I feel that I haven't posted anything useful, evidently I've been revising too much...
Well here is a 1a that I got an A on. My teacher hardly ever gives As so I was quite proud. If anyone has any criticism though, I would actually welcome it!
How far would you agree that whereas, Brooke paints an attractive picture of war in ‘Peace’, Shakespeare gives a slightly more ambiguous view in the extract from Henry V?
Brooke does tend to explore the positive aspects of war in his poetry in general and this is certainly the case in ‘Peace’. In contrast, Shakespeare’s ideas in the extract from Henry V are far more ambiguous.
Perhaps one of the most important messages conveyed by Brooke in ‘Peace’ is the way in which war offers a chance to ‘find release’ from ‘shame’ and provides the soldier with ‘honour’. In some ways this is similar to what Shakespeare in saying in the extract from Henry V because he writes ‘dishonour not your mothers’. This is an extension of the idea in Brooke’s poem, because it also illustrates how there is a duty to family and ancestors to fight, therefore both appear to be in favour of war. However, while Brooke presents an image of ‘death’ as peaceful by making it comparable to ‘sleep’, Shakespeare does not devalue death in this way, so is therefore not being as positive as Brooke about war. This idea in Brooke’s poetry is important because loss of life is one of the main drawbacks of war, so by undermining it Brooke is clearly illustrating his beliefs about how war is attractive. Another stark difference between the two poems is how both writers discuss England in peacetime. Brooke describes England before war as ‘old and cold’ which suggests that there is little pride in the country. In contrast Shakespeare describes a ‘modest stillness and humility’ of man, which is present when there is no war. Hence, he is admitting that peacetime is good, whereas Brooke states that war is the only thing that can offer true reward in life. Both poems have a positive tone and a certain urgency about them which reflects the excitement of the prospect of war. Thus, in terms of ideas Brooke appears to praise war more than Shakespeare, who seems to take the view that if war is needed then it can be an attractive and thrilling thing, but peacetime is equally positive.
One way in which Brooke paints an attractive picture of war is through the use of Biblical language in ‘Peace’. The opening of the poem- ‘God be thanked’ -sounds like a form of worship or a prayer, which is important because Brooke is illustrating how people should be grateful for war. Brooke writes how ordinary men are transformed into ‘swimmers into cleanness leaping’. The sibilance in this phrase serves to soften the tone, suggesting that war is something which offers contentment and satisfaction. The word ‘swimmers’ also connotes the idea of games and competing which is clearly Brooke’s way of painting an attractive view of war. Similarly, Shakespeare illustrates a more positive view of war through the imagery of sport. This is especially evident when he compares the soldiers to ‘greyhounds in the slips’. This simile has the effect of suggesting an eagerness of the men to fight due to the image is conjures of the dogs ready to race. However, Shakespeare uses alliteration to hint at a more frightening view of war when he describes how ‘the blast of war blows’. These onomatopoeic words hint at the untameable power of war and this in itself is threatening. Therefore, by contrasting the image of war as a game, with the threatening sounds of war, Shakespeare is being far more ambiguous than Brooke. However, both writers use repetition to emphasise certain significant ideas about how attractive war can be. For example, in Brooke’s poem there is ‘no ill, no grief’ in death, indeed, this repetition sounds reassuring and calming, which reflects Brooke’s beliefs on death. Hence, if war leads to this state of calm, then it cannot be so bad. Similarly, Shakespeare’s continued use of the word ‘England’ reiterates the theme of duty to your country. This isn’t so explicit in painting an attractive picture of war, but it does imply that there is honour and glory attached to fighting for your country. Furthermore, animal imagery in this extract is used effectively by Shakespeare to command the men to ‘imitate the action of the tiger’. By using a ‘tiger’ which can be seen as a symbol of power and awesome nature, Shakespeare reveals how war offers the chance for heroes to emerge. However, this image is ambiguous because it could also mean that man loses his dignity during war and is reduced to bestial action. Thus, while Brooke identifies war as a way of redemption and a chance for competition, Shakespeare is not always so clear in displaying an appreciation of war.
Brooke’s poem is a Petrarchan sonnet, which he uses in order to split his ideas from positive thoughts of how war can improve the lives of individuals, to the peace and calm offered by death. This is effective in painting an attractive picture of war because it provides positive views of the before and after. Brooke reiterates this elevated view of war through half rhyme on the word ‘love’. By doing so, he is ensuring that the ‘emptiness of love’ is accentuated. This conveys the idea that love is insignificant when compared to war, which is effective in making war seem wonderful by comparison. Both Brooke and Shakespeare use enjambment to accelerate the pace of their poems, which suggests urgency and a sense of being carried away with the idea of war. However, Shakespeare extends this tone of exhilaration by writing in iambic pentameter which provides excitement. Variations in the expected pattern, such as on the word ‘Stiffen’ put emphasis on the imperative, making the poem powerful in suggesting men should go to war. Therefore, in terms of form, both poems appear to be strongly pro-war.
In conclusion, it seems clear that Brooke’s poem does paint more of a positive picture of war than Shakespeare’s. Indeed, ‘Peace’ is so rigorously pro-war that I would argue that it is more effective in conveying its message, particularly due to the prayer like quality it has and the way in which Brooke is thanking God for war. Shakespeare does however, use powerful images and play heavily on the readers’ patriotism, so this is still an effective extract.
[cooksie5]
Originally Posted by melissabee
I know this sounds silly, but could someone clarify what 'form' and 'structure' actually means? Whenever I get a practice essay back, the sentiment seems to be that although my analysis on language is good, I'm lacking on the latter two requisites.
Also, has anyone seen the example of the '20/20' 1B that AQA has given out as a good example? Basically reference to wider reading was placed in everywhere, even to the point of name dropping, and it led to a very boring essay. There was very little personal response. I can scan it in if you guys want.
Form:
This is the type of text you are being given eg. a play, prose or poetry, so when analysing this, you are trying to give reasons for why the writer has chosen that form. A good example I can think of is that of 'Rule Brittainia' which was an extract on one of the past papers, because the fact that it was a song meant that the patriotic message had greater consequence due to the added comradeship of singing it with others. Within them there are things to think about, like sentence length in a novel, stage directions in a play, or rhythm/rhyme in a poem.
Structure:
This is the order of ideas. So say you're taking a poem, you would say how the message changes or progresses as the poem continues and the effect this has. For example, in Sassoon's 'The General' structure becomes important in the separated last line: 'He did for them both with his plan of attack' because it is the main message of the poem and is left for the end to achieve a greater impact. Structure isn't as important as form, but we're always being told to drop something in about it.
Hope this helps!
Originally Posted by melissabee
I know this sounds silly, but could someone clarify what 'form' and 'structure' actually means? Whenever I get a practice essay back, the sentiment seems to be that although my analysis on language is good, I'm lacking on the latter two requisites.
Also, has anyone seen the example of the '20/20' 1B that AQA has given out as a good example? Basically reference to wider reading was placed in everywhere, even to the point of name dropping, and it led to a very boring essay. There was very little personal response. I can scan it in if you guys want.
Form:
This is the type of text you are being given eg. a play, prose or poetry, so when analysing this, you are trying to give reasons for why the writer has chosen that form. A good example I can think of is that of 'Rule Brittainia' which was an extract on one of the past papers, because the fact that it was a song meant that the patriotic message had greater consequence due to the added comradeship of singing it with others. Within them there are things to think about, like sentence length in a novel, stage directions in a play, or rhythm/rhyme in a poem.
Structure:
This is the order of ideas. So say you're taking a poem, you would say how the message changes or progresses as the poem continues and the effect this has. For example, in Sassoon's 'The General' structure becomes important in the separated last line: 'He did for them both with his plan of attack' because it is the main message of the poem and is left for the end to achieve a greater impact. Structure isn't as important as form, but we're always being told to drop something in about it.
Hope this helps!
[pinkie101]
OK, so I finally typed up the 1b answer I said I would, so take a look and see if it helps. If you want to look up the paper, it’s the January 2004 AQA paper, though I think from the website they sometimes don’t provide the extracts because of third party rights or something, so I’ll tell you what the extracts were, to give some idea of what I’m talking about. Extract C was from “Strange Meeting” by Susan Hill when Hillard comes back from leave, extract D is from “Journey’s End” where the Colonel is talking to Stanhope about the raid he’s sending Raleigh and Osborne on and extract E is the poem “Great Men” by Sassoon.
My teacher’s comments at the end, were “Main focus of 3 passages is criticism/attack of those running the war. You do mention this & comment well, but could open more strongly and maintain greater coherence with this in mind. Nevertheless – still a splendid essay. Excellent wide range of references.” … She’s really right about the extracts having something in common, apparently we are supposed to look for the link between the extracts and then use that to form a structured essay. Anyway here it is…and if anyone else could post up 1b answers I’d love to see them, because I’m still not sure whether I’m using enough quotations.
The three extracts provided allow only an insight into the vast range of literature written from or about the First World War and it is, therefore, interesting to explore the similarities and contrasts between these extracts and the ‘typical’ texts of this section of literature
Extract C is certainly not uncommon in terms of its form. Many novels were written about the first World War, especially after the war, such as “Birdsong” by Faulks and the famous “Regeneration” trilogy by Pat Barker and comparison can also be made to those novels written by people who, themselves, had been involved in the war, such as “We that were Young” by Irene Rathbone.
