Lighting Fools

2009-12-04T01:55:00.000-08:00

Larkin Plath titles and proposed poems.

2009-10-02T09:26:00.000-07:00

Mr Davies Y10 English Group:
Original Writing Coursework

lightingfools

Please post your Original Writing Coursework here: your magazine response to the Daily Mail article which suggests there is a link between violent computer games like Grand Theft Auto and violent crime amongst teens.

Here are some tips again in case you've forgotten:

Opening paragraphs- 7 'lead hook' devices, with examples:

Descriptive

Look along the shelf of any teenage boy’s bedroom. What do you see? A few Shoot annuals; a school textbook or two, maybe a DVD of Transfomers – and of course, a copy of Grand Theft Auto.

Strong Quote

“Games such as Grand Theft Auto lead to criminality amongst the young and should be banned,” said the Prime Minister at a news conference on juvenile crime today.

The ‘drop’ intro

The light of evil mischief blazed in his eyes. ‘Yeah- that punk won’t be messing with me again,’ he said, as the echoes of gunshots faded into the blare of approaching sirens. Then he saved the game and got back to his homework.

A question

Have you ever played Grand Theft Auto? Yes? Have you ever murdered a cab driver? No? Funny- because according to The Daily Mail, one leads to the other.

Narrative

Billy comes home from school at about 4pm, has a snack, and unwinds by playing computer games for an hour. Then, he’ll do his homework for another hour or so, eat his dinner and he might go and play football with his friends for a while. Billy is just an ordinary teenager- interested in lots of things, from girls to football to schoolwork- but not obsessive about any of them.

Statement of fact

By the time the average British child is 13, he or she has witnessed over 2,000 murders on TV. If he plays computer games regularly, you can double that figure.

Opinionated pronouncement

I’ve played Microsoft Flight Simulator: that doesn’t make me a pilot. I’ve played Guitar Hero: that doesn’t make me a musician. And I’ve played Grand Theft Auto: that doesn’t make me a murderer!

What the examiners are looking for:

Adapt your style and form to purpose and audience.

-Using one of the seven ‘lead hook’ techniques will adapted your style and form suitably.

Use a range of sentence structures.

-Use long and short sentences and complex sentences. If you use ‘whilst’ or ‘although’, then you have written a complex sentence!

Paragraphs make meanings clear.

-Start a new paragraph for each new subject.

Use graphology.

-In your final draft, use headlines, subheadings, pictures and captions to make your piece look like an magazine article.
Use interviews, statistics and personal opinions and anecdotes

-Interview a parent, a teenage computer gamer, a psychologist. You can invent statistics or research some real ones. Use your own opinions and relevant stories from your own life

Structure
Each one of these sections should be half a side to a side of handwritten text.

1. Lead hook (‘7 methods’)
2. Outline the facts of The Daily Mail article
3. Explain how The Daily Mail article suggests a link between computer games and violence.
4. Respond to this, giving your opinion about whether the Thai student was really driven to murder by computer games. What other explanations of his crime are there?
5. Use an ‘interview’- with a psychologist, a computer gamer with no criminal background, a parent, a politician. Back up the interview with statistics or stories from your own life.
6. Write a conclusion that summarises your strongest argument.

2009-09-21T05:03:00.000-07:00

Mr Davies Y10 group Media Essays

Welcome to lightingfools. Click on 'comment' below, follow the instructions, cut and past your article on HSM2 and Skins into the comment box. That way, there is always a copy of your work on the internet so I can see it at home and in school, so can you, and it never gets lost!

2008-09-19T07:46:00.001-07:00

Y13 Lit: Plot Synopsis of Wuthering Heights- I knew I had this somewhere! For comparison in terms of setting (Wuthering Heights Vs. Thrushcross Grange / Howards End Vs. Wickham Place)

· First three chapters deal with Lockwood’s relationship with Heathcliff and the sequence of his dreams at Wuthering Heights.
· The narrative passes to Nelly Dean, who fills in the ‘back story’, starting from Heathcliff’s arrival at the Heights.
· Heathcliff is brought to the Earnshaw family as a foundling by Mr.Earnshaw.
· Catherine and Heathcliff are brought up as brother and sister.
· When Mr.Earnshaw dies, Hindley returns to Wuthering Heights with his wife Frances and becomes master of the household.
· Hindley wants to sever the relationship between Heathcliff and Catherine.
· Catherine is injured and spends five weeks at Thrushcross Grange recovering.
· When she returns, all her wildness is gone, having made friends with Edgar and Isabella at the Grange.
· While Catherine is away, Hindley degrades Heathcliff, treating him as a labourer.
· Hindley and Frances have a son, Hareton. Frances dies shortly afterwards.
· Heathcliff disappears for three years. Catherine, for reasons open to interpretation, marries Edgar Linton, not Heathcliff.
· Catherine moves into the Grange with Edgar. They are content (an odd word to apply to Catherine!)
· Nelly Dean moves to the Grange.
· Heatchcliff returns, transformed and incredibly appealing. Both Catherine and her sister-in-law Isabella are captivated by him.
· Heatchcliff stays at the Heights, spending much of his time gambling with his former enemy, Hindley.
· Heathcliff begins to court Isabella’s affections, probably to spite Edgar for taking Catherine.
· Edgar and Heathcliff argue violently, causing Catherine enough stress to make her ill.
· With Catherine unwell, Heathcliff courts and marries Isabella. Edgar disowns his sister.
· For two months, Edgar nurses Catherine while there is no word from Heatchliff and Isabella. Then Isabella writes to Nelly, telling her that the couple are living at the Heights and are desperately unhappy.
· Edgar ignores his sister’s plight, but Nelly goes to visit her. Heatchcliff speaks of his love for Catherine and hatred for Isabella.
· Nelly argues with Heathcliff about his behaviour, but eventually he persuades her to take a letter to Catherine.
· Heatchcliff visits Catherine on her deathbed. Catherine dies giving birth to Cathy.
· Isabella runs from Heathcliff, and gives birth to their son, Linton Heathcliff.
· Hindley dies, leaving Heatchcliff and Hareton alone at the Heights. Heathcliff treats Hareton as Hindley once treated him.
· Isabella dies. Linton Heathcliff, now a sickly boy of twelve, goes to live at the Grange with his uncle Edgar.
· Heatchcliff sends for his son and he goes to live at the Heights.
· Cathy lives at the Grange with her father. Her cousin’s closeness is kept from her.
· On her sixteenth birthday, Cathy happens to meet Heathcliff and Hareton on the moors, returns with them to the Heights and is astonished to find her cousin there.
· Heatchcliff plots to marry Cathy and Linton, thereby gaining control of both the Heights and the Grange.
· Cathy wants to please her ‘uncle’, and writes to Linton even though Edgar forbids the relationship. Eventually, they manage to meet in secret.
· Heathcliff manages to force the cousins to marry, knowing he has little time before Linton dies.
· Edgar dies, the Grange passes to Linton (as the male heir). Linton then dies, so the Grange passes to Heathcliff as Cathy’s father-in-law (Cathy would have inherited the Grange were it not for this close male relation by marriage).
· Tricked of her inheritance, Cathy lives a miserable life at the Heights.
· This brings us back to the point the narrative started at. The last three chapters are from Lockwood’s viewpoint, completing the frame narrative.
· Finally, Lockwood leaves the Grange and returns to find Heathcliff has died and Cathy and Hareton are preparing to marry.

2008-09-19T07:46:00.000-07:00

Y13: Some notes from your own presentations on Howards End

Setting in Howards End
Talk about the wilcoxes should live were the schleagels do and vice versa because there both in the worng place for them
The houses in the novel are characters also, talk about the title of the novel, wickham place what it represents and howards end. Basts basement flat representing him at the bottom of society.
The opera scence or the concert , the setting means more to bast than some of the other characters because it keeps him from feeling like hes slipping into the abyss. The scene also very important for establishing character similarities and differences.
Forster based howards end on his previous childhood home, the rooks nest in Hertfordshire. Background research.
Suburbia is forsters Wessex, talk about how he doesn’t desribe the area between two main houses. Urban sprawl at the time.
Howards end and ruth wilcoxes relationship too it, the others are like an extension built onto an old property.

Symbolism within the setting of Howards End

London
London is symbolised by the modern pieces of technology which seem more associated with the Wilcoxes than the Schlegels, the most obvious example is the motor cars which the Wilcoxes own. These vehicles are symbolising the hectic lifestyles which London offers to its inhabitants. Another portrayal of London which the motor car offers is the chaos of London’s streets and the chaotic lifestyles most of its inhabitants lead. For example on page 181 Charles Wilcox hits a cat, which leads to a chaotic incident where Margaret jumps out of the car, and the men are left to deal with the lady whose cat it was. Although the car is not set in London this maybe symbolising the expansion of the cities and the chaos which it will bring with it to the peaceful countryside.
Wickham place
Wickham place is the house in which the schlegel family live. This house is set in london, however the house seems to be a symbol or a reminder of what London was, and seems to be a symbol for the culture, politics and values which are lost in this modern business orientated London in which the house is now surrounded by.
Forster describes the (page 8)house as ‘a backwater, or rather of an estuary.’ Symbolising the house as an estuary demonstrates how the house fits in with its surroundings. Although in the centre its far enough away from the hustle and bustle. Which gives the impression that the houses is an island of culture within a sea of misplaced values.
Kings cross page10 – 11
Although not a significant setting, and only used very briefly within the novel. The symbolism used to represent kings cross is very interesting. Forster symbolises it as a gateway to ‘infinity’. This is suggested seeing as kings cross is a place where all destinations can be reached by, which gives it a sense of mystery. Kings cross in itself may also be seen as a symbol for expansion. This can be assumed as much of the journeys which we are able to follow on the trains, seem to depict modernisation and expansion. For example Aunt juleys trip to get Helen never really seems to leave suburbia, as she sees ‘advertisements of anti billious bills’, and althugh her journey does ‘ span untroubled meadows and the dreamy flow of Tewin water’ she never seems to be within it.
Howards end
The wilcoxes house along with the schlegels is a symbol for a culture which has been lost, and is now surrounded by alien surroundings due to the expansion which has taken place in the nineteenth century and which is carrying on through the twentieth century. The house is a symbol of Pagan/ country lifestyle which in most parts, has been forgotten. One of the main symbols of this is the wych elm tree which has pigs teeth forced into it. The most significant point of this, is the fact most of the family do not even realise these teeth exist, which insinuates that the house is now just a relic and is inhabited by those who no longer understand it with exception to Ruth Wilcox.
Hilton
Hilton like Kings Cross is a peculiar setting, because very little happens yet the symbolism is extremely important due to the way it describes the changing society of the period. The narration reads of hilton “ the station like the scenery…struck an indeterminate note. Into which country will it lead, England or Suburbia? This gives the impression that like Kings cross it is a gateway into the unknown. For many parts Hilton appears to be rural due to the slated houses and its tombs of soldiers, however its rural charm is quickly lost due to its including of a subway and island platforms.
This seems to symbolise the fact that hilton was and tries to remain rural however it has been encroached upon by the city. It has become a victim of modernisation in order to thrive once again.
Oninton
Is a different symbol to many of the other places, because in other incidents, it’s the house which is significant however in this case to Margaret (that is) she finds it insignificant. The setting is rural and seems to be a symbol for the romantic train of thought which Margaret enjoys, however she does not seem to quite fit in to this group. The setting (page185) talks about “the river…still holding the mists upon its banks.” And the lower hills thrilled Margaret with poetry. It seems that very few places actually inspire people in this way throughout the novel which seems to bring up the ongoing idea of a dying breed or it is becoming nothing more than a faded memory. Oninton seems to be a symbol also for traditionalism and this is represented when druids are seen on the drive. Druids are supposedly friends of the trees and are also supposed to be spiritually connected with nature. This therefore gives oniton a symbol of lost society because due to expansion many villages in the so called suburbiua would have once had these beliefs, such as Hilton and this seems to be a symbol on a larger scale of Howards End.

Michael Levenson notes, Howards End is a novel "not of three classes, but of three households." Throughout the novel, each of the three families is defined by their relationships to their physical living spaces. These differing relationships are, in fact, shown to be in conflict in the novel, and this conflict is resolved only uneasily by the novel's end.
This therefore is representing the idea that the houses are in fact important symbols for the characters and the households are in conflict as they symbolise different ideas
Only Ruth Wilcox seems to get on well with Margaret as Ruth is the original owner of Howards end and H.E and W.P are similar in what they symbolise all that is different is that those who inhabit them have different values.

2008-09-11T03:27:00.000-07:00

Y13 Classics:

Put your homework here please, as a 'Comment'. Remember, you will need to click on 'anonymous' and wait for me to moderate your comment before it appears- don't keep doing it!

Deadline: Monday 15th

Task: 100+ words on 'In the Apology, is Socrates defending himself of defending philosophy (Socratic methos) itself?

You must use references to the text!