The extract illustrates the changes that occurred while the character Hilliard was on leave, which is fairly typical of literature of this time and reference can be made to “All Quiet on the Western Front” by Erich Maria Remarque in which the character Bäumer refers to leave as “a pause that only makes everything after so much worse”. The extract also deals with the heavy losses of men in such a short time; “We lost three quarters of the Battalion in a day and a half”, and this is highly common in various forms of World War one literature from varying writers and time periods, including John McCrae’s “In Flanders Fields”, with mention of the “row on row” of crosses and the “Dead” who “short days ago lived”.
The extract appears to reflect on the stupidity and pointlessness of war, exemplified by the copious amount of men dying, because they “didn’t receive an order telling us the second push was cancelled”. This reflection can be seen in many of the literary examples of the first World War, especially in the popular drama “Blackadder Goes Forth” in which th mMajor causes many mistakes and, therefore, losses to occur. The concluding quotation of “Oh, he shot himself” is reminiscent of “Suicide in the Trenches” by Siegfried Sassoon, indicating that this idea of war is widely accepted as common of the Great War.
In terms of the time in which extract C was written, similarities in terms of attitudes, gander and form can be noted; literature written later after the war tended to be written by those who had no experience of the war, with the exception of non-fiction writers, such as Vera Brittain and Siegfried Sassoon. Female writers of novels, such as “Strange Meeting” include Pat Barker, Patricia Anthony, writer of “Flanders” and Jennifer Johnston, who wrote “How many miles to Babylon?”. However, many females writers wrote such novels earlier than that of the extract, such as “the Messenger” by Elizabeth Robins and “Despised and Rejected” by Rose Allatini and these, perhaps, present a style of writing and views of the war that are different from those of the later women writers of novels about the first World War.
Extract D, on the other hand, presents plenty of contrasts to extract C, but can still be argued to have many similarities to the literature typical of its time period, gender and form.
Many plays have been written about the Great War, including “Oh! What a lovely War”, “The Accrington Pals”, “Not About Heroes”, and “Observe the Sons of Ulster, marching towards the Somme” and it is therefore, not alone in terms of what was common form of World War one literature. However, few of these examples were written as early as the extract, possibly due to the sensitivity of people on the topic of war and this sets the extract apart from those writings typical of World War one. “Journeys End” is also very different in terms of tone in comparison to such plays as “Oh! What a lovely War” and “Blackadder Goes Forth”; where “Journey’s End” presents a realistic, melancholy view of the war, “Oh! What a lovely War” uses satire and obscure images, such as signing up for the war being symbolised by a fairground, and “Blackadder…” uses humour and sarcastic comments, such as the response of the rather slow Baldrick of “Army” to George’s question “I spy with my little eye, something beginning with ‘R’”. In fact, “Blackadder…” is a parody of “Journeys’ End”, but without mocking the soldiers and this is, therefore, why similarities can be seen between the enthusiastic Raleigh and George and the more sombre Stanhope and Blackadder.
In this extract, we see the idea of the stupidity of war in terms of the pompous high-rank officers, who are sending in a raid earlier, being a more dangerous time, all because “they can’t have it later because of dinner”. This view is highly common in literature critical of the war, such as Sassoon’s “Base Details”, in which the Majors “speed glum heroes up the line to death” while they “guzzle and gape” at the “best hotels”, or the portrayal of Haig in “Oh! What a lovely War”, when he is prepared to lose three-hundred-thousand men for the sake of “really good results”, which is a contradiction in itself. The idea that all “the best” men taken for the raid in the extract are “all youngsters” is also very common in World War one literature, and reference can be made to both “Disabled” and “Arms and the Boy” by Wilfred Owen, and “Strange Meeting” by Susan Hill, all of which comment on the sadness of the youth of soldiers in the war and how they become injured of die before their lives were truly lived.
The fact that R.C. Sheriff, as a male, had real experience of fighting in the war, it brings the extract into another category common of First World War literature. Writers, such as Siegfried Sassoon, Wilfred Owen express similar views on the pointlessness of right in the ware, although Sassoon illustrate the horrors of war more graphically, such as in Owen’s “Dulce et Decorum est”, where he compares a dead soldier’s face to the “devil’s sick of sin”.
Extract E presents possibly the most common form of World War one literature, as many poems were written during and after the war and many of which were written by soldiers who were in the trenches at the time. The most famous of these poets would be Wilfred Owen and Arthur Graeme West, but lesser-known poets to have written such literature include Robert Nichols and Rupert Brooke and such female poets as Vera Brittain and Helen Hamilton.
The attitude to war in this poem is not only very typical of Sassoon’s poetry, but also of many poems and also other forms of literature about the First World War His opposition to those who initiate was, and therefore the “monstrous tyranny, expresses such a bitter and angry tone that is also echoed in “God! How I hate you” by Graeme West. The title of the poem “Great Men” and the reference to the “great ones on earth” is also similar to “The Great War” by Vernon Scandell, who adopts the same sarcastic tone when writing about “the war that was called great”.
There is, again, the sarcastic and bitter tone towards the “gilt and red” Marshalls and hate towards the Officers higher up in importance and this is very common in many pieces of World War one literature, such as the colonel in “Journey’s End”, which can be seen in extract D, who orders a raid at a dangerous time, just because the important men do not want it to interfere with their dinner. Similarities here can also be seen between the presentations of Haig in “Oh! What a lovely War” and, also, in “Blackadder Goes Forth” and the commander in “The Commander” which is also written by Sassoon.
A common symbol of such war literature is also the “wooden crosses”, such as in McCrae’s “In Flanders Fields” when the writer is referring to the number of soldiers who have died as “row on row” of crosses. This idea can also be seen the “The Superfluous Woman” by Vera Brittain, when she conveys “Shadows black” behind the “row of crosses”.
However, Sasson’s attitude in this poem is expressed with a large amount of anger and bitterness and this contrasts to such poems of his time as those of Rupert Brooke, such as “Peace”, and Julian Grenfell’s “Into Battle”, both of which express the idea of honour and happiness of fighting in the war; “Glad from a world grown cold and weary”. “Comrades: An Episode” by Robert Nichols also presents a contrasting view to that of the hated “great men” in the extract, by commenting on the brotherhood, comradeship and love between a commander and his soldiers, as “Two figures fell in toppling death” in order to save their beloved leader.
The attitude illustrated by Sassoon in this extract is seen to be very common of the male writers of his time and can also be seen to contrast to the way in which female poets expressed their feelings. The themes common in female-written poetry is a loss of loved ones, such as “The Wind on the Downs” by Marian Allen, and “Perhaps” by Vera Brittain, and the conditions at home from the war, such as “the Superfluous Woman” by Vera Brittain. However, similarity can be seen between such writers as Helen Hamilton, who takes an angry and bitter tone in her poem “Jingo Woman”, though this is directed towards jingoistic poets such as Jessie Pope, unlike Sassoon’s poem, which is aimed at those who initiated the war.
OK, so I finally typed up the 1b answer I said I would, so take a look and see if it helps. If you want to look up the paper, it’s the January 2004 AQA paper, though I think from the website they sometimes don’t provide the extracts because of third party rights or something, so I’ll tell you what the extracts were, to give some idea of what I’m talking about. Extract C was from “Strange Meeting” by Susan Hill when Hillard comes back from leave, extract D is from “Journey’s End” where the Colonel is talking to Stanhope about the raid he’s sending Raleigh and Osborne on and extract E is the poem “Great Men” by Sassoon.
My teacher’s comments at the end, were “Main focus of 3 passages is criticism/attack of those running the war. You do mention this & comment well, but could open more strongly and maintain greater coherence with this in mind. Nevertheless – still a splendid essay. Excellent wide range of references.” … She’s really right about the extracts having something in common, apparently we are supposed to look for the link between the extracts and then use that to form a structured essay. Anyway here it is…and if anyone else could post up 1b answers I’d love to see them, because I’m still not sure whether I’m using enough quotations.
The three extracts provided allow only an insight into the vast range of literature written from or about the First World War and it is, therefore, interesting to explore the similarities and contrasts between these extracts and the ‘typical’ texts of this section of literature
Extract C is certainly not uncommon in terms of its form. Many novels were written about the first World War, especially after the war, such as “Birdsong” by Faulks and the famous “Regeneration” trilogy by Pat Barker and comparison can also be made to those novels written by people who, themselves, had been involved in the war, such as “We that were Young” by Irene Rathbone.
The extract illustrates the changes that occurred while the character Hilliard was on leave, which is fairly typical of literature of this time and reference can be made to “All Quiet on the Western Front” by Erich Maria Remarque in which the character Bäumer refers to leave as “a pause that only makes everything after so much worse”. The extract also deals with the heavy losses of men in such a short time; “We lost three quarters of the Battalion in a day and a half”, and this is highly common in various forms of World War one literature from varying writers and time periods, including John McCrae’s “In Flanders Fields”, with mention of the “row on row” of crosses and the “Dead” who “short days ago lived”.