2008-09-11T03:20:00.000-07:00

Y13 Literature: Lots of notes on Howards End

Plot Summary of Howards End
· Howards End begins with news of Helen Schlegel's brief affair with Paul Wilcox.
· In its wake, Helen's Aunt Juley travels to Howards End, the Wilcox home, to discuss the relationship with the Wilcoxes, not knowing that it has already ended. The Wilcoxes react with horror to news of the affair, believing, unlike the Schlegels, that Paul must make his fortune before he marries.
· Helen, her romance with Paul and the rest of the Wilcox family over, returns to the Schlegel house, Wickham Place, and she and her sister Margaret resume their old life together.
· They attend a concert of Beethoven with other family members, and Helen accidentally walks off with the umbrella of Leonard Bast, a poor clerk teetering on the edge of respectability.
· After accompanying Margaret to Wickham Place to retrieve his umbrella, Leonard accepts her card, and returns to his own shabby flat, where he lives with Jacky, a woman much older than he.
· The Schlegels learn that the Wilcoxes are taking a flat across the street from Wickham Place, and Ruth Wilcox soon calls on Margaret. Margaret writes a note suggesting that they should not meet because of the possibility of an encounter between Helen and Paul, and Mrs. Wilcox replies to her that they should meet, because there is no possibility of an encounter between the two former lovers.
· The two women strike up a friendship, in spite of Mrs. Wilcox's discomfort in Margaret's world.
· Mrs. Wilcox feels that Margaret understands her attachment to Howards End, and after a day of shopping together, she impulsively proposes they go there. Margaret wavers at first, but they leave for the train station, where they meet Henry and Evie Wilcox, Mrs. Wilcox's husband and daughter.
· Mrs. Wilcox is spirited off by her family, and Margaret's visit is postponed. Soon after, Mrs. Wilcox dies.
· The Wilcoxes are alarmed to discover that Mrs. Wilcox has left a note leaving Howards End to Margaret. They decide to burn the note, and not speak of it to Margaret.
· Two years pass. The Schlegels are about to lose their house at Wickham Place, which will be destroyed so that flats may be built there.
· Leonard Bast's wife, Jacky, comes round to the house looking for him. Leonard has disappeared for an evening, and Jacky thinks he is with the Schlegels. The next day, Bast appears at Wickham Place, explaining that he has taken an all-night walk outside of London.
· When he notes that the dawn was gray and not at all romantic, the Schlegels are charmed by him. When they mention Bast to Henry Wilcox, he tells them Bast's company is in danger of going under, and they resolve to warn Bast of this eventuality.
· They invite Bast to tea, and he is suspicious of their desire to talk business when he wants to talk poetry. The tea is interrupted when Evie and Henry Wilcox arrive at the house, and as Bast is leaving, he tells the Schlegels he will not call again.
· Mr. Wilcox thinks that Margaret is attracted to Leonard Bast, and feels an attraction for her as a result. Soon after, at a lunch with Evie, Mr. Wilcox offers to lease the Wilcoxes' Ducie Street flat to the Schlegels. While Margaret tours the flat, Mr. Wilcox asks her to marry him, and she accepts.
· Margaret wants to live at Howards End, but her fiancé is against it. Meanwhile, Helen has had a letter from Leonard Bast, who is leaving his company for another post at lower pay.
· When Margaret mentions this to Henry, he says that in fact Bast's company is a very stable firm. Though the Schlegels blame Henry for Bast's predicament, he shrugs off their criticism.
· Margaret and Henry make a trip to Howards End, where she is frightened by Miss Avery, who mistakes her for Ruth Wilcox.
· Margaret loves the house, but believes that she and Henry will live at Oniton, where they attend Evie's wedding to Percy Cahill. Helen, who has refused to attend the wedding, arrives there unexpectedly with Leonard and Jacky Bast, saying that she has found them starving.
· Margaret is planning to ask Henry to give Bast a place in his company, but before she can do so, Jacky recognizes Henry as her former lover. Helen takes the Basts to a hotel, where she and Leonard have an intimate conversation.
· Margaret, who believes Henry's unfaithfulness is the late Mrs. Wilcox's tragedy rather than hers, refuses Henry's offer to release her from their engagement, and they reconcile.
· Before Margaret can speak with any of them, Helen and the Basts leave their hotel.
· Before she goes to Germany, Helen attempts to give the Basts a substantial monetary gift, but they refuse. They are soon evicted and forced to rely on handouts from Leonard's family.
· Wickham Place is destroyed to make way for flats, and Margaret and Henry marry. With the family scattered, the Schlegels' furniture is stored at Howards End.
· When Margaret hears that Miss Avery has unpacked the Schlegels' things, she goes to Howards End. She is amazed to see how well her furniture fits in the house, but is soon called away to Swanage when she gets news of her aunt's illness.
· Margaret and her brother Tibby contact Helen, who has been in Germany for eight months, to tell her Juley is gravely ill, and Helen agrees to come to Swanage.
· When Helen hears that Juley has recovered, she refuses to see her family, but will get some books from Howards End. Believing her sister to be unwell, Margaret reluctantly agrees to Henry's plan to surprise Helen at Howards End.
· As the plan is carried out, Margaret realizes that "[t]he pack was turning on Helen, to deny her human rights," and it seems to Margaret "that all Schlegels were threatened with her." When she sees her sister, who is pregnant with Leonard Bast's child, she pushes her into Howards End, and bids her husband and the doctor to leave them.
· Helen, on seeing their furniture and other things, asks to spend the night in Howards End. When Margaret asks Henry if they may stay at Howards End, he refuses on the grounds that it would be immoral.
· Margaret is disgusted by his hypocrisy and she defies his wishes, spending a peaceful night at Howards End with her sister.
· Leonard Bast has been looking for Margaret, and Tibby tells him she is at Howards End.
· As Leonard approaches the house, he is filled with happiness, but when he enters the house, Charles strikes him, and he dies.
· In the wake of Bast's death and her own quarrel with him, Margaret tells Henry she will go to Germany with Helen. But Henry is broken by the certainty of Charles's conviction for manslaughter, and Margaret takes him to recover at Howards End.
· In the final scene of the novel, fourteen months have passed, and Helen, her child by Leonard Bast, Margaret, and Henry have become a loving family. In the presence of his children, Henry deeds Howards End to Margaret, who will leave it to her sister's son. When Dolly remarks that Margaret has gotten Howards End after all, Margaret realizes that she has conquered the Wilcoxes without even trying.

Miss Avery
Miss Avery is Ruth Wilcox's old friend and the caretaker of Howards End. She unpacks and arranges the Schlegels' furniture in Howards End, even though it is only supposed to be stored there.
Jacky Bast
Jacky is Leonard's dull, uneducated wife who was once Henry Wilcox's mistress.
Leonard Bast
Leonard is the lowly clerk who wishes to educate himself by reading books and attending concerts. "Such a muddle of a man, and yet so worth pulling though," says Helen Schlegel. He is described as being on the "abyss" of poverty, and is very self-conscious about his position in society. Suspicious of the rich, he will not be patronized by them, which is part of the reason he refuses Helen's offer of money. His two unfortunate mistakes are leaving his job on the advice of the Schlegel sisters (and Henry Wilcox), and becoming involved with Helen. The scene in which he dies, which includes a dramatic fall into a bookcase that showers him with books, has been criticized for its heavy-handed symbolism.
Frieda Mosebach
Frieda Mosebach is the Schlegels' German cousin, who attends the performance of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony with them.
Juley Munt
Juley Munt is the Schlegels' beloved but interfering aunt, whose famously comic scene in the novel occurs when she travels to Howards End for the purpose of convincing Helen to break off her engagement to Paul Wilcox.
Helen Schlegel
The charming sister of Margaret, Helen is high-spirited and hopelessly idealistic. Beethoven's Fifth Symphony affects her most profoundly, and reveals an interesting theme in the novel. She hears a "goblin footfall" in the music, which she imagines to represent the "panic and emptiness" of life, but she also hears a repetitive motif that she imagines as the heroism, magnificence, and triumph of life. These two aspects of life intrinsically bound together echo the highs and lows of Helen's own experiences. Her short-lived love affair with Paul at the beginning of the novel is indicative of her behavior throughout — heady excitement followed by disillusionment. Ruled by passion, she seldom considers the reality of a situation until it is too late. At first she is quite taken with all of the Wilcoxes, but the ill-fated love affair with Paul colors her feelings afterwards, and she is disappointed when Margaret and Henry Wilcox announce their engagement. Her liaison with Leonard Bast is the result of her sympathy for him and her anger at Henry, who will not help Leonard. Her anger at Henry also occasions a break with Margaret. Helen eventually reconciles with Margaret and Henry, who accept her and her illegitimate child (from Leonard Bast) at Howards End.
Margaret Schlegel
Margaret is the cultured, intelligent, and sympathetic protagonist of the novel. Although idealistic like her sister Helen, she is also very sensible and realistic. "Not beautiful, not supremely brilliant, but filled with something that took the place of both qualities — something best described as a profound vivacity, a continual and sincere response to all that she encountered in her path through life" is Forster's description of her. Some critics have found it hard to believe that Margaret would marry Henry Wilcox, a man most definitely her opposite. But Margaret sees things "whole," and although aware of Henry's faults, she also recognizes noble qualities in him. By the end of the novel, Margaret has had some effect on him. While it could be said that Helen reaches out to help Leonard, Margaret does the same for Henry. Indeed, Margaret is the connecting force between the Schlegels and the Wilcoxes; by the end of the novel, Henry seems less "muddled" and Helen seems less impulsive. But this does not occur until after Margaret nearly leaves Henry because of his refusal to allow Helen to stay the night at Howards End with her. In her famous speech to him, she implores him to connect his infidelity with Helen's transgression: "You shall see the connection if it kills you, Henry! You have had a mistress — I forgave you. My sister has a lover — you drive her from the house. Do you see the connection? Stupid, hypocritical, cruel — oh, contemptible! — a man who insults his wife when she's alive and cants with her memory when she's dead. A man who ruins a woman for his pleasure, and casts her off to ruin other men. And gives bad financial advice, and then says he is not responsible. These, man, are you. You cannot recognize them, because you cannot connect."
Tibby Schlegel
Tibby is Margaret and Helen's younger brother, the Oxford undergraduate. Although intellectual like his sisters, he is not interested in personal relationships as they are. His placid demeanor plays comically against their more passionate personalities, and is particularly evident in the scene where Helen visits him at Oxford to let him know of her plans to go to Germany.
Charles Wilcox
Charles is the philistine elder son of Henry Wilcox. Not especially fond of the Schlegels and their "artistic beastliness," he ridiculously suspects Margaret of scheming to get Howards End. His fierce sense of class superiority leads him to beat Leonard when he finds out that he is the father of Helen's child. Charles is convicted of manslaughter for Leonard's death.
Dolly Fussel Wilcox
Dolly is the chattering, good-hearted wife of Charles Wilcox. Like her husband, she foolishly believes Margaret is scheming to get Howards End.
Evie Wilcox
Evie, the daughter of Henry Wilcox, is a rather silly, superficial woman. Although she dislikes Margaret, she humours her father's interest in Margaret.
Henry Wilcox
Henry is the head of the Wilcox clan, who marries Margaret Schlegel after the death of his wife, Ruth. Critic Rose Macaulay describes him this way: "He has the business mind; he is efficient, competent, unimaginative, practically clear-headed, intellectually and spiritually muddled, uncivilized, a manly man, with firm theories about women, politics, the Empire, the social fabric." He is not given to self-introspection, a trait that almost costs him his marriage to Margaret. She insists that he acknowledge the connection between his affair with Jacky Bast and Helen's involvement with Leonard Bast. But his flaw is that he lacks the ability to connect his actions with the pain they might cause in another person's life, thus his indifference to Leonard's loss of employment. Furthermore, he cannot relate his own transgressions in life to another person's similar transgressions; therefore, he cannot sympathize with Helen. He cannot "connect the prose with the passion." By the end of the novel, Henry is broken by the imprisonment of his son, Charles, which forces him to reevaluate his life.
Paul Wilcox
Paul is the younger Wilcox son with whom Helen briefly falls in love. The incident sets the tone for conflict between the Wilcoxes and the Schlegels.
Ruth Wilcox
Henry's first wife, Ruth, is a kind, unselfish woman whose family adores her. However, she completely mystifies her family after she bequeaths Howards End to Margaret. She does so because she intuitively senses that Margaret will appreciate its "personality" and significance. The critic Lionel Trilling has written that Howards End represents England and its agrarian past, and that Ruth, while not intellectual, possesses ancestral wisdom that will be passed on to Margaret. Ruth is almost like a spiritual guide, or as critic Rose Macaulay states, a bridge between the unseen and the seen, and Margaret believes herself and the others "are only fragments of that woman's mind."
The major theme of Howards End is connection — connection between the private and the public life, connection between individuals — and how difficult it is to create and sustain these connections. Howards End focuses mainly on two families: the Schlegels, who represent intellectualism, imagination, and idealism — the inner life of the mind — and the Wilcoxes, who represent English practicality, expansionism, commercialism, and the external world of business and politics. For the Schlegels, personal relationships precede public ones and the individual is more important than any organization. For the Wilcoxes, the reverse is true; social formalities and the rules of the business world reign supreme.
Through the marriage of Margaret Schlegel and Henry Wilcox, these two very different worlds are connected. Margaret, unlike her wildly idealistic sister Helen, moves toward an understanding of the Wilcoxes. Helen's initial encounter with the Wilcoxes proves disastrous, but Margaret begins to realize that many of the things she values, such as art and culture, would not exist without the economic and social stability created by people such as the Wilcoxes. "More and more," she says, "do I refuse to draw my income and sneer at those who guarantee it."
Margaret and Henry's marriage nearly comes to an end, however, when Henry is unable to make an important connection between his sexual transgression with Jacky Bast and Helen's liaison with Leonard Bast. Margaret and Helen want to spend the night together at Howards End before Helen returns to Germany to have her baby. But the hypocritical Henry cannot tolerate the presence of a "fallen woman" on his property, and refuses to allow Margaret and Helen to remain there for the night. As the critic Malcolm Bradbury has written, Margaret insists on the "primacy of the standard of personal sympathy" while Henry emphasizes "the standard of social propriety." Margaret and Helen defy Henry by staying the night at Howards End, where they reestablish their relationship. By the novel's end, events force Henry to reconsider his values. He is reconciled to Helen, and along with Margaret and Helen's illegitimate son, they live together at Howards End under Margaret's guardianship.
Class Conflict
Another important theme in Howards End concerns struggle and conflict within the middle class. The aristocracy and the very poor do not make an appearance in this novel; the novelist states that "[w]e are not concerned with the very poor," but instead with the "gentlefolk, or with those who are obliged to pretend that they are gentlefolk." The three families in Howards End each represent different levels of the middle class. The Schlegels occupy the middle position, somewhere between the Basts, who exist at the lower fringes of the middle class, and the Wilcoxes, who belong to the upper-middle class. Leonard Bast, the clerk, lives near the "abyss" of poverty, while the Schlegels live comfortably on family money, and Henry Wilcox, the wealthy business man who grows steadily richer, has money for "motors" and country houses.
Leonard Bast is somewhat obsessed by class differences, and tries to improve himself by becoming "cultured." He reads books such as Ruskin's Stones of Venice and attends concerts. He meets the Schlegel sisters at a concert performance of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, and becomes interested in them mainly because they seem to take his intellectual aspirations seriously. The Schlegels are fascinated by Leonard and his situation, but Leonard's connection to the Schlegels ultimately proves fatal. When Margaret and Helen hear from Mr. Wilcox that the company Leonard works for is about to go bankrupt, they advise him to find another position. The information proves to be unsound, but Leonard follows it, taking and then losing another position. As a result, he and his wife Jacky are left nearly penniless. In the scene where Leonard, Jacky, and Helen storm into Evie's opulent wedding, Forster illustrates the huge social and economic gulf between the nearly destitute Basts and the wealthy Wilcoxes. This scene, as the critic Frederick P. W. McDowell has noted, "suggests that the impersonal forces by which the Wilcoxes prosper have operated at the expense of Leonard and his class."
Leonard is destroyed by a combination of the Wilcox's indifference and Helen's sympathy. Helen tries to convince Henry that he has a responsibility to help Leonard, because his advice essentially caused Leonard's ruin. When that proves futile, Helen's sympathy for Leonard overwhelms her and she sleeps with him. Upon discovering that Leonard is Helen's "lover," the brutish Charles Wilcox beats Leonard with the flat of the Schlegel family sword. Leonard dies not from the beating, but from a weak heart. He sinks to the floor, knocks over a bookcase and is buried in an avalanche of books, seemingly a victim of his own desire for self-improvement.
Future of England
Closely related to the themes of connection and class conflict in Howards End is the theme of inheritance. The novel concerns itself with the question of who shall inherit England. At the time Howards End was published, England was undergoing great social change. The issue of women's emancipation, commercial and imperial expansion, and the possibility of war with Germany were all factors that contributed to a general feeling of uncertainty about the future of England.
According to the critic Lionel Trilling, Howards End itself symbolizes England. It belongs to Ruth Wilcox, who descends from the yeoman class, and represents England's past. Before Ruth dies, she befriends Margaret Schlegel, and on her deathbed she scribbles a note leaving Howards End to Margaret. She cannot leave it to her family because the only feeling they have for it is one of ownership; they do not understand its spiritual importance as she knows Margaret will. The Wilcoxes dismiss Ruth's note as impossible, and disregard it completely, ignoring the rightful heir. But Margaret's connection with Ruth Wilcox in the novel is strong. Not only is she Ruth's spiritual heir, but she actually becomes Mrs. Wilcox and, ironically, inherits Howards End through her marriage to Henry.
Foster's answer to the question of who shall inherit England seems to suggest a shared inheritance. As the novel draws to a close, the intellectual Schlegels and the practical Wilcoxes are residing together at Howards End, and its immediate heir, Helen's illegitimate son, seems to symbolize a classless future.
Topics for Further Study
Research the career of the famous German composer, Ludwig van Beethoven, focusing especially on his composition of the Fifth Symphony.
Trace the evolution of the British Empire from 1910 to the Commonwealth of Nations today. What are some key differences between imperialist Britain of the Victorian and Edwardian eras and Britain now?
What were the forces that led to WWI, and what was Britain's involvement?
Analyze the history of the class structure in Britain. What were some of the political, social, and economic issues facing the proletariat class and the middle class in 1910? Can you relate them to Forster's depiction of Leonard and Jacky Bast?
Style
Setting
The various locales represented in Howards End are related to the theme of inheritance and which of England's landscapes — countryside, city, or suburbs — will claim the future. During the Edwardian era, a great migration from the countryside to the city transpired, mainly because England was shifting from an agrarian nation to an industrialized nation. London, in particular, was growing at an alarming rate, and a great deal of rebuilding and restructuring of the city occurred. New modes of transportation, such as the automobile, tramcars, autobuses, and the subway, allowed people more mobility than ever before. Urban and suburban development, or "sprawl," followed the subway and tramway lines. The novel is wary of this type of progress and movement, preferring the stability of the country life and homes like Howards End versus the impersonal, chaotic world of London.
The three families in Howards End occupy three different locales: the Schlegels live in London, the Wilcoxes split their time between homes in London and the countryside (easily facilitated by their "motor"), and the Basts live in suburbia. A great deal of movement occurs between country and city, and moving house is a major activity in the novel. For Ruth Wilcox, nothing is worse than being separated from your home. When she hears that the Schlegels' lease on Wickham Place will expire and they will be forced to move, she is greatly distressed. "To be parted from your house, your father's house — it oughtn't to be allowed. Can what they call civilization be right, if people mayn't die in the room where they were born?" she says to Margaret.
Symbolism
Howards End is a highly symbolic novel; many critics have described it as parable with archetypal or mythic characters. The Wilcoxes symbolize the practical, materialistic, enterprising sort of people who have contributed to England's prosperity and strengthened the empire. The Schlegels symbolize the intellectual and artistic types who possess humanistic values and recognize the importance of the spirit. Margaret and Henry's marriage demonstrates the relationship between these two personalities, emphasizing a balance between the two.
Of all the Wilcoxes, Ruth is the only one who does not fit the Wilcox "mold." She is withdrawn from modern life, intuitive, spiritual, and not at all intellectual, but as Lionel Trilling states, representative of traditional values and ancestral knowledge. Along with Miss Avery, the caretaker of Howards End, Ruth Wilcox symbolizes the importance of the human connection to nature and the earth. The wych elm tree with the pig's teeth, the vine, and the hayfield at Howards End also emphasize this connection. The movement of the seasons and the rhythms of nature are contrasted to the senseless movement of the modern, industrialized city, symbolized by the motorcar. The motorcar is never portrayed in a very attractive light: chaos and confusion seem to follow it everywhere, as in the scene where Charles hits the cat.
Other important symbols include the Schlegel books and bookcase and family sword at Howards End, which play so significantly in Leonard's death. When Leonard falls from Charles's blow with the sword and literally buries himself in books, it appears that the culture and intellectual sophistication he so desperately sought become his ruin. It is noteworthy that the sword and books belong to the Schlegels, however. Ostensibly, it seems that Leonard dies at the hand of the Wilcoxes — Henry, by giving him bad advice, and Charles, by actually dealing the final blow with the sword. But if Helen had not been overwhelmed by her sense of injustice, her anger toward the Wilcoxes, and her pity for Leonard, he would at least still have his life. The novel's bitter irony is that the person who tried to help Leonard the most effectively destroyed him.
Humour
Forster received high praise for his use of humour. Many situations in the novel are quite satirical or ironic. One of the earliest comic scenes in the novel involves Aunt Juley's trip to Howards End on Helen's behalf. When Aunt Juley mistakes Charles for Paul, the comedy begins. The discovery of the error only leads to an argument over Helen's behavior, which progresses to an argument over which family is better, the Schlegels or the Wilcoxes. The silly argument betrays the well-mannered facade of two supposedly well-bred gentlefolk. It also foreshadows the more serious conflict that will arise between the two families.
Another humorous scene involves Margaret trying to engage Tibby in a discussion about his future. She wants Tibby to think seriously of taking up a profession after he graduates. Of course, her reasons have nothing to do with the need for money. Rather, she believes it would build character. When she mentions a man's desire to work, Tibby replies, "I have no experience of this profound desire to which you allude." The aesthetic Tibby has no reason to consider a profession because he is financially secure. One of his satirical comments is that he prefers "civilization without activity."
Another semi-comic scene is the Wilcox family meeting concerning Ruth's bequest of Howards End. The Wilcoxes operate the meeting in an impersonal, business-like manner that reflects their style. Their mistrust of personal relations leads Charles to suggest that perhaps Margaret manipulated his mother into leaving her Howards End. Dolly irrationally fears that Margaret, as they speak, may be on her way to turn them all out of the house. The scene illustrates how suspicious and ill-mannered the Wilcoxes can be, and how they always suppose people are trying to get something out of them.
Criticism
Jane Elizabeth Dougherty
Dougherty is a Ph.D. candidate at Tufts University. In this essay, she discusses Forster's depictions of the characters' relationships to their dwelling places in Howards End.
Daniel Born notes that "discussion of values in Howards End is never pursued apart from a material context of physical living space." In Howards End, a novel which takes its name from the Wilcox family's country house, the "material contexts" of the characters and their relationships to these material contexts defines each of the three families: the Schlegels, the Wilcoxes, and the Basts. As Michael Levenson notes, Howards End is a novel "not of three classes, but of three households." Throughout the novel, each of the three families is defined by their relationships to their physical living spaces. These differing relationships are, in fact, shown to be in conflict in the novel, and this conflict is resolved only uneasily by the novel's end.
The novel begins with Helen's descriptions of Howards End, where she has gone to visit the Wilcoxes. In the opening paragraphs of her first letter to Margaret, she writes:
It isn't going to be what we expected. It is old and little, and altogether delightful — red brick. From hall you go right or left into dining-room or drawing-room. Hall itself is practically a room. You open another door in it, and there are the stairs going up in a sort of tunnel to the first-floor. Three bedrooms in a row there, and three attics in a row above. That isn't all the house really, but it's all that one notices — nine windows as you look up from the front garden.
Then there's a very big wych-elm — to the left as you look up — leaning a little over the house, and standing on the boundary between the garden and meadow. I quite love that tree already. Also ordinary elms, oaks — no nastier than ordinary oaks — pear trees, apples trees, and a vine. I only want to show that it isn't the least what we expected. Why did we settle that their house would be all gables and wiggles, and their garden all gamboge-coloured paths? I believe simply because we associate them with expensive hotels — Mrs. Wilcox trailing in beautiful dresses down long corridors, Mr. Wilcox bullying porters, etc.
Helen's letter to her sister shows that the Schlegels have spent some time speculating on what Howards End was going to be like, based on their acquaintance with the house's owners. Clearly, the Schlegels believe that one's house is, or should be, a reflection of one's personality, of one's personal relations. Howards End does not seem the type of house that Wilcoxes would live in, and it is true that only Mrs. Wilcox has a personal relationship with Howards End. The house has stood for centuries, sheltering Mrs. Wilcox's ancestors, who worked the land and lived in close relationship to it. The romanticized and pastoral Howards End stands in contrast to the ever-changing landscape of London. Of the Schlegels' house, Wickham Place, the narrator says
Their house was in Wickham Place, and fairly quiet, for a lofty promontory of buildings separated it from a main thoroughfare. One had the sense of a backwater, or rather of an estuary, whose waters flowed in from the visible sea, and ebbed into a profound silence while the waves without were still beating. Though the promontory consisted of flats — expensive, with cavernous entrance halls, full of concierges and palms — it fulfilled its purpose, and gained for the older houses opposite a certain measure of peace. These, too, would be swept away in time, and another promontory would arise upon their site, as humanity piled itself higher and higher on the precious soil of London.
The sea is a recurring metaphor in the novel: as when Margaret says that they "stand upon money as upon islands," the sea represents the ever-changing and threatening reality of modern life. The Schlegels, in their house on Wickham Place, are protected from the roiling sea of modern life, and their house is another island upon which they stand. Yet the Schlegels' house is constantly threatened by the "sea" around it: they will eventually lose their lease, and their house will be torn down to build more flats. The ever-increasing London masses have lost their relationship to the "precious soil" on which they live, and as a result lost what Frederick Crews calls "the last fortress of individualism in a world of urban sameness." Mrs. Wilcox reacts with horror when Margaret tells her the Schlegels will lose their house:
"It is monstrous, Miss Schlegel; it isn't right. I had no idea that this was hanging over you. I do pity you from the bottom of my heart. To be parted from your house, your father's house — it oughtn't to be allowed. It is worse than dying. I would rather die than — Oh, poor girls! Can what they call civilization be right, if people mayn't die in the room where they were born? My dear, I am so sorry —
It seems that Mrs. Wilcox is about to say that she would rather die than be parted from her house, but in fact she has been parted from it, because her husband has decided they should take a flat in London. The forces of "civilization," in the person of Mr. Wilcox, are stronger than the forces of continuity and individualism. The other Wilcoxes do not have Mrs. Wilcox's reverence for Howards End, and at the end of her life, Ruth chooses to leave Howards End to Margaret, believing Margaret to be her spiritual heir. Ruth's husband and children do not understand this decision, seeing Howards End solely as a piece of property — not a very useful or valuable one, but one which legally belongs to them. They decide to disregard their mother's wish, and do not inform Margaret of Mrs. Wilcox's bequest.
Two years after the novel's action commences, the Schlegels do lose their house, and become subject to the threatening sea of modern life. In this, they become like the Basts, of whose flat the narrator says that "it struck that shallow makeshift note that is so often heard in the modern dwelling-place. It had been too easily gained, and could be relinquished too easily." The Basts, who are always barely able to survive financially, do not have any islands on which to stand. When they are financially ruined, they lose their flat and do not have the means to let another one. The Schlegels feel spiritually and emotionally bereft when they lose their house, but they can get another one; the Basts do not have the luxury of ever living in a house that is meaningful to them, though Leonard would like to. Perry Meisel notes of Bast that he is "a grossly thematic reminder that the state of one's psyche and of one's economy are disastrously intertwined." Bast's tentative hold on financial solvency is echoed in his tentative interest in, and acquisition of, culture: like his flat, Bast's quest for meaning in his life can also be all-too-easily lost in the Basts' struggle for survival.
Like the Basts' flat, the various dwelling-places of the Wilcoxes have all been easily gained and can be easily relinquished, with the exception of Howards End. Henry Wilcox values property not for its meaning, but for its use, and he often decides that property he has acquired is unsuitable for his needs. As Levenson notes, Wilcox, unlike Leonard Bast, is a beneficiary, rather than a victim, of the ever-changing nature of modern life. When Henry and Margaret are engaged, Margaret keenly wants to settle into a house of her own, but they never seem to find one to which she is allowed to become attached. The differences in their attitudes toward Oniton, a house Henry has acquired, completely sum up the differences in their characters. Henry's attitude toward Oniton is perfectly prosaic:
Oniton had been a discovery of Mr. Wilcox's — a discovery of which he was not altogether proud. It was up towards the Welsh border, and so difficult of access that he had concluded it must be something special. A ruined castle stood in the grounds. But having got there, what was one to do? The shooting was bad, the fishing indifferent, and women-folk reported the scenery as nothing much. The place turned out to be in the wrong part of Shropshire, damn it, and though he never damned his own property aloud, he was only waiting to get it off his hands, and then to let fly. Evie's marriage was its last appearance in public. As soon as a tenant was found, it became a house for which he never had had much use, and had less now, and like Howards End, faded into Limbo.
Henry bases his opinion of Oniton on the property's use to him: whether he can entertain business guests in it, whether it increases his status, whether it offers him sufficient recreation. When he decides not to live at Oniton, he does not give it up, but lets it to a tenant so he can derive an income from it. It is as if actually living in a house is a poor investment, when one can rent it out and get money from it. The narrator notes that the Wilcoxes are an imperial family, always looking for new parts of England to conquer, as the English have conquered the globe. Henry's attitude towards his home at Oniton contrasts sharply with Margaret's:
Margaret was fascinated with Oniton. She had said that she loved it, but it was rather its romantic tension that held her. The rounded Druids of whom she had caught glimpses in her drive, the rivers hurrying down from them to England, the carelessly modelled masses of the lower hills, thrilled her with poetry. The house was insignificant, but the prospect from it would be an eternal joy, and she thought of all the friends she would have to stop in it, and of the conversion of Henry himself to a rural life. Society, too, promised favorably. The rector of the parish had dined with them last night, and she found that he was a friend of her father's, and so knew what to find in her. She liked him. He would introduce her to the town.
Margaret is stirred by the poetry of Oniton, and moreover, the community surrounding it links her to her father, because the rector had been a friend of his. Though she recognizes that the house itself is insignificant, she thinks not at all of the property's value in the real world, but only of its personal meaning to her. The Schlegels are interested in poetry and personal relations, the Wilcoxes in prose and investments. Yet, as for the first Mrs. Wilcox, her husband's wishes take precedence over Margaret's. They do not settle at Oniton. Margaret becomes estranged from her sister Helen because she has allied herself with the Wilcoxes: she no longer tries to influence Henry, but acquiesces to his wishes. It is only when Margaret and Helen meet at Howards End that Margaret sees that the Schlegels are threatened in a world run by Wilcoxes. She and Helen are reconciled to each other at Howards End, surrounded by their furniture and other possessions, when they realize that "they never could be parted because their love was rooted in common things." It is the history they share, represented by what they have jointly owned and jointly experienced, that binds them together. Because they value this common history, they also value Howards End, which is linked to the history of Mrs. Wilcox's family, to organic relationships rooted in a rural life. As Wilfred Stone notes, "[t]hough the Wilcoxes hold the 'title-deeds' and the 'door-keys,' these evidences of ownership do not impress the Schlegels," who instead value the meanings they can create from the physical space in which they live, meanings which can be more easily created at Howards End than in the impersonal and temporary dwelling-places of London.
The conclusion of the novel sees Howards End rescued from limbo: it becomes a home in which Henry Wilcox, the Schlegel sisters, and the child of Leonard Bast can live together in a life rooted to the precious soil and contained in a house which has witnessed the births and deaths of generations. Yet as Born notes, "that Forster interrupts his final scene with awareness of the encroaching London mass suggests he is not entirely happy with this one-sided vision of serene, private, poeticized culture." Though the Schlegels have conquered the Wilcoxes, the forces of "civilization" still loom in the distance. Though Howards End may represent an idealized solution to the problems of a modernizing England, the sea still threatens the island on which the new family stands.
Source: Jane Elizabeth Dougherty, in an essay for Novels for Students, Gale, 2000.
What Do I Read Next?
In Bloomsbury Recalled (1996), Quentin Bell, son of Clive and Vanessa Bell, offers one of the most recent memoirs recounting the personalities and adventures of that famous literary group.
Joseph Conrad's 1899 novel, Heart of Darkness, reveals the injustices of British imperialism in Africa.
In Forster's first novel, Where Angels Fear To Tread, (1905) he contrasts the vibrant, free life of Italians with the artificial, hypocritical and bourgeois life of the suburban Londoners who visit an Italian village.
Forster's novel, The Longest Journey, published in 1907 tells the story of two half brothers, one of them illegitimate.
A Room with a View is Forster's 1908 novel about a young woman's love affair and her struggle with Victorian conventions.
Forster's last and most highly regarded novel, A Passage to India (1924) details the social and historical milieu of colonial India, and one Englishwoman's experience there.
Forster's posthumously published novel, Maurice (1971) tells the story of a young man's discovery of his own homosexuality.
Fellow Bloomsbury Group member Lytton Strachey revolutionized the genre of biography with his Eminent Victorians, offering unusually unflattering portraits of four British cultural heroes, including Florence Nightingale. Critics suggest that his incisive criticisms take on the difference between mere "moral righteousness" and "true humanitarianism."
Virginia Woolf's 1925 novel, Mrs. Dalloway, is at once the story of Clarissa Dalloway's party and a critique of the British social system.
Woolf's 1927 novel, To the Lighthouse focuses on the inner life and experiences of an English family.