The extract appears to reflect on the stupidity and pointlessness of war, exemplified by the copious amount of men dying, because they “didn’t receive an order telling us the second push was cancelled”. This reflection can be seen in many of the literary examples of the first World War, especially in the popular drama “Blackadder Goes Forth” in which th mMajor causes many mistakes and, therefore, losses to occur. The concluding quotation of “Oh, he shot himself” is reminiscent of “Suicide in the Trenches” by Siegfried Sassoon, indicating that this idea of war is widely accepted as common of the Great War.
In terms of the time in which extract C was written, similarities in terms of attitudes, gander and form can be noted; literature written later after the war tended to be written by those who had no experience of the war, with the exception of non-fiction writers, such as Vera Brittain and Siegfried Sassoon. Female writers of novels, such as “Strange Meeting” include Pat Barker, Patricia Anthony, writer of “Flanders” and Jennifer Johnston, who wrote “How many miles to Babylon?”. However, many females writers wrote such novels earlier than that of the extract, such as “the Messenger” by Elizabeth Robins and “Despised and Rejected” by Rose Allatini and these, perhaps, present a style of writing and views of the war that are different from those of the later women writers of novels about the first World War.
Extract D, on the other hand, presents plenty of contrasts to extract C, but can still be argued to have many similarities to the literature typical of its time period, gender and form.
Many plays have been written about the Great War, including “Oh! What a lovely War”, “The Accrington Pals”, “Not About Heroes”, and “Observe the Sons of Ulster, marching towards the Somme” and it is therefore, not alone in terms of what was common form of World War one literature. However, few of these examples were written as early as the extract, possibly due to the sensitivity of people on the topic of war and this sets the extract apart from those writings typical of World War one. “Journeys End” is also very different in terms of tone in comparison to such plays as “Oh! What a lovely War” and “Blackadder Goes Forth”; where “Journey’s End” presents a realistic, melancholy view of the war, “Oh! What a lovely War” uses satire and obscure images, such as signing up for the war being symbolised by a fairground, and “Blackadder…” uses humour and sarcastic comments, such as the response of the rather slow Baldrick of “Army” to George’s question “I spy with my little eye, something beginning with ‘R’”. In fact, “Blackadder…” is a parody of “Journeys’ End”, but without mocking the soldiers and this is, therefore, why similarities can be seen between the enthusiastic Raleigh and George and the more sombre Stanhope and Blackadder.
In this extract, we see the idea of the stupidity of war in terms of the pompous high-rank officers, who are sending in a raid earlier, being a more dangerous time, all because “they can’t have it later because of dinner”. This view is highly common in literature critical of the war, such as Sassoon’s “Base Details”, in which the Majors “speed glum heroes up the line to death” while they “guzzle and gape” at the “best hotels”, or the portrayal of Haig in “Oh! What a lovely War”, when he is prepared to lose three-hundred-thousand men for the sake of “really good results”, which is a contradiction in itself. The idea that all “the best” men taken for the raid in the extract are “all youngsters” is also very common in World War one literature, and reference can be made to both “Disabled” and “Arms and the Boy” by Wilfred Owen, and “Strange Meeting” by Susan Hill, all of which comment on the sadness of the youth of soldiers in the war and how they become injured of die before their lives were truly lived.
The fact that R.C. Sheriff, as a male, had real experience of fighting in the war, it brings the extract into another category common of First World War literature. Writers, such as Siegfried Sassoon, Wilfred Owen express similar views on the pointlessness of right in the ware, although Sassoon illustrate the horrors of war more graphically, such as in Owen’s “Dulce et Decorum est”, where he compares a dead soldier’s face to the “devil’s sick of sin”.
Extract E presents possibly the most common form of World War one literature, as many poems were written during and after the war and many of which were written by soldiers who were in the trenches at the time. The most famous of these poets would be Wilfred Owen and Arthur Graeme West, but lesser-known poets to have written such literature include Robert Nichols and Rupert Brooke and such female poets as Vera Brittain and Helen Hamilton.
The attitude to war in this poem is not only very typical of Sassoon’s poetry, but also of many poems and also other forms of literature about the First World War His opposition to those who initiate was, and therefore the “monstrous tyranny, expresses such a bitter and angry tone that is also echoed in “God! How I hate you” by Graeme West. The title of the poem “Great Men” and the reference to the “great ones on earth” is also similar to “The Great War” by Vernon Scandell, who adopts the same sarcastic tone when writing about “the war that was called great”.
There is, again, the sarcastic and bitter tone towards the “gilt and red” Marshalls and hate towards the Officers higher up in importance and this is very common in many pieces of World War one literature, such as the colonel in “Journey’s End”, which can be seen in extract D, who orders a raid at a dangerous time, just because the important men do not want it to interfere with their dinner. Similarities here can also be seen between the presentations of Haig in “Oh! What a lovely War” and, also, in “Blackadder Goes Forth” and the commander in “The Commander” which is also written by Sassoon.
A common symbol of such war literature is also the “wooden crosses”, such as in McCrae’s “In Flanders Fields” when the writer is referring to the number of soldiers who have died as “row on row” of crosses. This idea can also be seen the “The Superfluous Woman” by Vera Brittain, when she conveys “Shadows black” behind the “row of crosses”.
However, Sasson’s attitude in this poem is expressed with a large amount of anger and bitterness and this contrasts to such poems of his time as those of Rupert Brooke, such as “Peace”, and Julian Grenfell’s “Into Battle”, both of which express the idea of honour and happiness of fighting in the war; “Glad from a world grown cold and weary”. “Comrades: An Episode” by Robert Nichols also presents a contrasting view to that of the hated “great men” in the extract, by commenting on the brotherhood, comradeship and love between a commander and his soldiers, as “Two figures fell in toppling death” in order to save their beloved leader.
The attitude illustrated by Sassoon in this extract is seen to be very common of the male writers of his time and can also be seen to contrast to the way in which female poets expressed their feelings. The themes common in female-written poetry is a loss of loved ones, such as “The Wind on the Downs” by Marian Allen, and “Perhaps” by Vera Brittain, and the conditions at home from the war, such as “the Superfluous Woman” by Vera Brittain. However, similarity can be seen between such writers as Helen Hamilton, who takes an angry and bitter tone in her poem “Jingo Woman”, though this is directed towards jingoistic poets such as Jessie Pope, unlike Sassoon’s poem, which is aimed at those who initiated the war.
[cooksie5]
As promised:
Extracts included were:
Play: ‘Black ‘Ell’ by Malleson
Novel: ‘Not So Quiet’ by Smith
Poem: ‘Before Action’ by Hodgson
All three extracts approach the subject of war in different ways and all have features that may be considered typical of writing of and about the First World War. They seem similar due to their focus on the idea of war as futile- a theme that was common among poets such as Owen and Sassoon.
In Malleson’s play Harold says how the soldiers ‘don’t stand a dog’s chance of being alive’, which suggests that fighting in the first world war often meant that death was inevitable. In this way, it becomes clear that Harold sees the war as nothing more than a waste of human life. Indeed, the way in which his sentences are so disjointed illustrates the despairing tone with which he is talking. This tone further compounds the theme of futility. While Smith’s novel also reveals this theme, it is far more explicit, with her writing how the character becomes ‘savage at the futility’. In this case the tone of the piece is extremely bitter due to the emphasis on the word ‘savage’. This bitterness helps to convey the character’s hatred of the suffering she is witnessing at the front. Hodgson’s poem is more subtle than the other two extracts. The way in which he describes how he ‘must say goodbye to all of this’ reveals a tone of great sadness and regret, and the very fact that he is aware of the inevitability of his death and the fragility of life makes the reader feel a sense of wasted life. This emphasis on futility in these extracts makes them typical as WW1 literature due to the prevalence of this theme in poems such as Owen’s ‘Anthem For Doomed Youth;, in which the very wording of the title- ‘doomed’- conveys how the soldiers ‘die as cattle’ to the slaughter.
However, the extracts also reveal differing ideas about war. For example, both Malleson’s play and Smith’s novel present the reality of war by emphasizing the mental suffering of those at the front, whereas Hodgson makes no reference to this in his poem. Malleson successfully illustrates the psychological suffering of Harold through the stage direction which describes him ‘talking horribly to the air’. In this way it becomes clear that those who were with him at the front are still haunting him at home. This is extremely similar to Sassoon’s ‘Repression of a War Experience’ and the way in which the unyielding sound of the ‘guns’ drives him ‘stark staring mad’. This kind of focus on the horrific effects of war on the soldier as an individual is what is expected from male writers of the time so this makes Malleson’s extract especially typical. While Smith also presents the theme of psychological suffering, she emphasises shell chock by saying ‘they take it more quietly’. This is reference to the fact that men who suffered from shell shock often became mute for a period of time due to the intense pressure at the front. This theme is explored in Pat Barker’s ‘Regeneration’ through the presentation of Prior and his treatment for lack of speech with Dr Rivers. However, the blunt descriptions in Smith’s novel seem unexpected when compared to other female writers. For instance, Katharine Tynan’s ‘A Girl’s Song’ talks about how her ‘grief was in the weeping rains’, which presents a focus on nature which was typical of many women writers. Indeed, this positive presentation of nature and its link to mourning in Tynan’s poem is actually more similar to Hodgson’s poem and the way in which he knows he will lose ‘every sad and lovely thing’ as he stands in his rural setting. Thus, the ideas in Hodgson’s poem seem more about the imminent loss of life rather than the suffering of the soldiers in general.
In terms of language Malleson and Hodgson’s extracts may be viewed as similar due to their use of personification. However, bother writers use it in vastly different ways. Firstly, Malleson uses ‘Mr. Gould’ to say how Harold has fought for his country and ‘all she stands for’. This type of patriotic idea, similar to Brooke’s portrayal of England in ‘The Soldier’ and the glorifying of death, is used in order to make Harold’s criticism of the war all the more poignant. Indeed, juxtaposed beneath this, Harold begins taking about the ‘trenches’. In this way Malleson used the device of contrast effectively. Secondly, Hodgson’s description of how the ‘sun swings his noonday sword’ is important because it suggests that the soldiers become powerless and the ‘noonday sword’ could mean the literal passing of time and how this brings death nearer. Furthermore the imagery of weapons in this phrase reveals how war is causing this loss. Using imagery of weapons together with personification was something Rosenberg often did. For example, in ‘Dead Mans Dump’ the ‘shells are squealing’.
Smith is different because she uses sibilance to convey her ideas on suffering during war. She describes how her mother should ‘lift’ her ‘silken skirts aside… a man is spewing blood’. In this war the first part of the phrase, ‘silken skirts’ displays the easiness of life for non-combatants, while the ‘spewing blood’ illustrates the bleakness of life at the front. Thus it seems to the reader as though Smith is attacking women in much the same way as Sassoon doe in ‘The Glory of Women’ when he mentions how they accept soldiers’ suffering when ‘they’re wounded in a mentionable place’. In contrast, Hodgson uses sibilance in this poem to reiterate his tone of sadness and regret when he writes of the ‘last sunset touch’. This is further compounded through the long vowel sounds in ‘last’ and ‘touch’ as it suggests that he wants to linger on in nature for as long as possible before he dies, hence, displaying that he is mourning his life. This is similar to Ivor Gurney’s ‘To His Love’ because he describes memories of his lover in the ‘Cotswolds’, so nature is linked to mourning.
In terms of form, the poem becomes the most typical because it was the most common form of literature written during the war, because it was used as a means by many soldiers to make sense of the suffering they were experiencing. Hodgson uses an ABABCDDC rhyme scheme, with a half rhyme on the ‘D’. The reason for this complexity is probably to convey the complexity of his emotions as he attempts to come to terms with his imminent death. In contrast, Smith uses a novel in order to present her views on war. This type of literature has become more common post war. Indeed, the way in which it is written in the first person narrative allows the reader to form a relationship with the character. This is similar to that of Faulks’ ‘Birdsong’ with Wraysford. Finally, in contrast the form of a play is used by Malleson to criticize the effect war has on the individual. Perhaps one of the most significant lines of the play occurs as the end when Mr. Gould exclaims ‘Harold!’. This provides evidence that the structure of the play is important because this phrase addresses the idea that criticizing war is something that simply is not done. The very fact that the play was banned shows that in 1916 the people in Britain were not ready for this like they were by the time ‘O What a Lovely War’ was written.
In conclusion, all can be seen as typical in some ways because of the diverse nature of WW1 literature.
Usually in my conclusion I intend to say more about the time of composition, but I was very pushed for time, so I had to leave it. I may have got it done, but the room where we were doing the practice was needed for a lesson so we had to finish 5 whole minutes early!!!
As promised:
Extracts included were:
Play: ‘Black ‘Ell’ by Malleson
Novel: ‘Not So Quiet’ by Smith
Poem: ‘Before Action’ by Hodgson
All three extracts approach the subject of war in different ways and all have features that may be considered typical of writing of and about the First World War. They seem similar due to their focus on the idea of war as futile- a theme that was common among poets such as Owen and Sassoon.
In Malleson’s play Harold says how the soldiers ‘don’t stand a dog’s chance of being alive’, which suggests that fighting in the first world war often meant that death was inevitable. In this way, it becomes clear that Harold sees the war as nothing more than a waste of human life. Indeed, the way in which his sentences are so disjointed illustrates the despairing tone with which he is talking. This tone further compounds the theme of futility. While Smith’s novel also reveals this theme, it is far more explicit, with her writing how the character becomes ‘savage at the futility’. In this case the tone of the piece is extremely bitter due to the emphasis on the word ‘savage’. This bitterness helps to convey the character’s hatred of the suffering she is witnessing at the front. Hodgson’s poem is more subtle than the other two extracts. The way in which he describes how he ‘must say goodbye to all of this’ reveals a tone of great sadness and regret, and the very fact that he is aware of the inevitability of his death and the fragility of life makes the reader feel a sense of wasted life. This emphasis on futility in these extracts makes them typical as WW1 literature due to the prevalence of this theme in poems such as Owen’s ‘Anthem For Doomed Youth;, in which the very wording of the title- ‘doomed’- conveys how the soldiers ‘die as cattle’ to the slaughter.
However, the extracts also reveal differing ideas about war. For example, both Malleson’s play and Smith’s novel present the reality of war by emphasizing the mental suffering of those at the front, whereas Hodgson makes no reference to this in his poem. Malleson successfully illustrates the psychological suffering of Harold through the stage direction which describes him ‘talking horribly to the air’. In this way it becomes clear that those who were with him at the front are still haunting him at home. This is extremely similar to Sassoon’s ‘Repression of a War Experience’ and the way in which the unyielding sound of the ‘guns’ drives him ‘stark staring mad’. This kind of focus on the horrific effects of war on the soldier as an individual is what is expected from male writers of the time so this makes Malleson’s extract especially typical. While Smith also presents the theme of psychological suffering, she emphasises shell chock by saying ‘they take it more quietly’. This is reference to the fact that men who suffered from shell shock often became mute for a period of time due to the intense pressure at the front. This theme is explored in Pat Barker’s ‘Regeneration’ through the presentation of Prior and his treatment for lack of speech with Dr Rivers. However, the blunt descriptions in Smith’s novel seem unexpected when compared to other female writers. For instance, Katharine Tynan’s ‘A Girl’s Song’ talks about how her ‘grief was in the weeping rains’, which presents a focus on nature which was typical of many women writers. Indeed, this positive presentation of nature and its link to mourning in Tynan’s poem is actually more similar to Hodgson’s poem and the way in which he knows he will lose ‘every sad and lovely thing’ as he stands in his rural setting. Thus, the ideas in Hodgson’s poem seem more about the imminent loss of life rather than the suffering of the soldiers in general.
In terms of language Malleson and Hodgson’s extracts may be viewed as similar due to their use of personification. However, bother writers use it in vastly different ways. Firstly, Malleson uses ‘Mr. Gould’ to say how Harold has fought for his country and ‘all she stands for’. This type of patriotic idea, similar to Brooke’s portrayal of England in ‘The Soldier’ and the glorifying of death, is used in order to make Harold’s criticism of the war all the more poignant. Indeed, juxtaposed beneath this, Harold begins taking about the ‘trenches’. In this way Malleson used the device of contrast effectively. Secondly, Hodgson’s description of how the ‘sun swings his noonday sword’ is important because it suggests that the soldiers become powerless and the ‘noonday sword’ could mean the literal passing of time and how this brings death nearer. Furthermore the imagery of weapons in this phrase reveals how war is causing this loss. Using imagery of weapons together with personification was something Rosenberg often did. For example, in ‘Dead Mans Dump’ the ‘shells are squealing’.
Smith is different because she uses sibilance to convey her ideas on suffering during war. She describes how her mother should ‘lift’ her ‘silken skirts aside… a man is spewing blood’. In this war the first part of the phrase, ‘silken skirts’ displays the easiness of life for non-combatants, while the ‘spewing blood’ illustrates the bleakness of life at the front. Thus it seems to the reader as though Smith is attacking women in much the same way as Sassoon doe in ‘The Glory of Women’ when he mentions how they accept soldiers’ suffering when ‘they’re wounded in a mentionable place’. In contrast, Hodgson uses sibilance in this poem to reiterate his tone of sadness and regret when he writes of the ‘last sunset touch’. This is further compounded through the long vowel sounds in ‘last’ and ‘touch’ as it suggests that he wants to linger on in nature for as long as possible before he dies, hence, displaying that he is mourning his life. This is similar to Ivor Gurney’s ‘To His Love’ because he describes memories of his lover in the ‘Cotswolds’, so nature is linked to mourning.