2007-10-17T14:17:00.000-07:00

Y12 Literature LTB3 Hamlet coursework

As promised, here are the articles by John Russell Brown and Maurice Charney in full.

Multiplicity of Meaning in the Last Moments of Hamlet
JOHN RUSSELL BROWN
Elizabethan and Jacobean tragedies have had an even more durable life than comedies. Especially at the Globe Playhouse, a varied audience crowded to see the rise and fall of kings, or the working out of revenge and passion. They watched horrific stories concluding with an ultimate test in which the hero, and sometimes the heroine, faced violence and disaster. Death came in many forms, but always brought with it a revaluation of the hero's life as means of support were taken away: the individual was separated from his or her fellows, endured loss and escalation of pain, and was exposed to intense scrutiny. The audience was invited to judge the hero's response and ultimate resource. Perhaps these tragedies were so popular because they offered audiences an opportunity to assume the role of God, the all-knowing assessor who had long been the exclusive possession of remote and authoritative clerics: they could watch as man suffers, and so judge his ultimate worth. In the words of John Webster, writing his first tragedy in 1612 (partly in imitation of Shakespeare):
. . . afflictionExpresseth virtue, fully, whether true,Or else adulterate. (The White Devil I.i.49-51)1
Death brought a final truth-telling. In his second tragedy, a couple of years later, Webster's heroine is told in the very first scene:
. . . believe'tYour darkest actions--nay, your privat'st thoughts--Will come to light. (The Duchess of Malfi I.i.314-16)2
The coming to light of a man's "privat'st thoughts" is what Shakespeare implied as he explored the possibilities of tragedy in Julius Caesar, [page 17] a chronicle play concluding in numerous deaths, and gave his most thoughtful character words which liken the protagonists to horses who are judged for resources of spirit in painful trial:
There are no tricks in plain and simple faith;But hollow men, like horses hot at hand,Make gallant show and promise of their mettle;But when they should endure the bloody spur,They fall their crests, and like deceitful jadesSink in the trial. (IV.ii.22-27)3
So, later Hamlet moves through the tragedy with a secret within him, and defies his audience to guess at it. Yet he never seems able to name it, and very rarely lets "fall his crest." Towards the end of Hamlet, the hero tries to share his own sense that a bloody spur is about to probe to his very "heart":
Thou wouldst not think how ill all's here about my heart; but it is no matter. . . . It is but foolery . . . . (V.ii.208-11)4
Earlier he had rounded on Guildenstern who had tried to "sound" him and "pluck out the heart of [his] mystery": "'Sblood, do you think I am easier to be played on than a pipe?" (III.ii.356-57, 360-61). In his first encounter with his mother, he had warned that nothing external, neither words, nor clothes, nor breath, tears, facial expression, "Together with all forms, moods, shapes' -could express hi inner grief.
This part of Hamlet's character--for ambiguous and complicated speech is a distinctive element of the "mind" with which Shakespeare has endowed his hero--this characteristic operates on various levels. We soon see that in private he continues to use wordplay as a disguise in which to taunt and trick both adversaries and friends, so that he is not fully understood and they are encouraged to disclose hidden thoughts:
Pol. Do you know me, my lord?Ham. Excellent well. You are a fishmonger.Pol. Not I, my lord.Ham. Then I would you were so honest a man.Pol. Honest, my lord?Ham. Ay sir. To be honest, as this world goes, is to be one man picked out of ten thousand. . . . (II.ii.173-79)
Fishmongers smell, when among other men; a fishmonger was a name for "fleshmonger" or bawd; a fishmonger's wife and daughter were said to breed, fish-like, in great quantity . . . .7 And so, Hamlet's mind runs on to "so honest a man," a word meaning "honourable," or "chaste," or "truthful, genuine."8 "Modesties . . . craft . . . colour"; "I know a hawk from a handsaw" (II.ii. 280-79, 375): wordplay gallops easily, or abruptly it makes a bold and mocking challenge. Hamlet can deliver one message and at the same time another contrary one; "if you be honest and fair, your honesty should admit no discourse to your beauty (III.i.107-08); or again, ". . . he may play the fool nowhere but in's own house [page 20] . . ." (III.i.133-34); or again, "The body is with the King, but the King is not with the body. The King is a thing . . . of nothing" (IV.ii.26-29).
Words are wanton in Hamlet's mind, feeding his aggressions and his fears. Sometimes we get the impression that he is revealing more than he knows, as if his unconscious, rather than conscious, mind controls his speech. Why should he punish Ophelia openly before the actors perform The Mousetrap? Is he looking at his mother and step-father all this time, or wanting to do so? Does he want them to hear? Or is he forcing himself to be pleasant in public to a girl he distrusts, and failing so thoroughly to do this that he concludes with talk of churches, hobby-horses and an epitaph which is puzzling even to himself? His play upon cunt, no-thing, jig, do, die, hobby-horse (III.ii.115-32) is doubly vulgar: not only a run of obtrusive and brutal sexual innuendo, but also an unprincely assumption that his predicament is a rite or carnival of common validity. In effect Hamlet is creating a paronomasia of performance, moving from politeness to brutality; and it seems to come out almost unbidden.
Even when Hamlet's wordplay is intentional and nicely judged, it is not always clear to what purpose he uses it. To confuse or to clarify? Or to control his own uncensored thoughts? The energy and turmoil of his mind brings words thronging into speech, stretching, over-turning and amalgamating their implications. Sometimes Hamlet has to struggle to use the simplest words repeatedly, as he tries to force meaning to flow in a single channel. To Ophelia, after he has encountered her in her loneliness, "reading on a book," he repeats five times "Get you to a nunnery," varying the phrase only by word-order and by changing "get" to "go." And after he has visited his mother "all alone" in her closet and killed Polonius, after she has begged him to "speak no more" (III.iv.88), and after his father's ghost has reappeared, Hamlet repeats "Good night" five times, with still fewer changes and those among accompanying words only. But, of course, in performance, in the heat of passionate encounter, the effect and meaning of these simple words can change with each repetition. It is an actor's instinct to vary them, using them as rungs of a ladder to grow towards a climactic emotional effect, rather than as firm stepping-stones on which to cross an unruly [page 21] river. So Hamlet seems to be struggling to contain his thoughts even by use of these simple words, rather than enforcing a single and simple message as a first reading of the text might suggest; and the words come to bear deeper, more ironic or more blatant meanings.
In soliloquy, Hamlet gives wordplay such scope that we receive an impression of a mind working simultaneously at different levels of meaning and consciousness. As soon as he is alone, we hear that he wishes "this too too sullied" (or sallied, or solid) "flesh would melt" (I.ii.129?).9 From melt, particularly appropriate if linked to solid, Hamlet's mind springs onwards to two other verbs: thaw, bringing further physical associations of cold and change, and dissolution; then on to resolve, with a range of old and new associations--dissolve, melt, inform, answer, dispel doubt . . . "resolve itself into a dew"--that is something almost intangible, now; and mysterious; and also, in association with some senses of resolve, there is a suggestion of due, with a hint of necessary "payment" or "judgment."10 And so Hamlet's mind reaches "the Everlasting" (with a look backward, perhaps, marking a contrast with that which melts, thaws, and does not last)--the powerful, non-fleshly presence who fixes (no melting or resolving now) his canon (both law and instrument of destruction) against self-slaughter . . . . Hamlet's mind breeds one meaning out of another, using words in several senses, activating new words so that they interact with each other. The energy of this wordplay is amazing: unsettled, serious, self-lacerating, mocking, self-critical, reckless; and bringing a sense of victorious and heady achievement as words bend, buckle, extend their meanings, and sharpen their attack.
Even in soliloquy, Hamlet is not always in control. Sometimes he halts momentarily, as if alarmed by what he has said:
. . . 'tis a consummationDevoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;To sleep, perchance to dream--ay, there's the rub:. . . . (III.i.63-65)
Here the thought-process is abrupt and oscillating, so that scarcely any two modern editors punctuate this passage in the same way; many resort [page 22] to dashes and numerous dots. At other times Hamlet makes a conscious withdrawal, as if the management of words has tired or perplexed him too painfully:
Then are our beggars bodies, and our monarchs and outstretched heroes the beggars' shadows. Shall we to th'court? For by my fay, I cannot reason. (II.ii.263-65)
Farewell, dear mother. . . . Father and mother is man and wife, man and wife is one flesh; so my mother. Come, for England. Exit. (IV.iii.52, 54-56)
In this second example, Hamlet has rendered the king speechless, but he pursues him no further, preferring to go off-stage, silent and under guard, to journey to England.
Hamlet may be still less in control in the grave-yard, when both he and Laertes have had to be restrained physically. He tries to use simple words, but then asserts "it is no matter" and leaves abruptly with a taunting riddle:
Hear you, sir,What is the reason that you use me thus?I lov'd you ever. But it is no matter.Let Hercules himself do what he may,The cat will mew, and dog will have his day. (V.i.283-87)
Much of the dramatic action of this tragedy is within the head of Hamlet, and wordplay represents the amazing, contradictory, unsettled, mocking, fecund nature of that mind, as it is torn by disappointment and positive love, as Hamlet seeks both acceptance and punishment, action and stillness, and wishes for consummation and annihilation. He can be abruptly silent or vicious; he is capable of wild laughter and tears, and also polite badinage. The narrative is a kind of mystery and chase, so that, underneath the various guises of his wordplay, we are made keenly aware of his inner dissatisfaction, and come to expect some resolution at the end of the tragedy, some unambiguous "giving out" which will report Hamlet and his cause aright to the unsatisfied among [page 23] the audience. Hamlet himself is aware of this expectation as the end approaches, and this still further whets our anticipation.
* * *
Towards the close, Hamlet has a short exchange alone with Horatio, which seems intended to "set up" the final encounter with Laertes, the Queen, Claudius, and the whole Court, and to make absolutely clear the nature of his own involvement. The passage exists in two good versions; the second Quarto of 1604, and the Folio of 1623, which is now thought to represent Shakespeare's revision of the earlier version.11 This second text adds fourteen lines in which Hamlet seeks to justify, as "perfect conscience," his determination to kill Claudius with his own "arm"--or rather to "quit" him, which implies repaying as well.12 He then asks whether he would not be "damned" if he did nothing to eradicate "this canker of our nature" (V.ii.68-70). But even this later addition to the play does not establish a "plain and simple faith."13 We notice that Hamlet expresses himself in rhetorical questions which seem to qualify his momentary certainty. And only minutes later, as the last encounter approaches, his reluctance to tell all ("Thou wouldst not think how ill all's here about my heart; but it is no matter," ll. 208-09) and a further intrusion of vigorous and baffling wordplay cloud over these ultimate issues once more.
Immediately before the King and Queen enter on stage, Hamlet's words, spoken as he again finds himself alone with Horatio, are so tricky--or perhaps tricksy--that they baffled the original compositors of the text and have set modern editors at variance.14 Neither the Quarto nor Folio makes sense and various emendations have been proposed. No/knows; has/owes; leave/leaves; ought/all; of what/of ought, all collide and change places with each other in the different versions. Today a text might read, "Since no man, of aught he leaves, knows aught, what is't to leave betimes?" or "Since no man of ought he leaves, knows, what is't to leave . . .," or ". . . no man owes aught of what he leaves, what is't . . .," or ". . . no man knows of aught he leaves, what is't . . . ." (Was the speech ever absolutely clear in Shakespeare's autograph manuscript, or in his head?) With Hamlet's next words, as trumpet and drums [page 24] announce the King's arrival, the play's hero contrives yet another avoidance-tactic, refusing to talk further with a surprisingly curt "Let be."
Encountering Laertes in front of the whole court, Hamlet speaks again very simply: "Give me your pardon, sir. I have done you wrong" (l. 222). But then he refers to his own supposed "madness" as if it had been entirely real, and as if that absolved him of all responsibility for his actions:
Who does it, then? His madness. If't be so,Hamlet is of the faction that is wrong'd;His madness is poor Hamlet's enemy. (ll. 233-35)
That sounds straightforward enough, but what is his madness? Is it a "sore distraction" by which he has been punished, or is it his own invention and a somewhat theatrical disguise? To what extent is Hamlet creating a cunning smokescreen of words and questions, under which to hide his intent to kill the King? Soon all the action is over, the Queen, Laertes, Claudius and Hamlet all dead; and yet no more mention is made of "madness."
However, the action is held up artificially at the very last minute: the playwright delays his hero's death at the midnight hour for concluding speeches and the audience is encouraged to expect that the hero will unmask and everything will be clarified. But then, even now, this does not happen. Hamlet's final words are so famous that for us they carry an air of assurance with them, but if we try to imagine them as they were heard for the first time, we may appreciate that much is still concealed, and much is just as ambiguous as it was in his characteristically vigorous and volatile use of words throughout the play. We may wonder whether Hamlet is playing consciously with words at the very moment of his trial by death; and, if so, for what purpose.
In his last words to Claudius, Hamlet has already insisted on a final sexual pun: "Drink off this potion. Is thy union here?" (l. 331; italics mine).15 But when he knows that he is himself dead, almost at once he is concerned about how much is "unknown," and insists that Horatio should live to tell his story "aright." But that is his friend's duty: he [page 25] himself uses his last moments very differently, and speaks almost at once in an earlier manner:
I am dead, Horatio. Wretched Queen, adieu!You that look pale and tremble at this chance,That are but mutes or audience to this act,Had I but time--as this fell sergeant, Death,Is strict in his arrest--O, I could tell you--But let it be. . . . (ll. 338-43)
Wordplay has come back, as if unbidden: "This fell sergeant, Death, / Is strict in his arrest" plays on strict as "cruel," "inescapably binding," and, perhaps, as "morally severe"16 (this last sense is common in Shakespeare's plays). And arrest can refer equally to the stopping life and to stopping the "act" which the audience is watching and Hamlet performing. Then, once more, the wordplay is stopped with "But let it be . . . ." And yet, when he tells Horatio, a second time, that he is as good as dead, the "potion" becomes "The potent poison"; and in a strange phrase (Shakespeare using o'ercrows for the only time), the poison is said to shout in triumph over his spirit, rather than taking possession of his body:
O, I die, Horatio.The potent poison quite o'ercrows my spirit. (ll. 357-58)
For Shakespeare, this may also have been a reminiscence of the father's spirit who had "faded on the crowing of the cock" (I.i.162).
Hamlet has already heard the "warlike noise" of Fortinbras' approach, and now he gives his "dying voice" to this young soldier for the next King of Denmark:
He has my dying voice.So tell him, with th'occurents more and lessWhich have solicited--the rest is silence. (ll. 361-63)
The last line here is Hamlet's last line, and it is as multiple in meaning as any in the play. Solicited takes attention first. Is this a gentle solicitation or an urgent call? The word had been used in both senses by Shake-[page 26] speare. Perhaps the second is the most likely here, since solicited and silence are linked a little in sound and may therefore be held in opposition. But the main problem is "the rest is silence." What can this mean?
First perhaps, it means "All that remains for me to say must be unspoken." This reading seems to make Hamlet withdraw intentionally from saying more, as he has done frequently in the course of the play: "Let it be." Wordplay allows him to escape without revealing his secret. Alternatively, he may feel overmastered in his mind, as he is in his body, and here acknowledges that this is so and that he can manage no more words, except this last mocking pun, for rest could also mean the taking of ease, or a pause in action (or music).
A second reading would have Hamlet assert that the remainder of his life can have nothing to say or will make no noise, perhaps no "warlike noise"--the volleys may still be ringing in his ears, or the first sound of drums for Fortinbras' approach. So he might speak of his failure to tell all, and die making an excuse for his rashness or ineffectuality.
But, then, rest may equally well refer to a time after life, a release from the "unrest" of life. In the same vein, Hamlet has told Horatio to:
Absent thee from felicity awhile,And in this harsh world draw thy breath in painTo tell my story. (ll. 352-54)
In association with silence, rest need not imply any existence after life; what follows life is unknown, possibly without life of any sort; in any case it makes no noise here and now.
However, yet another interpretation is not so agnostic or irreligious. Hamlet could mean that "the rest" of an after-life has nothing to say about matters of the world, such as the succession of Fortinbras; so death is a "quietus" devoutly to be wished (III.i.75). Horatio's conventional and specifically religious consolation which follows immediately may seem to substantiate this reading:
Now cracks a noble heart. Good night, sweet prince,And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest! (ll. 364-65)
But has Hamlet lost his fear of those "dreams" which may follow when "we have shuffled off this mortal coil" (III.i.67)? Having killed the King [page 27] and voted for his successor is he ready to go into the dark, and accept his own "rest" without blenching? This would be a huge revaluation of earlier attitudes for which the discourse on the fall of a sparrow (V.ii.215-18) is the sole (but not necessarily unequivocal) textual authority. If this is the "correct" reading, however, we may wonder why Shakespeare should follow the earlier account of Hamlet's attitudes with such an "ambiguous giving out," in glancing, unreliable wordplay, at this crucial last moment?
A defence of sorts can be made for each of these four different meanings of Hamlet's four last words, but they tend to cancel each other out if they are all allowed into the reckoning. Instead of choosing between them, I find myself ready to suggest yet a fifth reading which does not attempt to express the "virtue" within Hamlet, that mystery which passes ordinary show; this fifth interpretation could indeed co-habit with any of my earlier suggestions. Perhaps when the playwright directed Hamlet to say "the rest is silence," he was allowing himself to speak through his character, telling the audience and the actor that he, the dramatist, would not, or could not, go a word further in the presentation of this, his most verbally brilliant and baffling hero. The author is going to hide like a fox, leaving all of us standing at a cold scent.
In several earlier passages, we may have heard something of Shakespeare's own voice in what Hamlet says. "Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you . . ." (III.ii.1-2) and the several other old saws and modern instances delivered to the Players on their arrival at Elsinorein their rehearsals, and during their performance, are all possible authorial statements. Hamlet's quick retort to Polonius' dramatic criticism, his managing of several scenes as they are developing--"I must be idle," "For England?" "This is I, Hamlet the Dane," "But it is no matter," "Let be,"17 and so forth--could also be partly Shakespeare's words as they propel the plot forward. At the close, Hamlet is aware of his deeds as an "act" that is closely watched by "mutes or audience" (V.ii.330) who need to be told what has happened so that his name shall not be "wounded": something of Shakespeare may be in all this as well, and perhaps in the rather dismissive:
So tell him, with th'occurents more or lessWhich have solicited . . . .
[page 28] This might suggest the impatience of an author dealing with issues ("more or less") that only censorious (politically committed or politically correct) audience-members would wish to pick on.
There is example for a final authorial voice in other plays. Of course, Prospero's "I'll drown my book" and "Now what strength I have's mine own" come much later in Shakespeare's career. But about this time, we have in Troilus and Cressida, "Hector is dead: there is no more to say" (V.x.22);18 in Twelfth Night, "But that's all one, our play is done" (V.i.393);19 in The Merchant of Venice, "Portia. You shall not know by what strange accident / I chanced on this letter. Antonio. I am dumb" (V.i.278-79);20 and in Love's Labour's Lost:
The words of Mercury are harsh after the songs of Apollo. Exeunt. (V.ii.922-23)21
This last example is doubly strange. The line is printed in larger type than that used for the rest of the Quarto version of the play, and is without a speech-prefix. The Folio text regularizes the type-face, but is responsible for adding the concluding line, "You that way; we this way". Keeping in mind these other speeches in which Shakespeare may take over from his characters, we might think that here, through Hamlet, he is announcing that he has "no more to say," still less any further mystery to disclose.
I do not know which of these five meanings to prefer, but the actors of Shakespeare's company seem to have been unsatisfied with them all. The Folio text contains numerous small additions to the Quarto which are thought to have been drawn from what actually happened on stage in performance.22 Among these is an addition to Hamlet's part, following "The rest is silence." What Burbage the actor added is represented by four letters: "O, o, o, o." Then follows the stage-direction. "Dies." What can this mean? Did Burbage believe that he needed extra time to express pain or disbelief, or to struggle or panic? We have no idea what the four O's were intended to mean and still less notion of what Shakespeare thought about them (the Folio was, of course, published after his death),23 but this addition became well enough established to get into print, and it serves to remind us that, however serious Hamlet's last words were intended to be, they had to be spoken [page 29] while he faced the physical reality of death itself. The actor's way of accepting or resisting the "strict arrest" will become part of the meaning of the last moments of the play, casting further complications on the task of dealing with what Hamlet says and with the wordplay.
Exactly how Hamlet dies--how he dies physically--will continue to contribute to our view of him after the "silence" which follows the moment of death. Fortinbras enters asking "Where is this sight?" and Horatio directs attention to all four bodies on the stage. After all is said and done, the way in which Hamlet dies, whether in pain or with mockery, or with some sense of fortunate release, will still be manifest in his facial expression and in the manner in which his body lies on the stage--in contrast to how the others had died and are also mercilessly displayed.
* * *
Why should Shakespeare choose to conclude this tragedy with words that give the final presentation of its hero a multiplicity of possible meanings?
The most difficult answer would be to say that all meanings are meant to be present, co-existing. This might please critics and scholars who puzzle over the text in their own time and are able to build up complex impressions, but how could an actor attempt to suggest them all? How could an audience-member grasp them all in the exciting moment of performance, in an "upshot" in which purposes are easily mistook (V.ii.389)? A more acceptable answer might be that the audience, and each individual member of that audience, is left to interpret as they wish, according to their own "business and desire, / Such as it is" (I.v.136-37). In this case, the actor's task might be to avoid making any very clear statement of Hamlet's final thoughts or inner mystery. Yet that is easier to say than do, and we might rather argue that the multiple meanings are there so that the actor of Hamlet can choose which one he wishes to emphasise, according to the way in which he has responded to the varied challenges in his journey through the text, and according to what he feels himself best able to embody. Such a choice is likely to be intuitive, rather than intellectual; but it could also be governed by the [page 30] actor's (and his director's) view of how the play can speak most excitingly to the audience which comes to see their work.
However we choose to explain his decision, we must accept the fact that Shakespeare chose, very positively, to provide a multiplicity of meanings at this crucial moment. His hero was, above all and in the final test, alive in his mind, drawn restlessly into engagement with his imagination, perhaps a little in the same way as his creator had been as he worked. Death, for such a person, could not be held in a single grip, in the fix of words used in a single sense, without "tricks, in plain and simple faith." Such dramaturgy involved a choice which went against most of Shakespeare's earlier practice. At the moment of his death, Titus Andronicus could hardly have made himself more plain to our understanding:
Why, there they are, both baked in this pie;. . .'Tis true, 'tis true; witness my knife's sharp point. (V.iii.60-63)24
Romeo dies drinking poison; there is wordplay here, but wholly controlled and limited:
Here's to my love! O true apothecary,Thy drugs are quick. Thus with a kiss I die. (V.iii.119-20)25
Juliet also plays on words without confusing her simplest meaning:
Yea, noise? Then I'll be brief. O happy dagger.This is thy sheath. There rust, and let me die. (V.iii.168-69)
Richard III and Richard II both die with single-minded speech, although in earlier scenes they had both used wordplay to express their turbulent and cunning thoughts.
Marlowe, Shakespeare's most imaginative and inventive contemporary, ended his tragedies as their heroes narrowed the target for their thoughts; and he gave them words in which to express themselves unmistakably. [page 31] After Shakespeare's time, John Webster, for all the punning and allusive subtlety of his dialogue, took definition still further in the last moments of his leading characters. Shakespeare's Hamlet, however, dies mysteriously, and he is aware that he never makes a full statement of his thoughts:
Had I but time . . .
O, I could tell you--But let it be. (ll. 341-43)
The most unequivocal impression given by the hero at the close of this tragedy is that his mind is unvanquished: his imagination is still exploring strange shapes and future eventualities--what is still unknown, and even silence itself.
Of course there are many ways of accounting for the tragedy as a whole. It is a Revenge Tragedy, and a Tragedy of Blood (or of lust and love); it is a Metaphysical Tragedy in which the nature of death, certainty, and life are all weighed and variously judged. It is also a Tragedy of State, the story of a kingdom ruled by an ambitious, treacherous, and smiling king, in which the "rabble" can rise up to follow the insurrection of a young man who has a private vendetta to pursue, but no clear political programme. The plot and characters, the drive and liveliness of the dialogue, the clashing rhetoric, all support these various strands of the play; and they are supported by on-stage action which is often exciting, sensational, and visually opulent. But the heart of the tragedy is Hamlet himself, a person whose mind is unconfined by any single issue. As he moves towards the last encounters, we can sense a self-aware superiority: ". . . Laertes. You do but dally. I pray you pass with your best violence" (301-02). He is attracted, still, to light-minded wordplay and assonance: "strict . . . arrest," "o'ercrows . . . occurents," the pun of "dying voice" (the sound he makes is growing faint). There is mockery in "potent poison," the ring and relish of a mountebank. Impatience and a constantly frustrated desire to have matters under control can be heard in repeated comes and in many short replies, commands and messages. Tenderness mixes with bitterness--"Absent thee from felicity awhile . . ."--and with ambiguity. "The rest is silence" [page 32] could be a joke, a profound searching of the unknown, a resignation to the fate of a sparrow, the voice of bitter despair, or a matter of fact.
At the risk of sounding too unambiguous for such a play, I would say that, through Hamlet, this tragedy affirms the world of the mind over against the world of matter, the unresolved and independent conscience over against the answers that can be provided by others or demanded by society in its political, religious or familial manifestations. In so far as Hamlet commands our attention while the tragedy unfolds and is completed, we prefer his ambiguous, spirited, free affirmation that the "rest is silence" to the attempted suicide and sentimental consolation of Horatio, or to the political homage of Fortinbras, and his call to arms and to a fresh start.26
University of MichiganAnn Arbor
NOTES
1. The Revels Plays, ed. John Russell Brown, 2nd ed. (London: Methuen, 1966).
2. The Revels Plays, ed. John Russell Brown (London: Methuen, 1964).
3. Arden Edition, ed. T. S. Dorsch (London: Methuen, 1955).
4. Quotations are from the Arden Edition of Hamlet, ed. Harold Jenkins (London: Methuen, 1982).
5. Eds. G. D. Willcock and A. Walker (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1936) III.vi., p. 153.
6. Ben Jonson, Works, eds. C. H. Herford, P. and E. Simpson (Oxford: Clarendon P, 1947) 8:623.
7. See Jenkins' note, pp. 464-66.
8. See OED †2.a., 3.b and c.
9. On the textual ambiguities of this line, see Jenkins' note, pp. 436-38.
10. See OED "resolve" vb. I.2.†b. To analyse, examine (a statement). Obs.
1. See, especially, the editors' comments for The Oxford Shakespeare (Hamlet, ed. G.R. Hibbard [Oxford: Clarendon P, 1987] 104-130).
12. See OED, "quit, †quite" II.10. To repay, reward, requite.
13. Julius Caesar II.ii.22.
[page 33] 14. Almost any modern edition will serve as an introduction to the problem. The variants quoted below derive from editions by Harold Jenkins, J. Dover Wilson, G. Blakemore Evans and Terence Spencer, and others.
15. See Jenkins' note.
16. See OED "strict," esp. 10-15, and "stricture."
17. III.ii.90, IV.iii.47, V.i.250-51, V.ii.209 and 220.
18. Arden Edition, ed. Kenneth Palmer (London: Methuen, 1982).
19. Arden Edition, eds. J. M. Lothian and T. W. Craik (London: Methuen, 1975).
20. Arden Edition, ed. John Russell Brown (London: Methuen, 1955, 1959).
21. The Quarto version, quoted from the Arden Edition, ed. Richard David (London: Methuen, 1951, 1956).
22. See Harold Jenkins, "Playhouse Interpolations in the Folio Text of Hamlet," Studies in Bibliography 13 (1960): 31-47.
23. We may reflect that its repetitious simplicity is not far from Bottom's death-line as Pyramus in A Midsummer Night's Dream, or the slightly more sophisticated end for Thisbe.
24. Arden Edition, ed. J. C. Maxwell (London: Methuen, 1953, 1961).
25. Arden Edition, ed. Brian Gibbons (London: Methuen, 1980).
26. This article is based on a paper read at a symposium on Paronomasia at the University of Münster in July 1992. It benefits in many ways from the discussion there, both formal and informal, and its welcome stimulation. I cannot note all the effects of this occasion in the body of this paper, so I hope this general note may be taken as an indication of my gratitude and indebtedness.