In terms of form, the poem becomes the most typical because it was the most common form of literature written during the war, because it was used as a means by many soldiers to make sense of the suffering they were experiencing. Hodgson uses an ABABCDDC rhyme scheme, with a half rhyme on the ‘D’. The reason for this complexity is probably to convey the complexity of his emotions as he attempts to come to terms with his imminent death. In contrast, Smith uses a novel in order to present her views on war. This type of literature has become more common post war. Indeed, the way in which it is written in the first person narrative allows the reader to form a relationship with the character. This is similar to that of Faulks’ ‘Birdsong’ with Wraysford. Finally, in contrast the form of a play is used by Malleson to criticize the effect war has on the individual. Perhaps one of the most significant lines of the play occurs as the end when Mr. Gould exclaims ‘Harold!’. This provides evidence that the structure of the play is important because this phrase addresses the idea that criticizing war is something that simply is not done. The very fact that the play was banned shows that in 1916 the people in Britain were not ready for this like they were by the time ‘O What a Lovely War’ was written.
In conclusion, all can be seen as typical in some ways because of the diverse nature of WW1 literature.
Usually in my conclusion I intend to say more about the time of composition, but I was very pushed for time, so I had to leave it. I may have got it done, but the room where we were doing the practice was needed for a lesson so we had to finish 5 whole minutes early!!!
[Ann.]
I've typed up my part B. I got 19 our of 20 for it but I think my teacher was being a bit generous as it was the first (and only) War mock we did. He said that on the plus side I had managed to write a lot but that my quotes (or lack of them) really let me down. I was wondering if any of you could have a look at it and tell me how to improve/where I have gone wrong and what you think of the structure I used? Thank you!
All the texts present the theme of him an loss as a consequence of war but this is done using differing styles and literary devices because the texts were written at different times and in different forms. They vary in their level of bitterness and the extent to which they make demands of the reader. They present varying degrees of a critique on society as well as contrasting amounts of graphic realism.
All the extracts deal with the theme of human loss. C and D comment on the widespread cost of war, whilst E is far more personal. Smith overtly expressed her own anger at the horror and waste of war by writing in the first person. She writes, “I became savage at the futility.” This is typical of writing some years after the war as the time delay gave writers an opportunity to philosophise their views. As a female, she would not have had publishes such work during the war as at that time credibility by participation was paramount. She drive an ambulance but did not fight. It was not until much later that non-participants were able to fictionalise the war. ‘Birdsong’ is written in the third person, allowing the minds and the experience of a number of characters to be explored. Soon after the war, it may not have been possible to gain such an objective retrospective view and such novels might have seemed presumptuous.
Text C, in common with D, expresses anger and sadness at human loss. This is done through the use of Harold as a character. He speaks “almost to himself”, the actor would encourage the audience to believe they were party to his personal thoughts, intensifying the impression of the discussion of humanity. The idea that the enemy are real people, as opposed to a faceless target, is put forward. Harold describes how “I heard them talking, just like our chaps do sometimes”. Communication through language is a defining human characteristic. This links with Reargues ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’ in which he describes his realisation that a man he killed was human with family photographs to prove it. Malleson echoes Smith’s anger at the “futility” of war by employing animal imagery which contrasts with the theme of humanity. Harold says that the men “don’t stand a dog’s chance of being alive”, suggesting human life had become cheap. This can again be linked to Remarque’s text, in which he uses the oxymoronic metaphor of soldiers becoming “human animals” as they near the Front. This also links to the bitterness at war in Owen’s ‘Anthem for Doomed Youth’ in which soldiers “die as cattle”. This implies the waste of war; soldiers were destined to die.
A comparison can also be drawn with text E which is about the poet’s realisation that he too is destined to die. However, E lacks the overt anger of D and C. It is a personal text, the poet is reflecting on his own impending death as opposed to the universal human loss and suffering of war expressed in other texts. This personal tone is enforced by its prayer-like form; each stanza ends “O Lord”. The poet’s quiet resignation is evinced in the ABABCDDC rhyme scheme. The ‘DD’ rhymes in each of the three stanzas are softer such as the reflective “this” and “miss”. This is then followed with a forceful rhyme using the word “Lord”. It could be argued that this represents the poet’s sadness at his realisation of death but that he finds strength and comfort in his faith. Hodgson had predicted his death and all the Devonshire’ died, they “still hold” their original trench. Such poetry is typical of pre-Somme literature as the full horror of the visual realism of death was not yet known on a large scale.
Both C and D express a dissatisfaction with the society the writers believed misunderstood the reality of war and its effects. Text C presents an argument between Harold and Mr Gould. Harold can be seena s representative of all misunderstood, exploited soldiers whilst Mr Gould can be seen to symbolise the naïve non-participating society of those at home. Mr Gould says, “There, there, my dear old chap; we understand…of course we do.” This vain attempt to sympathise can be linked to the portrayal of a number of the doctors in Barker’s ‘Regeneration’ who secretly were frustrated with the fragility of the shell-shocked soldiers. An inhumane doctor subjects one patient to ceaseless pain treatment in the misunderstood belief that it will do him good.
This argument in C can be seen to show the societal argument between the soldiers and those who failed them. The war is presented as a product of the mistakes of society. Harold says, “It’s all a bloody muddle!” This simple exclamatory sentence shows the frustration of the soldiers. Such negativity is typical of 1916, if the play was written after the Somme.
D also presents an argument but as the test takes an autobiographical form, the argument is one sided. Smith expresses her frustrated attitude towards the blinkered misunderstanding public. The reader is placed in the position of “Mother and Mrs Evans-Mawnington” through the use of the second person pronoun “you”. The reader is forced to adopt the role of the voyeur, creating a powerful visual impression of the effects of the war. Smith refers to “vomit” and “stale blood”. These graphic concrete nouns force the reader and society to realise the reality of war. This is typical of late and post-war writing, such as Owen’s ‘Dulce’ in which he challenges the jingoistic Jessie Pope who previously referred to war as a “game” with the words “if you could hear at every jolt the blood come gargling from the froth corrupted lungs”. The onomatopoeic “gargling” and “froth” create an aural sensory experience, challenging ignorant patriots, like Mrs Evans-Mawnington in D.
This language contrasts with the romantic language used in E. Hodgson refers to the alliterative “sanguine sacrifice” and the metaphor of the sun who “swings his noon day sword”. This mythical, traditional language is more typical of early in the war and was found in poems that encouraged recruitment. Hodgson mimics the Romantics and encourages the reader to focus on the imagery of nature, such as “hills” and “sunsets” as opposed to the realism of a soldier’s death. In this way, the prayer-like poem focuses of the abstract concepts of life and death as opposed to death’s specific visual realities experienced in World War One. To a certain extent, this is typical of his gender. Men fought in the war, saw death with frequency and consequently were able to work it into a philosophical framework. Women played a less active role in fighting but experienced more domestic hardship and arguable a more practical experience.
Despite their differences in attitudes and subject matter, all the poems deal with the sadness of death and the criticism of society. This rejection of the political side of war reveals how throughout time war has been presented as a intensely human experience in literature.
I've typed up my part B. I got 19 our of 20 for it but I think my teacher was being a bit generous as it was the first (and only) War mock we did. He said that on the plus side I had managed to write a lot but that my quotes (or lack of them) really let me down. I was wondering if any of you could have a look at it and tell me how to improve/where I have gone wrong and what you think of the structure I used? Thank you!
All the texts present the theme of him an loss as a consequence of war but this is done using differing styles and literary devices because the texts were written at different times and in different forms. They vary in their level of bitterness and the extent to which they make demands of the reader. They present varying degrees of a critique on society as well as contrasting amounts of graphic realism.
All the extracts deal with the theme of human loss. C and D comment on the widespread cost of war, whilst E is far more personal. Smith overtly expressed her own anger at the horror and waste of war by writing in the first person. She writes, “I became savage at the futility.” This is typical of writing some years after the war as the time delay gave writers an opportunity to philosophise their views. As a female, she would not have had publishes such work during the war as at that time credibility by participation was paramount. She drive an ambulance but did not fight. It was not until much later that non-participants were able to fictionalise the war. ‘Birdsong’ is written in the third person, allowing the minds and the experience of a number of characters to be explored. Soon after the war, it may not have been possible to gain such an objective retrospective view and such novels might have seemed presumptuous.
Text C, in common with D, expresses anger and sadness at human loss. This is done through the use of Harold as a character. He speaks “almost to himself”, the actor would encourage the audience to believe they were party to his personal thoughts, intensifying the impression of the discussion of humanity. The idea that the enemy are real people, as opposed to a faceless target, is put forward. Harold describes how “I heard them talking, just like our chaps do sometimes”. Communication through language is a defining human characteristic. This links with Reargues ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’ in which he describes his realisation that a man he killed was human with family photographs to prove it. Malleson echoes Smith’s anger at the “futility” of war by employing animal imagery which contrasts with the theme of humanity. Harold says that the men “don’t stand a dog’s chance of being alive”, suggesting human life had become cheap. This can again be linked to Remarque’s text, in which he uses the oxymoronic metaphor of soldiers becoming “human animals” as they near the Front. This also links to the bitterness at war in Owen’s ‘Anthem for Doomed Youth’ in which soldiers “die as cattle”. This implies the waste of war; soldiers were destined to die.