The Rest is Not Silence: A Reply to John Russell Brown
MAURICE CHARNEY
Reference:
John Russell Brown, "Multiplicity of Meaning in the Last Moments of Hamlet," Connotations 2.1 (1992): 16-33.
It is not surprising that John Russell Brown's vigorous, witty, and energetic paper comes out of a symposium on paronomasia at the University of Münster in July 1992. The paper is strongly appropriate for that occasion, yet there are other ways of looking at the last moments of Hamlet that may not be so specifically related to paronomasia. Brown rather blurs the linguistic continuum leading from literal puns (homophonic use), to general wordplay, to multiple meanings, which have nothing to do with puns at all. His discussion of at least five meanings of "The rest is silence," which is at the heart of his paper, is a far cry from paronomasia. Yet all the verbal resources of Hamlet are marshalled significantly and intelligently. Brown is not only a subtle critic of language but also a skillful commentator on performance. He says that "Hamlet is creating a paronomasia of performance" (20) in his scene with Ophelia in 3.2., and he is everywhere sensitive to performance implications of language.
There is one assumption throughout that I find odd: that Hamlet has a secret that he never reveals and that "Wordplay allows him to escape without revealing his secret" (26). This seems to me a romantic and skewed interpretation, but Brown insists on it with a quantity of repetition that I find surprising. Hamlet has a "reluctance to tell all" (23), he practises "avoidance-tactics," "refusing to talk further" (24), and "the audience is encouraged to expect that the hero will unmask and everything will be clarified" (24), but this does not happen. What "single and simple message" (21) does the hero have that Brown is as [page 187] unsuccessful as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in plucking out? I am baffled by this kind of pursuit, which violates the existential nature of Hamlet's engagement with the audience, which is also an engagement with himself. To say that, even in soliloquy, Hamlet "is not always in control" (21) seems to me to mistake the protagonist's relation to himself as well as to the spectators. For Hamlet to be "in control" of his discourse implies a purposiveness that is foreign to his character. Hamlet speaks in order to find out what he wants to say; he is one of the audiences to his own words, especially in soliloquy. Is Hamlet trying, imperfectly, to express his meanings, or, as Brown says, to use punning language and wordplay to conceal his meanings? This implies that there is another esoteric play behind the public play that will reveal itself only to the initiated. Criticism, therefore, becomes an act of piercing through Hamlet's (and Shakespeare's) concealments and masks.
Brown fixes his discussion on Hamlet's last words, "The rest is silence," to which he attributes at least five separate meanings. These lines "could be a joke, a profound searching of the unknown, a resignation to the fate of a sparrow, the voice of bitter despair, or a matter of fact" (32). I wonder why Brown chooses such relatively unambiguous lines to expend his energy on, except that these lines are connected with his idea of Hamlet's unrevealed mystery: "So he might speak of his failure to tell all, and die making an excuse for his rashness or ineffectuality" (26). But it is fairly conventional for the protagonist at his death to run out of time and to have a lot more to say than he can possibly fit in. This explains why characters such as Hotspur and Antony die in the middle of a sentence. Even the Ghost in Hamlet "could a tale unfold"--different from the tale he is actually telling--that would harrow up Hamlet's "soul, freeze thy young blood, / Make thy two eyes like stars start from their spheres" (1.5.16-17). I cannot understand why Brown should single out "The rest is silence" to clinch his point about Hamlet's holding out on us "with such an 'ambiguous giving out,' in glancing, unreliable wordplay, at this crucial last moment" (27). This is not really wordplay at all in comparison with Hamlet's earlier, dazzling display of paronomasia.
Brown's fifth and final explanation of "The rest is silence" I find disappointing: that Shakespeare is speaking through the voice of his [page 188] protagonist, "telling the audience and the actor that he, the dramatist, would not, or could not, go a word further in the presentation of this, his most verbally brilliant and baffling hero" (27). Brown is at his most characteristic and extravagant moment here, insisting on a cutely paradoxical interposition of Shakespeare into his play. Shakespeare is brought on to tell us, confidentially, in place of Hamlet the character, that "he has 'no more to say,' still less any further mystery to disclose" (28). Brown is very self-consciously slipping back into the romantic mysteries of Sir Sidney Lee in the late nineteenth century, as if at certain crucial moments the dramatic character can't be trusted with enunciating points that have an important autobiographical clang.
Hamlet's last words are actually "O, o, o, o," which occur only in the Folio text, and which Harold Jenkins, the Arden editor, dismisses as an actor's interpolation by Richard Burbage, which has no authority in Shakespeare's authentic text. Presumably, Brown also rejects the O-groans because he says that "We have no idea what the four O's were intended to mean and still less notion of what Shakespeare thought about them" (28). But O-groans occur in Othello, King Lear, Macbeth, and in many Elizabethan and Jacobean plays. They were a fairly conventional emotional gesture in these plays, especially associated with death. We do not know precisely how the O-groans got into the Folio text of Hamlet, but one plausible suggestion is that they were part of Shakespeare's extensive revision of the earlier Quarto 2 version.
By the demands of logic, I have been betrayed into mounting a vigorous quarrel with an essay I greatly admire and with an author who has consistently titillated my intellectual curiosity in conversation, in lecture, and in print. Brown is creating his own original Hamlet for the occasion, and I think he is carried away with a passion to pluck out the heart of Hamlet's mystery and to bring on Shakespeare himself as the taunting author. This is an admirable enterprise, and I feel a sense of disloyalty in not being able to join it. I am inclined to accept Hamlet for what he is and not to probe his riddling discourse for secrets that he does not choose to reveal. Perhaps I believe in the Freudian unconscious more firmly than Brown does, which applies to dramatic characters as well as their creators. In other words, there is a certain stratum of literary and dramatic discourse that is hidden from both [page 189] character and author alike. There is no way of exercising the control and the deliberateness that Brown posits. This is especially true of Hamlet, where the protagonist is trying out roles and modes of discourse throughout the play.
Rutgers UniversityNew Brunswick, New Jersey

2007-04-17T02:31:00.000-07:00

Y11 Of Mice and Men Quote Quest

Instructions
-click on 'comments'
-fill in the box with your name, theme (eg. 'loneliness'), character (eg. 'Slim'), quote and comment
-fill in the security 'word'.
-submit your comment. I have to moderate it first so it won't appear immediately!

Deadline 24/4/07

1. Dreams
-Find a quote that reveals the dreams or ambitions of these characters, and write one sentence about that dream.-

eg. George

‘George said reverently, “Jesus Christ! I bet we could swing her.” His eyes were full of wonder. “I bet we could swing her,” he repeated softly.” (Section 3, p.87)

The word ‘reverently’ shows that George sees the dream as almost holy in its promise of a better life, like Heaven, while the fact that he repeats the phrase, “I bet we could swing her,” perhaps suggests that, even with the promise of Candy’s money, he has to talk himself into believing the dream could be made real.

Lennie

Curley

Curley’s wife

Candy

Crooks

Slim

2. Loneliness
-Find a quote that reveals the loneliness or isolation of these characters, and write one sentence about that loneliness.-

eg. George

‘Slim twitched George’s elbow. “Come on George. Me an’ you’ll go in an’ get a drink.”
George let himself be helped to his feet. “Yeah, a drink.” ‘ (Section 6, p.148)

The way George allows Slim to help him ‘to his feet’ shows us that George needs companionship as much as any other man, and yet the irony of him accepting a drink, after telling Lennie that migrant workers drink because nobody ‘gives a damn’ about them shows how lost he is without the direction in life looking after Lennie gave him.

Lennie

Curley

Curley’s wife

Candy

Crooks

Slim

3. Friendship
-Find a quote that reveals the friendships of these characters, and write one sentence about that friendship.-

eg. George

‘George went on. “With us it ain’t like that. We got a future. We got somebody to talk to that gives a damn about us” ‘ (Section 1, p.32)

George is almost simultaneously restricted by Lennie’s dependence on him and grateful for the way Lennie gives him purpose and direction: George and Lennie are perhaps the only characters in the novel who have real affection for one another, and yet their relationship is based not only on affection, but also on guilt, duty and mutual need.

Lennie

Curley

Curley’s wife

Candy

Crooks

Slim

4. Outsiders, discrimination and prejudice
-Find a quote that reveals the way these characters are both victims of prejudice, prejudiced themselves or affected by prejudice. Write one sentence about that prejudice.-

eg. George

‘ “Guys like us, that work on ranches, are the loneliest guys in the world. They got no family. They don’t belong no place” ‘ (Section 1, p.32)

George is acutely aware that migrant workers like himself and Lennie are outside of the mainstream of society: even though he fits in well on the ranch, in a wider social context he is still regarded as a tramp, or what Curley’s wife calls a ‘bindle-stiff’ .

Lennie

Curley

Curley’s wife

Candy

Crooks

Slim

5. Hardship and poverty
-Find a quote that reveals the way these characters are victims of various kinds of poverty, whether financial or emotional. Write one sentence about that poverty.-

eg. George

‘ [George] unrolled his bindle and put things on the shelf, his razor and bar of soap, his comb and bottle of pills, his liniment and leather wristband.’ (Section 2, p.40)

As a migrant worker, George has no possessions other than those he can literally carry on his back: by describing the contents of his ‘bindle’ so exactly, and because these items are very basic and related to basic hygiene and health, Steinbeck subtly emphasises his poverty and hard working life.

Lennie

Curley

Curley’s wife

Candy

Crooks

Slim

6. Power and hierarchy
-Find a quote that reveals the way these characters are participants in the strict pecking-order of the ranch. Write one sentence about that hierarchy.-

eg. George

‘ “Slim moved back slightly so the light was not on his face. “Funny how you an’ him string along together’. It was Slim’s calm invitation to confidence.
“What’s funny about it?” George demanded defensively. (Section 3, p.65)

The adverb ‘defensively’ is especially telling here: Steinbeck rarely comments on his characters, and the fact that George responds ‘defensively’ to a personal question demonstrates that he is acutely aware of the power imbalance between himself and a senior hand like Slim, and how easily Slim could exploit that by betraying anything George gives away to the Boss.

Lennie

Curley

Curley’s wife

Candy

Crooks

Slim

2007-01-31T05:04:00.000-08:00

Y12: Classics advice

New, finalized, questions:

Kayleigh:

‘To what extent in Euthyphro does Plato seek to question traditional Athenian views on piety?’

Vaughn:

‘What are the philosophical strengths and weaknesses of Plato’s documentation in The Apology of Socrates’ trial?’

Hannah:

'How satisfactory for the exploration of philosophical issues is Plato's use of the dialogue form in 'Euthyphro'?

Some materials on piety to help Kayleigh:

Socrates: Philosophical Life
Socrates

The most interesting and influential thinker in the fifth century was Socrates, whose dedication to careful reasoning transformed the entire enterprise. Since he sought genuine knowledge rather than mere victory over an opponent, Socrates employed the same logical tricks developed by the Sophists to a new purpose, the pursuit of truth. Thus, his willingness to call everything into question and his determination to accept nothing less than an adequate account of the nature of things make him the first clear exponent of critical philosophy.
Although he was well known during his own time for his conversational skills and public teaching, Socrates wrote nothing, so we are dependent upon his students (especially Xenophon and Plato) for any detailed knowledge of his methods and results. The trouble is that Plato was himself a philosopher who often injected his own theories into the dialogues he presented to the world as discussions between Socrates and other famous figures of the day. Nevertheless, it is usually assumed that at least the early dialogues of Plato provide a (fairly) accurate representation of Socrates himself.
Euthyphro: What is Piety?
In the Euqufrwn (Euthyphro), for example, Socrates engaged in a sharply critical conversation with an over-confident young man. Finding Euthyphro perfectly certain of his own ethical rectitude even in the morally ambiguous situation of prosecuting his own father in court, Socrates asks him to define what "piety" (moral duty) really is. The demand here is for something more than merely a list of which actions are, in fact, pious; instead, Euthyphro is supposed to provide a general definition that captures the very essence of what piety is. But every answer he offers is subjected to the full force of Socrates's critical thinking, until nothing certain remains.
Specifically, Socrates systematically refutes Euthyphro's suggestion that what makes right actions right is that the gods love (or approve of) them. First, there is the obvious problem that, since questions of right and wrong often generate interminable disputes, the gods are likely to disagree among themselves about moral matters no less often than we do, making some actions both right and wrong. Socrates lets Euthypro off the hook on this one by aggreeing—only for purposes of continuing the discussion—that the gods may be supposed to agree perfectly with each other. (Notice that this problem arises only in a polytheistic culture.)
More significantly, Socrates generates a formal dilemma from a (deceptively) simple question: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (Euthyphro 10 a) Neither alternative can do the work for which Euthyphro intends his definition of piety. If right actions are pious only because the gods love them, then moral rightness is entirely arbitrary, depending only on the whims of the gods. If, on the other hand, the gods love right actions only because they are already right, then there must be some non-divine source of values, which we might come to know independently of their love.
In fact, this dilemma proposes a significant difficulty at the heart of any effort to define morality by reference to an external authority. (Consider, for example, parallel questions with a similar structure: "Do my parents approve of this action because it is right, or is it right because my parents approve of it?" or "Does the College forbid this activity because it is wrong, or is it wrong because the College forbids it?") On the second alternative in each case, actions become right (or wrong) solely because of the authority's approval (or disapproval); its choice, then, has no rational foundation, and it is impossible to attribute laudable moral wisdom to the authority itself. So this horn is clearly unacceptable. But on the first alternative, the authority approves (or disapproves) of certain actions because they are already right (or wrong) independently of it, and whatever rational standard it employs as a criterion for making this decision must be accessible to us as well as to it. Hence, we are in principle capable of distinguishing right from wrong on our own.
Thus, an application of careful techniques of reasoning results in genuine (if negative) progress in the resolution of a philosophical issue. Socrates's method of insistent questioning at least helps us to eliminate one bad answer to a serious question. At most, it points us toward a significant degree of intellectual independence. The character of Euthyphro, however, seems unaffected by the entire process, leaving the scene at the end of the dialogue no less self-confident than he had been at its outset. The use of Socratic methods, even when they clearly result in a rational victory, may not produce genuine conviction in those to whom they are applied.
Apology: The Examined Life
Because of his political associations with an earlier regime, the Athenian democracy put Socrates on trial, charging him with undermining state religion and corrupting young people. The speech he offered in his own defense, as reported in Plato's Apologhma (Apology), provides us with many reminders of the central features of Socrates's approach to philosophy and its relation to practical life.
Ironic Modesty:
Explaining his mission as a philosopher, Socrates reports an oracular message telling him that "No one is wiser than you." (Apology 21a) He then proceeds through a series of ironic descriptions of his efforts to disprove the oracle by conversing with notable Athenians who must surely be wiser. In each case, however, Socrates concludes that he has a kind of wisdom that each of them lacks: namely, an open awareness of his own ignorance.
Questioning Habit:
The goal of Socratic interrogation, then, is to help individuals to achieve genuine self-knowledge, even if it often turns out to be negative in character. As his cross-examination of Meletus shows, Socrates means to turn the methods of the Sophists inside-out, using logical nit-picking to expose (rather than to create) illusions about reality. If the method rarely succeeds with interlocutors, it can nevertheless be effectively internalized as a dialectical mode of reasoning in an effort to understand everything.
Devotion to Truth:
Even after he has been convicted by the jury, Socrates declines to abandon his pursuit of the truth in all matters. Refusing to accept exile from Athens or a commitment to silence as his penalty, he maintains that public discussion of the great issues of life and virtue is a necessary part of any valuable human life. "The unexamined life is not worth living." (Apology 38a) Socrates would rather die than give up philosophy, and the jury seems happy to grant him that wish.
Dispassionate Reason:
Even when the jury has sentenced him to death, Socrates calmly delivers his final public words, a speculation about what the future holds. Disclaiming any certainty about the fate of a human being after death, he nevertheless expresses a continued confidence in the power of reason, which he has exhibited (while the jury has not). Who really wins will remain unclear.
Plato's dramatic picture of a man willing to face death rather than abandoning his commitment to philosophical inquiry offers up Socrates as a model for all future philosophers. Perhaps few of us are presented with the same stark choice between philosophy and death, but all of us are daily faced with opportunities to decide between convenient conventionality and our devotion to truth and reason. How we choose determines whether we, like Socrates, deserve to call our lives philosophical.
Crito: The Individual and the State
Plato's description of Socrates's final days continued in the Kritwn (Crito). Now in prison awaiting execution, Socrates displays the same spirit of calm reflection about serious matters that had characterized his life in freedom. Even the patent injustice of his fate at the hands of the Athenian jury produces in Socrates no bitterness or anger. Friends arrive at the jail with a foolproof plan for his escape from Athens to a life of voluntary exile, but Socrates calmly engages them in a rational debate about the moral value of such an action.
Of course Crito and the others know their teacher well, and they come prepared to argue the merits of their plan. Escaping now would permit Socrates to fulfil his personal obligations in life. Moreover, if he does not follow the plan, many people will suppose that his friends did not care enough for him to arrange his escape. Therefore, in order to honor his commitments and preserve the reputation of his friends, Socrates ought to escape from jail.
But Socrates dismisses these considerations as irrelevant to a decision about what action is truly right. What other people will say clearly doesn't matter. As he had argued in the Apology, the only opinion that counts is not that of the majority of people generally, but rather that of the one individual who truly knows. The truth alone deserves to be the basis for decisions about human action, so the only proper apporoach is to engage in the sort of careful moral reasoning by means of which one may hope to reveal it.
Socrates's argument proceeds from the statement of a perfectly general moral principle to its application in his particular case:
One ought never to do wrong (even in response to the evil committed by another).
But it is always wrong to disobey the state.
Hence, one ought never to disobey the state.
And since avoiding the sentence of death handed down by the Athenian jury would be an action in disobedience the state, it follows Socrates ought not to escape.
The argument is a valid one, so we are committed to accepting its conclusion if we believe that its premises are true. The general commitment to act rightly is fundamental to a moral life, and it does seem clear that Socrates's escape would be a case of disobedience. But what about the second premise, the claim that it is always wrong for an individual to disobey the state? Surely that deserves further examination. In fact, Socrates pictures the laws of Athens proposing two independent lines of argument in favor of this claim:
First, the state is to us as a parent is to a child, and since it is always wrong for a child to disobey a parent, it follows that it is always wrong to disobey the state. (Crito 50e) Here we might raise serious doubts about the legitimacy of the analogy between our parents and the state. Obedience to our parents, after all, is a temporary obligation that we eventually outgrow by learning to make decisions for ourselves, while Socrates means to argue that obeying the state is a requirement right up until we die. Here it might be useful to apply the same healthy disrespect for moral authority that Socrates himself expressed in the Euthyphro.
The second argument is that it is always wrong to break an agreement, and since continuing to live voluntarily in a state constitutes an agreement to obey it, it is wrong to disobey that state. (Crito 52e) This may be a better argument; only the second premise seems open to question. Explicit agreements to obey some authority are common enough—in a matriculation pledge or a contract of employment, for example—but most of us have not entered into any such agreement with our government. Even if we suppose, as the laws suggest, that the agreement is an implicit one to which we are committed by our decision to remain within their borders, it is not always obvious that our choice of where to live is entirely subject to our individual voluntary control.
Nevertheless, these considerations are serious ones. Socrates himself was entirely convinced that the arguments hold, so he concluded that it would be wrong for him to escape from prison. As always, of course, his actions conformed to the outcome of his reasoning. Socrates chose to honor his commitment to truth and morality even though it cost him his life.

2007-01-21T08:05:00.000-08:00

Y12 Classics

Please post the first hundred words of your essay below. I'm due this work as a hard an an electronic copy by Wednesday 24th.

2007-01-12T08:23:00.000-08:00

Y10 Romeo and Juliet homework resource, due Friday 19th. Well done for finding this! You the third bullet point on the essay plan (in red at the bottom of this post) and your notes to help you write this bit of your essay.

Act 3, Scene 5

SCENE V. Capulet's orchard. Enter ROMEO and JULIET above, at the window
JULIET Wilt thou be gone? it is not yet near day:
It was the nightingale, and not the lark,
That pierced the fearful hollow of thine ear;
Nightly she sings on yon pomegranate-tree:
Believe me, love, it was the nightingale.
ROMEO It was the lark, the herald of the morn,
No nightingale: look, love, what envious streaks
Do lace the severing clouds in yonder east:
Night's candles are burnt out, and jocund day
Stands tiptoe on the misty mountain tops.
I must be gone and live, or stay and die.
JULIET Yon light is not day-light, I know it, I:
It is some meteor that the sun exhales,
To be to thee this night a torch-bearer,
And light thee on thy way to Mantua:
Therefore stay yet; thou need'st not to be gone.
ROMEO Let me be ta'en, let me be put to death;
I am content, so thou wilt have it so.
I'll say yon grey is not the morning's eye,
'Tis but the pale reflex of Cynthia's brow;
Nor that is not the lark, whose notes do beat
The vaulty heaven so high above our heads:
I have more care to stay than will to go:
Come, death, and welcome! Juliet wills it so.
How is't, my soul? let's talk; it is not day.
JULIET It is, it is: hie hence, be gone, away!
It is the lark that sings so out of tune,
Straining harsh discords and unpleasing sharps.
Some say the lark makes sweet division;
This doth not so, for she divideth us:
Some say the lark and loathed toad change eyes,
O, now I would they had changed voices too!
Since arm from arm that voice doth us affray,
Hunting thee hence with hunt's-up to the day,
O, now be gone; more light and light it grows.
ROMEO More light and light; more dark and dark our woes!

Enter Nurse, to the chamber
NURSE Madam!
JULIET Nurse?
NURSE Your lady mother is coming to your chamber:
The day is broke; be wary, look about.
Exit
JULIET Then, window, let day in, and let life out.
ROMEO Farewell, farewell! one kiss, and I'll descend.
He goeth down
JULIET Art thou gone so? love, lord, ay, husband, friend!
I must hear from thee every day in the hour,
For in a minute there are many days:
O, by this count I shall be much in years
Ere I again behold my Romeo!
ROMEO Farewell! I will omit no opportunity
That may convey my greetings, love, to thee.
JULIET O think'st thou we shall ever meet again?
ROMEO I doubt it not; and all these woes shall serve
For sweet discourses in our time to come.
JULIET O God, I have an ill-divining soul!
Methinks I see thee, now thou art below,
As one dead in the bottom of a tomb:
Either my eyesight fails, or thou look'st pale.
ROMEO And trust me, love, in my eye so do you:
Dry sorrow drinks our blood. Adieu, adieu!
Exit
JULIET O fortune, fortune! all men call thee fickle:
If thou art fickle, what dost thou with him.
That is renown'd for faith? Be fickle, fortune;
For then, I hope, thou wilt not keep him long,
But send him back.
LADY CAPULET [Within] Ho, daughter! are you up?
JULIET Who is't that calls? is it my lady mother?
Is she not down so late, or up so early?
What unaccustom'd cause procures her hither?
Enter LADY CAPULET
LADY CAPULET Why, how now, Juliet!
JULIET Madam, I am not well.
LADY CAPULET Evermore weeping for your cousin's death?
What, wilt thou wash him from his grave with tears?
An if thou couldst, thou couldst not make him live;
Therefore, have done: some grief shows much of love;
But much of grief shows still some want of wit.
JULIET Yet let me weep for such a feeling loss.
LADY CAPULET So shall you feel the loss, but not the friend
Which you weep for.
JULIET Feeling so the loss,
Cannot choose but ever weep the friend.
LADY CAPULET Well, girl, thou weep'st not so much for his death,
As that the villain lives which slaughter'd him.
JULIET What villain madam?
LADY CAPULET That same villain, Romeo.
JULIET [Aside] Villain and he be many miles asunder.--
God Pardon him! I do, with all my heart;
And yet no man like he doth grieve my heart.
LADY CAPULET That is because the traitor murderer lives.
JULIET Ay, madam, from the reach of these my hands:
Would none but I might venge my cousin's death!
LADY CAPULET We will have vengeance for it, fear thou not:
Then weep no more. I'll send to one in Mantua,
Where that same banish'd runagate doth live,
Shall give him such an unaccustom'd dram,
That he shall soon keep Tybalt company:
And then, I hope, thou wilt be satisfied.
JULIET Indeed, I never shall be satisfied
With Romeo, till I behold him--dead--
Is my poor heart for a kinsman vex'd.
Madam, if you could find out but a man
To bear a poison, I would temper it;
That Romeo should, upon receipt thereof,
Soon sleep in quiet. O, how my heart abhors
To hear him named, and cannot come to him.
To wreak the love I bore my cousin
Upon his body that slaughter'd him!
LADY CAPULET Find thou the means, and I'll find such a man.
But now I'll tell thee joyful tidings, girl.
JULIET And joy comes well in such a needy time:
What are they, I beseech your ladyship?
LADY CAPULET Well, well, thou hast a careful father, child;
One who, to put thee from thy heaviness,
Hath sorted out a sudden day of joy,
That thou expect'st not nor I look'd not for.
JULIET Madam, in happy time, what day is that?
LADY CAPULET Marry, my child, early next Thursday morn,
The gallant, young and noble gentleman,
The County Paris, at Saint Peter's Church,
Shall happily make thee there a joyful bride.
JULIET Now, by Saint Peter's Church and Peter too,
He shall not make me there a joyful bride.
I wonder at this haste; that I must wed
Ere he, that should be husband, comes to woo.
I pray you, tell my lord and father, madam,
I will not marry yet; and, when I do, I swear,
It shall be Romeo, whom you know I hate,
Rather than Paris. These are news indeed!
LADY CAPULET Here comes your father; tell him so yourself,
And see how he will take it at your hands.
Enter CAPULET and NURSE
CAPULET When the sun sets, the air doth drizzle dew;
But for the sunset of my brother's son
It rains downright.
How now! a conduit, girl? what, still in tears?
Evermore showering? In one little body
Thou counterfeit'st a bark, a sea, a wind;
For still thy eyes, which I may call the sea,
Do ebb and flow with tears; the bark thy body is,
Sailing in this salt flood; the winds, thy sighs;
Who, raging with thy tears, and they with them,
Without a sudden calm, will overset
Thy tempest-tossed body. How now, wife!
Have you deliver'd to her our decree?
LADY CAPULET Ay, sir; but she will none, she gives you thanks.
I would the fool were married to her grave!
CAPULET Soft! take me with you, take me with you, wife.
How! will she none? doth she not give us thanks?
Is she not proud? doth she not count her blest,
Unworthy as she is, that we have wrought
So worthy a gentleman to be her bridegroom?
JULIET Not proud, you have; but thankful, that you have:
Proud can I never be of what I hate;
But thankful even for hate, that is meant love.
CAPULET How now, how now, chop-logic! What is this?
'Proud,' and 'I thank you,' and 'I thank you not;'
And yet 'not proud,' mistress minion, you,
Thank me no thankings, nor proud me no prouds,
But fettle your fine joints 'gainst Thursday next,
To go with Paris to Saint Peter's Church,
Or I will drag thee on a hurdle thither.
Out, you green-sickness carrion! out, you baggage!
You tallow-face!
LADY CAPULET Fie, fie! what, are you mad?
JULIET Good father, I beseech you on my knees,
Hear me with patience but to speak a word.
CAPULET Hang thee, young baggage! disobedient wretch!
I tell thee what: get thee to church o' Thursday,
Or never after look me in the face:
Speak not, reply not, do not answer me;
My fingers itch. Wife, we scarce thought us blest
That God had lent us but this only child;
But now I see this one is one too much,
And that we have a curse in having her:
Out on her, hilding!
NURSE God in heaven bless her!
You are to blame, my lord, to rate her so.
CAPULET And why, my lady wisdom? hold your tongue,
Good prudence; smatter with your gossips, go.
NURSE I speak no treason.
CAPULET O, God ye god-den.
NURSE May not one speak?
CAPULET Peace, you mumbling fool!
Utter your gravity o'er a gossip's bowl;
For here we need it not.
LADY CAPULET You are too hot.
CAPULET God's bread! it makes me mad:
Day, night, hour, tide, time, work, play,
Alone, in company, still my care hath been
To have her match'd: and having now provided
A gentleman of noble parentage,
Of fair demesnes, youthful, and nobly train'd,
Stuff'd, as they say, with honourable parts,
Proportion'd as one's thought would wish a man;
And then to have a wretched puling fool,
A whining mammet, in her fortune's tender,
To answer 'I'll not wed; I cannot love,
I am too young; I pray you, pardon me.'
But, as you will not wed, I'll pardon you:
Graze where you will you shall not house with me:
Look to't, think on't, I do not use to jest.
Thursday is near; lay hand on heart, advise:
An you be mine, I'll give you to my friend;
And you be not, hang, beg, starve, die in the streets,
For, by my soul, I'll ne'er acknowledge thee,
Nor what is mine shall never do thee good:
Trust to't, bethink you; I'll not be forsworn.
Exit
JULIET Is there no pity sitting in the clouds,
That sees into the bottom of my grief?
O, sweet my mother, cast me not away!
Delay this marriage for a month, a week;
Or, if you do not, make the bridal bed
In that dim monument where Tybalt lies.
LADY CAPULET Talk not to me, for I'll not speak a word:
Do as thou wilt, for I have done with thee.
Exit
JULIET O God!--O nurse, how shall this be prevented?
My husband is on earth, my faith in heaven;
How shall that faith return again to earth,
Unless that husband send it me from heaven
By leaving earth? comfort me, counsel me.
Alack, alack, that heaven should practise stratagems
Upon so soft a subject as myself!
What say'st thou? hast thou not a word of joy?
Some comfort, nurse.
NURSE Faith, here it is.
Romeo is banish'd; and all the world to nothing,
That he dares ne'er come back to challenge you;
Or, if he do, it needs must be by stealth.
Then, since the case so stands as now it doth,
I think it best you married with the county.
O, he's a lovely gentleman!
Romeo's a dishclout to him: an eagle, madam,
Hath not so green, so quick, so fair an eye
As Paris hath. Beshrew my very heart,
I think you are happy in this second match,
For it excels your first: or if it did not,
Your first is dead; or 'twere as good he were,
As living here and you no use of him.
JULIET Speakest thou from thy heart?
NURSE And from my soul too;
Or else beshrew them both.
JULIET Amen!
NURSE What?
JULIET Well, thou hast comforted me marvellous much.
Go in: and tell my lady I am gone,
Having displeased my father, to Laurence' cell,
To make confession and to be absolved.
NURSE Marry, I will; and this is wisely done.
Exit
JULIET Ancient damnation! O most wicked fiend!
Is it more sin to wish me thus forsworn,
Or to dispraise my lord with that same tongue
Which she hath praised him with above compare
So many thousand times? Go, counsellor;
Thou and my bosom henceforth shall be twain.
I'll to the friar, to know his remedy:
If all else fail, myself have power to die.
Exit