A comparison can also be drawn with text E which is about the poet’s realisation that he too is destined to die. However, E lacks the overt anger of D and C. It is a personal text, the poet is reflecting on his own impending death as opposed to the universal human loss and suffering of war expressed in other texts. This personal tone is enforced by its prayer-like form; each stanza ends “O Lord”. The poet’s quiet resignation is evinced in the ABABCDDC rhyme scheme. The ‘DD’ rhymes in each of the three stanzas are softer such as the reflective “this” and “miss”. This is then followed with a forceful rhyme using the word “Lord”. It could be argued that this represents the poet’s sadness at his realisation of death but that he finds strength and comfort in his faith. Hodgson had predicted his death and all the Devonshire’ died, they “still hold” their original trench. Such poetry is typical of pre-Somme literature as the full horror of the visual realism of death was not yet known on a large scale.
Both C and D express a dissatisfaction with the society the writers believed misunderstood the reality of war and its effects. Text C presents an argument between Harold and Mr Gould. Harold can be seena s representative of all misunderstood, exploited soldiers whilst Mr Gould can be seen to symbolise the naïve non-participating society of those at home. Mr Gould says, “There, there, my dear old chap; we understand…of course we do.” This vain attempt to sympathise can be linked to the portrayal of a number of the doctors in Barker’s ‘Regeneration’ who secretly were frustrated with the fragility of the shell-shocked soldiers. An inhumane doctor subjects one patient to ceaseless pain treatment in the misunderstood belief that it will do him good.
This argument in C can be seen to show the societal argument between the soldiers and those who failed them. The war is presented as a product of the mistakes of society. Harold says, “It’s all a bloody muddle!” This simple exclamatory sentence shows the frustration of the soldiers. Such negativity is typical of 1916, if the play was written after the Somme.
D also presents an argument but as the test takes an autobiographical form, the argument is one sided. Smith expresses her frustrated attitude towards the blinkered misunderstanding public. The reader is placed in the position of “Mother and Mrs Evans-Mawnington” through the use of the second person pronoun “you”. The reader is forced to adopt the role of the voyeur, creating a powerful visual impression of the effects of the war. Smith refers to “vomit” and “stale blood”. These graphic concrete nouns force the reader and society to realise the reality of war. This is typical of late and post-war writing, such as Owen’s ‘Dulce’ in which he challenges the jingoistic Jessie Pope who previously referred to war as a “game” with the words “if you could hear at every jolt the blood come gargling from the froth corrupted lungs”. The onomatopoeic “gargling” and “froth” create an aural sensory experience, challenging ignorant patriots, like Mrs Evans-Mawnington in D.
This language contrasts with the romantic language used in E. Hodgson refers to the alliterative “sanguine sacrifice” and the metaphor of the sun who “swings his noon day sword”. This mythical, traditional language is more typical of early in the war and was found in poems that encouraged recruitment. Hodgson mimics the Romantics and encourages the reader to focus on the imagery of nature, such as “hills” and “sunsets” as opposed to the realism of a soldier’s death. In this way, the prayer-like poem focuses of the abstract concepts of life and death as opposed to death’s specific visual realities experienced in World War One. To a certain extent, this is typical of his gender. Men fought in the war, saw death with frequency and consequently were able to work it into a philosophical framework. Women played a less active role in fighting but experienced more domestic hardship and arguable a more practical experience.
Despite their differences in attitudes and subject matter, all the poems deal with the sadness of death and the criticism of society. This rejection of the political side of war reveals how throughout time war has been presented as a intensely human experience in literature.
[Simon-J]
The 40/40 example paper from AQA is online on this document here (clicky!).
The 40/40 example paper from AQA is online on this document here (clicky!).
[boopshaboop]
Originally Posted by little one
im not very good with introductions - and this is what is supposed to be really good and stand out - can anyone give me examples of any basic framework of an introduction for the 1B question
I wouldnt worry too much about an introduction; its good to put in a couple of sentences but because of time you need to just get into the actual essay asap. I think it would be a good idea to learn a basic introduction that you could apply to any of the questions ie:
The events of world war one have been depicted in all forms of literature, since it began in 1914. Virtually all of these texts convey the sense of the waste of lives that the war was, and the horror of trench warfare. However, each piece is influenced by numerous factors, such as the authors experience and the time it was written, thus each piece is unique, as each presents a unique attitude toward the war.
I dont think it has to be anymore detailed than that, but you could customise it to the extracts a bit more if you wanted.
Originally Posted by little one
im not very good with introductions - and this is what is supposed to be really good and stand out - can anyone give me examples of any basic framework of an introduction for the 1B question
I wouldnt worry too much about an introduction; its good to put in a couple of sentences but because of time you need to just get into the actual essay asap. I think it would be a good idea to learn a basic introduction that you could apply to any of the questions ie:
The events of world war one have been depicted in all forms of literature, since it began in 1914. Virtually all of these texts convey the sense of the waste of lives that the war was, and the horror of trench warfare. However, each piece is influenced by numerous factors, such as the authors experience and the time it was written, thus each piece is unique, as each presents a unique attitude toward the war.
I dont think it has to be anymore detailed than that, but you could customise it to the extracts a bit more if you wanted.
[glsgbbayb]
*brings tea and cookies offers to everyone*
*starts munching*
http://www.s-cool.co.uk/topic_princi...&topic_id= 12
I went on to the S-Cool website because I was finding it hard to Compare the poems adequetly enough to get a good grade and this is the basics of what I found:
When comparing two unseen texts in the exam you should be looking at-
Use of Imagery
Diction
Poetic Voice
Cultural Context
Themes and Moods
Social Context
Gender
Similar or Different Form
Rhyme and Rythm
Parody, Pastiche, Reply, Rewrite
Or basically U D P C T S G S R P----Maybe we can think of an acronym for this. My brain is fizzled for now.
*brings tea and cookies offers to everyone*
*starts munching*
http://www.s-cool.co.uk/topic_princi...&topic_id= 12
I went on to the S-Cool website because I was finding it hard to Compare the poems adequetly enough to get a good grade and this is the basics of what I found:
When comparing two unseen texts in the exam you should be looking at-
Use of Imagery
Diction
Poetic Voice
Cultural Context
Themes and Moods
Social Context
Gender
Similar or Different Form
Rhyme and Rythm
Parody, Pastiche, Reply, Rewrite
Or basically U D P C T S G S R P----Maybe we can think of an acronym for this. My brain is fizzled for now.
[rosie86uk]
I thought that this could be quite useful, it's a vague breakdown of past papers for questions a)
June 2006
- Loss of a loved one
- Soldier death Vs grief of V Brittain
January 2006
- Poets present effects of war
- Changes brought about by war
June 2005
- describe different funeral ceremonies
- Victorian ceremony vs western front ceremony
January 2005
- Attitudes of war and outcomes
- One speech more cynical on the nature of war and glory than other
June 2004
- Present attitudes of war
- One poem inspiring and memorable other presents a disillusioned view of war
June 2003
- Slaughter and sacrifice
I thought that this could be quite useful, it's a vague breakdown of past papers for questions a)
June 2006
- Loss of a loved one
- Soldier death Vs grief of V Brittain
January 2006
- Poets present effects of war
- Changes brought about by war
June 2005
- describe different funeral ceremonies
- Victorian ceremony vs western front ceremony
January 2005
- Attitudes of war and outcomes
- One speech more cynical on the nature of war and glory than other
June 2004
- Present attitudes of war
- One poem inspiring and memorable other presents a disillusioned view of war
June 2003
- Slaughter and sacrifice
[sophielouise403]
Originally Posted by Calum_Magatchu
Do we need to put direct quotes in our 1B answer? Ok pretend one of the extracts was say... regeneration and showed a soldier disturbed.
Like could you say.... ''This poem shows the effect of war on a soldier's psyche, similar to when the main character Paul Baumer of ''All quiet on the western front' returns home from the front line, and find himself alienated from civilisiation. In this case the poem is typical of other war literature for demonstrating the disturbing effects of war. Other examples would be poems wh ichcompare war to 'Hell' such as Grave's 'A dead boche' and Sassoon's 'Glory of women'.''
Would something like that get you anything or do you always need to put direct quotes from your wider reading in?
A wide knowledge of wider reading texts will get you far, but direct quotes from specific texts will seperate A grades from B grades.
[Freud]
The planning grid its just a way of planning in a table where you make notes on ever bullet point in Q1B...
I've attached a simple word version of a planning table, which probably explains it better...
Attached Files
planninggrid.doc (20.0 KB, 162 views)
Originally Posted by Calum_Magatchu
Do we need to put direct quotes in our 1B answer? Ok pretend one of the extracts was say... regeneration and showed a soldier disturbed.
Like could you say.... ''This poem shows the effect of war on a soldier's psyche, similar to when the main character Paul Baumer of ''All quiet on the western front' returns home from the front line, and find himself alienated from civilisiation. In this case the poem is typical of other war literature for demonstrating the disturbing effects of war. Other examples would be poems wh ichcompare war to 'Hell' such as Grave's 'A dead boche' and Sassoon's 'Glory of women'.''
Would something like that get you anything or do you always need to put direct quotes from your wider reading in?
A wide knowledge of wider reading texts will get you far, but direct quotes from specific texts will seperate A grades from B grades.
[Freud]
The planning grid its just a way of planning in a table where you make notes on ever bullet point in Q1B...
I've attached a simple word version of a planning table, which probably explains it better...
Attached Files
planninggrid.doc (20.0 KB, 162 views)
[boopshaboop]
Originally Posted by Calum_Magatchu
Sorry to ask another question.
How much should we refer to wider reading? I tried doing a practice question last night, and seemed to put in wider reading for everything, which made it sound crap and over the top.
I was told that really good essays should have about 15-20 wider reading references in, at least, so how many were you making? It sounds as if you were going slightly over the top but you do need to get a lot in, and the comparisons you were making seemed sound. Just make sure you analyse the extracts in enough detail too. Look at the 'model answer' on the AQA site to compare how you fit extracts in. Hope that helps!
Originally Posted by Calum_Magatchu
Sorry to ask another question.
How much should we refer to wider reading? I tried doing a practice question last night, and seemed to put in wider reading for everything, which made it sound crap and over the top.
I was told that really good essays should have about 15-20 wider reading references in, at least, so how many were you making? It sounds as if you were going slightly over the top but you do need to get a lot in, and the comparisons you were making seemed sound. Just make sure you analyse the extracts in enough detail too. Look at the 'model answer' on the AQA site to compare how you fit extracts in. Hope that helps!
[milbee]
June 2002 Synoptic Paper
1b.
The four extracts vary in their form, extracts B and C being poems, extract D a letter and extract E from a musical play. Robert Graves’ A Dead Boche provides a first person narrative in the poet’s own voice, similarly, Rupert Brooke’s The Soldier and the letter from Vera Brittain are both written in the first person, increasing the reader’s sense of insight into the writer’s mind. The extract from Oh what a lovely war, on the other hand, as a play, provides less in-depth insight as multiple characters express themselves.
Whilst A Dead Boche has a relatively simple structure, split up into two stanzas of equal length, The Soldier is in the form of a standard Petrarchan sonnet. The simple structure of A Dead Boche emphasises its factual and to the point tone whereas The Soldier is written in a far more lyrical style – supported by its sonnet form.
The content of Vera Brittain’s letter is appropriate to the fact that she was writing to her brother, not only does she reveal intimate thoughts but also the language carries an at times familiar style where the people appearing in the letter are referred to by their first names.
Contrasting from each of the other extracts, the excerpt from Oh what a Lovely War makes full use of its being a musical production with slides being shown as a song is sung.
In A Dead Boche, Graves addresses the reader directly and uses the poem didactically, setting out to make the reader understand that the war really is “hell”. The poem’s first line, “To you who’d read my songs of War” is reminiscent of Wilfred Owen’s similarly direct assertion in Dulce Et Decorum Est where he assures the reader that “if in some smothering dream you too could pace” behind the wagon in which a dying man had been “flung” they would have a different view of the time’s patriotic attitudes toward death – as seen in Brooke’s The Soldier. Graves follows his direct speech to the reader with a second stanza where he narrates the discovery of a dead German’s body. Here he describes with stark realism the dead man’s “clothes and face a sodden green”. Although not going as far as Faulks’ presentation of the equality of British and German soldiers at the end of Birdsong when the protagonist meets – and is saved by – soldiers from the other side, the fact that the dead soldier is German seems almost secondary to the fact that he is a dead body (unlike in Oh What a Lovely War where slides of both Allied forces soldiers are shown along with those of Germans). This is a view that would be unlikely to have surfaced in the pre-Somme period of writing where it would be far more typical for the enemy to be emphasised as just that, and certainly not humanised or almost pitied in the way the dead German is in this poem.
Brooke’s romantic language in The Soldier is a great contrast to that of Graves in A Dead Boche. Whilst Graves presentation of the soldier’s death focuses on its earthly remains, Brooke focuses very much on the fact that – should he die – he will retain a part of his mortality in “some corner of a foreign field”. “Foreign” here contrasts greatly with the multiple mentions of the words “England” and “English” – which are so plentiful that they at times seem to create a sense of alliteration “a body of England’s, breathing English air”. The continued references to home and the general romantic language used, (often in conjunction with one another – “blest by the suns of home”
shows that the poem displays very typical attitudes of the time that it was written: at the beginning of the war before many become disillusioned with its supposed glory, most notably after the Somme - quite the opposite to the sentiments expressed in A Dead Boche, written post-Somme.
Vera Brittain’s letter could arguably be claimed to show both the horror at the war displayed in A Dead Boche and the romantic aspiration of dying for your country in The Soldier. Brittain’s awe and support for the courage of her dead fiancé is conveyed in her constant capitalisation of the words “him” or “his” when referring to him. Equally, Brittain displays shock as the realisation of the terrible nature of Roland’s death hits her. Having previously had no idea of “the after-results of an officer’s death” we share her shock at “the smell of graveyards and the Dead” that return with Roland’s clothes. Indeed, Brittain makes continued use of language relating to death, grave yards and funerals – not romanticising his death as Brooke expects his loved ones to but instead providing her brother with a vivid description of her fiancé’s artefacts. She does this with a similar realism to Graves’ presentation of the Dead Boche this is emphasised by the at times almost scientific detail she provides, the hole left by the bullet in one of Roland’s jackets is “almost microscopic”.
Brittain’s account in this letter also provides us with a view of life at home during the war. We read that “Mrs Leighton and Clare were both crying… bitterly”, this is an image far removed from the stoic refusal of Hilliard’s mother in Strange Meeting to acknowledge the importance of anything else but the lunches she gives. This snippet of life at home is not one typically seen in First World War literature, certainly not at the time in any case, due to the fact that the men fighting wrote the large majority of poetry and prose.
The view of the war as provided by Brittain is somewhat atypical as it is rare to see a woman’s account, taken at the time, which provides us with so much detail of life at war. Furthermore, as a woman writer she does present us with some sense of idolisation of the dead soldier but does not fail to point out the “horrors of war without its glory” – making her account markedly different from many other female writers at the time who either failed to see (as arguably Jessie Pope did in her poems with calls to the “Laddies” to join up) that the war was horrific or believed that the country was a cause worth dying for.
Setting Oh What a Lovely War apart from extracts B, C and D is the fact that it was first performed almost 50 years after the end of the war. This provides an explanation for the fact that the play gives a far more satirical look at the war than any of its contemporary literature. The writers present the absurdity of the war and its tragedy with the display of slides showing horrific scenes of “soldiers, carrying one of their gassed in a blanket”. Meanwhile the chirpy rhythm of the song, emphasised by the repetition of “gas” and “gassed”, this creates a juxtaposition of humour and images of human suffering. The song is not as serious as one would expect a view of soldiers’ deaths to be – indeed, despite the fat that it successfully conveys its message, it would be unlikely to see this display of satire any time near the war. Hence, the extract is more typical of late twentieth century war literature when more examples of satirical looks at the War, such as Blackadder Goes Forth, began to appear.
The image of “the offending limb” sticking out of the parapet in the musical – which is seen merely as an “obstruction” by the Commanding Officer and as useful for the soldiers in “holding up the parapet”, both views indicating the banality of the presence of death – is far removed from Brooke’s expectations of what happens to a soldier when he dies. The limb is not representing England in “some corner of a foreign field” but is, apparently at least, not even thought of by the men as belonging to one of their former comrades – a much more austere and less romantic reality than presented by Brooke.
Despite the stark differences between Oh What a Lovely War and the other extracts, particularly in terms of its form and language it appears that the underlying message that the writers were trying to communicate is not dissimilar from Graves’ in A Dead Boche or Brittain’s in the extract from her letter. All three extracts attempt to show the horror of war and, despite their apparent differences, do so in similar ways. Each extract uses descriptions of smell as a means of communicating to their readers, or audience, the conditions in which the war was fought. The way in which Graves describes how the dead German “stunk” is similar to the complaint of the Commanding Officer in Oh What a Lovely War that the trench “reeks of decomposing bodies”. Brittain meanwhile talks of a “charnel-house smell” brought back with her fiancé’s clothes, “the smell of death”. Phrases like these frequent the extract and aid in giving the reader a vivid sense of the scene and the conditions in which Roland lived and died.
June 2002 Synoptic Paper
1b.
The four extracts vary in their form, extracts B and C being poems, extract D a letter and extract E from a musical play. Robert Graves’ A Dead Boche provides a first person narrative in the poet’s own voice, similarly, Rupert Brooke’s The Soldier and the letter from Vera Brittain are both written in the first person, increasing the reader’s sense of insight into the writer’s mind. The extract from Oh what a lovely war, on the other hand, as a play, provides less in-depth insight as multiple characters express themselves.
Whilst A Dead Boche has a relatively simple structure, split up into two stanzas of equal length, The Soldier is in the form of a standard Petrarchan sonnet. The simple structure of A Dead Boche emphasises its factual and to the point tone whereas The Soldier is written in a far more lyrical style – supported by its sonnet form.
The content of Vera Brittain’s letter is appropriate to the fact that she was writing to her brother, not only does she reveal intimate thoughts but also the language carries an at times familiar style where the people appearing in the letter are referred to by their first names.
Contrasting from each of the other extracts, the excerpt from Oh what a Lovely War makes full use of its being a musical production with slides being shown as a song is sung.
In A Dead Boche, Graves addresses the reader directly and uses the poem didactically, setting out to make the reader understand that the war really is “hell”. The poem’s first line, “To you who’d read my songs of War” is reminiscent of Wilfred Owen’s similarly direct assertion in Dulce Et Decorum Est where he assures the reader that “if in some smothering dream you too could pace” behind the wagon in which a dying man had been “flung” they would have a different view of the time’s patriotic attitudes toward death – as seen in Brooke’s The Soldier. Graves follows his direct speech to the reader with a second stanza where he narrates the discovery of a dead German’s body. Here he describes with stark realism the dead man’s “clothes and face a sodden green”. Although not going as far as Faulks’ presentation of the equality of British and German soldiers at the end of Birdsong when the protagonist meets – and is saved by – soldiers from the other side, the fact that the dead soldier is German seems almost secondary to the fact that he is a dead body (unlike in Oh What a Lovely War where slides of both Allied forces soldiers are shown along with those of Germans). This is a view that would be unlikely to have surfaced in the pre-Somme period of writing where it would be far more typical for the enemy to be emphasised as just that, and certainly not humanised or almost pitied in the way the dead German is in this poem.
Brooke’s romantic language in The Soldier is a great contrast to that of Graves in A Dead Boche. Whilst Graves presentation of the soldier’s death focuses on its earthly remains, Brooke focuses very much on the fact that – should he die – he will retain a part of his mortality in “some corner of a foreign field”. “Foreign” here contrasts greatly with the multiple mentions of the words “England” and “English” – which are so plentiful that they at times seem to create a sense of alliteration “a body of England’s, breathing English air”. The continued references to home and the general romantic language used, (often in conjunction with one another – “blest by the suns of home”
shows that the poem displays very typical attitudes of the time that it was written: at the beginning of the war before many become disillusioned with its supposed glory, most notably after the Somme - quite the opposite to the sentiments expressed in A Dead Boche, written post-Somme. Vera Brittain’s letter could arguably be claimed to show both the horror at the war displayed in A Dead Boche and the romantic aspiration of dying for your country in The Soldier. Brittain’s awe and support for the courage of her dead fiancé is conveyed in her constant capitalisation of the words “him” or “his” when referring to him. Equally, Brittain displays shock as the realisation of the terrible nature of Roland’s death hits her. Having previously had no idea of “the after-results of an officer’s death” we share her shock at “the smell of graveyards and the Dead” that return with Roland’s clothes. Indeed, Brittain makes continued use of language relating to death, grave yards and funerals – not romanticising his death as Brooke expects his loved ones to but instead providing her brother with a vivid description of her fiancé’s artefacts. She does this with a similar realism to Graves’ presentation of the Dead Boche this is emphasised by the at times almost scientific detail she provides, the hole left by the bullet in one of Roland’s jackets is “almost microscopic”.
Brittain’s account in this letter also provides us with a view of life at home during the war. We read that “Mrs Leighton and Clare were both crying… bitterly”, this is an image far removed from the stoic refusal of Hilliard’s mother in Strange Meeting to acknowledge the importance of anything else but the lunches she gives. This snippet of life at home is not one typically seen in First World War literature, certainly not at the time in any case, due to the fact that the men fighting wrote the large majority of poetry and prose.
The view of the war as provided by Brittain is somewhat atypical as it is rare to see a woman’s account, taken at the time, which provides us with so much detail of life at war. Furthermore, as a woman writer she does present us with some sense of idolisation of the dead soldier but does not fail to point out the “horrors of war without its glory” – making her account markedly different from many other female writers at the time who either failed to see (as arguably Jessie Pope did in her poems with calls to the “Laddies” to join up) that the war was horrific or believed that the country was a cause worth dying for.
Setting Oh What a Lovely War apart from extracts B, C and D is the fact that it was first performed almost 50 years after the end of the war. This provides an explanation for the fact that the play gives a far more satirical look at the war than any of its contemporary literature. The writers present the absurdity of the war and its tragedy with the display of slides showing horrific scenes of “soldiers, carrying one of their gassed in a blanket”. Meanwhile the chirpy rhythm of the song, emphasised by the repetition of “gas” and “gassed”, this creates a juxtaposition of humour and images of human suffering. The song is not as serious as one would expect a view of soldiers’ deaths to be – indeed, despite the fat that it successfully conveys its message, it would be unlikely to see this display of satire any time near the war. Hence, the extract is more typical of late twentieth century war literature when more examples of satirical looks at the War, such as Blackadder Goes Forth, began to appear.
The image of “the offending limb” sticking out of the parapet in the musical – which is seen merely as an “obstruction” by the Commanding Officer and as useful for the soldiers in “holding up the parapet”, both views indicating the banality of the presence of death – is far removed from Brooke’s expectations of what happens to a soldier when he dies. The limb is not representing England in “some corner of a foreign field” but is, apparently at least, not even thought of by the men as belonging to one of their former comrades – a much more austere and less romantic reality than presented by Brooke.
Despite the stark differences between Oh What a Lovely War and the other extracts, particularly in terms of its form and language it appears that the underlying message that the writers were trying to communicate is not dissimilar from Graves’ in A Dead Boche or Brittain’s in the extract from her letter. All three extracts attempt to show the horror of war and, despite their apparent differences, do so in similar ways. Each extract uses descriptions of smell as a means of communicating to their readers, or audience, the conditions in which the war was fought. The way in which Graves describes how the dead German “stunk” is similar to the complaint of the Commanding Officer in Oh What a Lovely War that the trench “reeks of decomposing bodies”. Brittain meanwhile talks of a “charnel-house smell” brought back with her fiancé’s clothes, “the smell of death”. Phrases like these frequent the extract and aid in giving the reader a vivid sense of the scene and the conditions in which Roland lived and died.
[cooksie5]
Originally Posted by jem_angel
hey ok so it's probably just because i am a worrier but now this thread has helped me with wider reading i am panicking about Q1a) our teacher told us to analyse one poem on its own then analyse the other poem while comparing it with the first at the same time...id everyone else doing this because in the model AQA answer she seemed to do each point eg. imagery, rhythm etc for each poem together
i know im not making sense but how are you structuring 1a)
god i can't believe this exam is on monday i really can't fail this i have no insurance university!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ok breath
xx
Well I tend to structure it as:
1. Themes for both
2. Language for both
3. Structure/form for both
Originally Posted by jem_angel
hey ok so it's probably just because i am a worrier but now this thread has helped me with wider reading i am panicking about Q1a) our teacher told us to analyse one poem on its own then analyse the other poem while comparing it with the first at the same time...id everyone else doing this because in the model AQA answer she seemed to do each point eg. imagery, rhythm etc for each poem together
i know im not making sense but how are you structuring 1a)
god i can't believe this exam is on monday i really can't fail this i have no insurance university!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ok breath
xx
Well I tend to structure it as:
1. Themes for both
2. Language for both
3. Structure/form for both
Related discussions
- study help
- ChiefKwen's Journey to 4A*S and OCRE
- A-level English literature paper 1 help
- OCR A-level Latin Paper 3 (H443/03) - 10th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- A and A* students... Share your revision tips
- Exam Scripts Marking Abbreviation
- Revision Techniques That Helped Me
- How do you revise A level Sociology?
- OCR A-level Latin Paper 4 (H443/04) - 20th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Revision
- A level ancient history 30 mark essays
- A level biology help pls
- I’m rlly bad at English lit and lang
- Politics Edexcel A-level Advice and Preparation
- A levels
- Edexcel A-level English Lit Exemplar Essays?
- I need to go get up to A's- please help.
- chemistry or economics a level
- Computer doubt
- Study Tips and Tricks
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Edexcel A-level English Literature Paper 1 (9ET0 1) - 24th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 days ago
AQA GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (8702/1) - 13th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 days ago
OCR GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (J352/01) - 13th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 days ago
AQA A-level English Literature A Paper 2 (7712/2A-2B) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 days ago
OCR A-level English Literature Paper 1 (H472/01) - 24th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 days ago
Edexcel A-level English Literature Paper 3 (9ET0 3) - 14th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 6 days ago
AQA GCSE English Language Paper 1 (8700/1) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
Does anyone know what war poem appeared on the 2024 GCSE paper?Last reply 1 week ago
AQA GCSE English Literature Paper 2 (8702/2) - 20th May 2024 [Exam Chat]English exams and study help
313
1257
Last reply 1 week ago
Edexcel A-level English Literature Paper 2 (9ET0 2) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
AQA A-level English Literature A Paper 1 (7712/1) - 24th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
Edexcel igcse english language a 2024 may paper 1Last reply 2 weeks ago
AQA A-level English Literature & Language Paper 1 (7707/1) - 24 May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
AQA A-level English Literature B Paper 2 (7717/2A-2B) - 5th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
Edexcel GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (1ET0 01) - 13th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A-level English Language Paper 2 (7702/2) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
Edexcel GCSE English Literature Paper 2 (1ET0 02) - 20th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA GCSE English Language Paper 2 (8700/2) - 6th June 2024 [Exam Chat]