Look again at Act IV scene 3 of Romeo & Juliet.
What does the scene tell us about Juliet’s predicament and personality?

- Remember, the social and cultural context, the literary tradition, the overall structure of the play and analysis of language should come naturally into this as you write, rather than being ‘bolted on’ as separate paragraphs-

· The status quo in Verona: patriarchy, male bravado, sexism, the treatment of women, the feud intensifying this. Romeo’s participation in this culture- oxymorons, military language when talking about Rosaline. This establishes the predicament of women generally.

· Juliet’s love for Romeo- this contradicts the ‘rules’ of the feud and makes her predicament more vulnerable. The purity and intensity of their love, the sonnet, her strength of character and rational, reasoned personality allows her to manage this predicament better than Romeo.

· Romeo and Juliet’s only night together- the secret marriage reverses the value of light and dark imagery in the play. The death of Mercutio and Tybalt and its political consequences: Lord Capulet puts Juliet in the impossible predicament of having to marry Paris so he can elevate the position of his family after the death of Mercutio at the hands of a Capulet (Tybalt). Lord Capulet’s patriarchal domination of Juliet, her abandonment by Lady Capulet, the Nurse, Romeo- her predicament of complete isolation. Juliet’s personality becomes rebellious and almost irrational under these pressures- argument with her father. Goes to her last friend- the friar. His rather precarious plan to allow Juliet to escape her predicament.

· Juliet’s predicament in IV.3 and how it is affects her personality- begins to break down, lose her strength of character under the enormous political and psychological pressures. How this breakdown is enacted in the soliloquy- discuss the way Shakespeare uses the soliloquy to reveal personality and predicament, rather than simply move the plot forward- literary tradition. Use the handout with the circle on it!

2007-01-01T10:02:00.000-08:00

Y9: Summary of Richard III.

Richard III Summary

Richard III does have a pretty complicated plot. This is because:
a) It’s the last one in a series of four plays: Henry VIth Part One, Henry VIth Part Two, Henry VIth Part Three and Richard III. Reading it is a bit like coming in to a film halfway through.
b) It’s based on real history, and real history is always more complicated than stories someone made up.
c) Because it’s history, Shakespeare had to use real names and a lot of them are the same: it’s easy to get the four Edwards (three in the play and another one mentioned), two Richards (both in the play), two Elizabeths (one in the play and another mentioned), two Margarets (both in the play) and two Henrys (one in the play and another one mentioned) mixed up!
· Richard, Duke of Gloucester, hates the new peace made possible by the triumph of his brother Edward IV and the House of York. Secretly he plots the downfall of those who stand between him and the throne.
· Richard convinces Edward IV to send their own brother Clarence to jail because his name starts with a G (George, Duke of Clarence) and a wizard has predicted someone whose initial is G will prevent Edward’s sons being kings.
· On his way to see his brother Edward IV who is sick, Richard meets Anne Neville, widow of Edward Prince of Wales, King Henry VI's son. She is taking Henry VI's body to be buried and is angry with Richard for killing both her husband and her father-in-law.
· Richard tells Anne that he killed her husband Prince Edward and her father in law King Henry VI because he loves her and wanted her for himself. She seems convinced!
· Queen Elizabeth, King Edward IV's wife, says that Richard would look after the kingdom if Edward IV dies.
· Queen Margaret (Henry VI's widow) shows up and deals out curses to her enemies, the House of York. She hopes: King Edward IV will die of his illness; Prince Edward, Edward IV’s son, will die young; Queen Elizabeth will live long as neither, wife, mother nor Queen; Earl Rivers (Queen Elizabeth’s brother), Marquess of Dorset (Queen Elizabeth’s son by a previous marriage), and Hastings all die unnatural deaths; Richard will be friends with traitors and betrayed by friends; Queen Elizabeth will one day wish for Queen Margaret's help to curse Richard. Margaret spares Buckingham telling him he hasn't wronged her, but he insults her so she curses him too.
· In the Tower of London, two murderers, paid by Richard kill, Clarence by drowning him in a wine barrel.
· Clarence's children, Edward and Margaret Plantagenet, are told that their father is dead.
· Edward IV dies of his illness and Queen Elizabeth laments.
· Dorset and Grey, the Queen’s sons by a previous marriage are imprisoned in Pomfret Castle.
· Hearing of this, Queen Elizabeth, her son Richard Duke of York and the Duchess of York, her mother-in-law, run to safety.
· Prince Edward, son of the dead King Edward IV, arrives in London and gets his brother Richard Duke of York out of hiding to meet him.
· Richard sends his nephews Richard Duke of York and Prince Edward to the Tower of London. He plans to kill the boys and become king.
· Rivers (brother of Queen Elizabeth), and Grey (her son by previous marriage) are executed at Pomfret Castle In a meeting at the Tower, Richard blames Hastings for the treason and has him beheaded.
· Richard starts rumours that Edward IV's children (Richard Duke of York and Prince Edward) are bastards, and furthermore, that Edward IV himself was a bastard, which makes him next in line to the throne as the dead king’s brother. Also, Richard devises a plan to get rid of Clarence's children (Edward and Margaret Plantagenet), just to be on the safe side (they are, after all, the dead King Edward IVth’s niece and nephew).
· The Mayor of London comes to Richard and offers him the throne, which he accepts, becoming King Richard III.
· Queen Elizabeth tells her surviving son Dorset to leave England to see Richmond (later, Henry VII).
· Richard III plans to crown Anne Neville queen, fulfilling Anne's own curse that Richard III's future wife be cursed and miserable.
· Richard III plans to have Clarence's daughter, his own niece Margaret, married off to a poor man to get rid of her.
· Richard also plans to kill his own wife Anne Neville, then marry Edward IV's daughter, his own niece, Elizabeth.
· Richard III pays Tyrrel to kill his nephews Prince Edward and Richard Duke of York since Buckingham is unwilling to do it.
· Richard III remembers a prophesy that Richmond (Henry VI's nephew) would be king one day.
· Richard’s wife Anne and his nephews Prince Edward and Richard Duke of York are killed, Clarence’s daughter Margaret is married off, Clarence's son Edward Plantagenet is killed, and Richard III goes to woo his niece Elizabeth away from Richmond. Richard’s position as King is looking pretty strong!
· However, Ely joins Richmond and Buckingham who raise an army against Richard III.
· Old Queen Margaret (Henry VI's wife) meets the Duchess of York (Richard III’s mother) and Queen Elizabeth (Edward IV’s widow) and tells them to curse Richard III, and they do.
· All of Richard III's victims come to him in a dream to haunt and torment him. All say, "Despair and die" to Richard III, causing him to go insane. The same ghosts also visit Richmond and wish him luck.
· The two armies meet in battle on Bosworth Field, both generals giving orations to their armies before battle. Richard III fights valiantly. Richmond kills Richard III and Stanley crowns Richmond Henry VII. Henry VII, a Lancaster, marries Edward IV's daughter Elizabeth, a York, ending the War of the Roses by uniting the houses of York and Lancaster.

2007-01-01T06:41:00.000-08:00

Y12: Just in case anyone missed it, here are the Hamlet essays I remarked and returned electronically over Christmas. Next up, the poetry of John Donne. Make sure when you return your essays promptly on the 5th January (or before) and they are presented correctly: word count; bibliography; clear font in 12-point; double spaced (on the toolbar in Word, looks like four lines with arrows pointing up and down to the left side of the lines). See you in the New Year.

ELEANOR COBBE

How far would you agree that Hamlet is "a play dealing with the effect of a mother's guilt upon her son"? [T.S Eliot]

WORD COUNT 2,699

ADVICE: THE QUALITY OF THE ESSAY CARRIES THE EXTRA LENGTH SO YOU’LL BE OKAY THERE. HOWEVER, IT COULD DO WITH A BIT OF RESTRUCTURING- SOME OF THE TOPICS DON’T REALLY FLOW OR LEAD ONE FROM THE OTHER- MAYBE YOU COULD RE-ORDER IT A BIT OR ADD SOME ‘SIGNPOST’ SENTENCES’ LIKE ‘MUCH OF THE EVIDENCE FOR HAMLET’S FEELINGS FOR HIS MOTHER ARE IN HIS SOLILOQUIES’ ETC.T.S Eliot suggests that the cause of Hamlet's madness, the explanation for his melancholy and motivation for his actions is his mother's ‘sins’ of infidelity (at least to his father’s memory, if not actually to his father) and betrayal. This leads Eliot to suggest that the play is a failure because Gertrude’s sins are not sufficient to justify his subsequent actions and emotional turmoil. John Dover Wilson, on the other hand, believes that Hamlet's anguish is the result of a combination of factors such as the death of his father, the fact that his uncle has stolen his crown and the trauma of seeing his dead father's ghost, which rocks his (presumably) Protestant beliefs. Dover Wilson would then assume that Hamlet's actions were, if not justified, then at least understandable to the audience and therefore the play is not a failure. T.S Eliot hints at the fact that Hamlet is suffering from an Oedipus complex, although he would "not perhaps go to the length of the psychoanalyst Dr Ernest Jones" [John Dover Wilson]. This means that Hamlet is sexually attracted and obsessed with his mother and therefore he is envious of Claudius' relationship with her. Eliot justifies this view by looking at the way Hamlet calls his mother's sheets "incestuous" in his first soliloquy and suggests that the incest is in fact his own feelings over his mother as, in modern eyes, the relationship between his mother and his uncle is not incestuous. The use of the word "sullied" suggests he is dirty and feels disgusted with himself in comparison to the purity of new snow, "O that this too too sullied flesh would melt, / Thaw and resolve itself into a dew" [ 1.2.129]. This can be interpreted as Hamlet feeling even more disgust for himself because he has romantic or sexual feelings for his mother. As this is deemed utterly wrong by modern day and Shakespearean society, Hamlet's incoherence and hysterical anguish in this soliloquy is understandable. By repeating himself in "…too too sullied…" and again in "O God! O God!" Hamlet is again being incoherent – an indication of his mental turmoil. Further on in the soliloquy, Hamlet makes brief reference of his father as a great king who was "so loving to my mother" [1.2.140]. He wants to believe that his parents had the perfect relationship. Here, Hamlet also could be trying to convince himself of his own father's greatness so as to have a reason to hate Claudius and justify his own anguish. Lying to himself and being convincing enough to not realize it is an obvious sign that Hamlet could be heading towards a mental breakdown. On the other hand, Dover Wilson can argue that what Hamlet was feeling at the time was fully understandable to a Shakespearean audience as marrying an in-law was regarded as incest at the time: Henry VIII had used a biblical law against marriage between in-laws as the basis for his divorce from his first wife just 40 years before Hamlet was written. This historical fact weakens Eliot's whole argument considerably, as it becomes apparent that the Shakespearean audience would have agreed with Hamlet on the level of disgust inherent in his mother’s second marriage. In any case, it is true that the soliloquy focuses more on Hamlet's anger towards his mother getting remarried rather than the fact that he isn't King or his father's death. His anguish is apparent from the fact that he cannot finish any sentence concerning his mother's sexual relationship with his uncle, for example "…and yet within a month-" [ 1.2.145] as if the thought of it sickens him to the point that he can't even think of it. This would indicate that Eliot is correct in saying that Hamlet is extremely emotionally disturbed by the fact that his mother has married so quickly and that this is a huge factor of his eventual breakdown.
However, at this point Dover Wilson could argue that Hamlet isn't even aware of his father's murder by his uncle and therefore of course he hasn't mentioned it and it is not at the front of his mind. In the scene immediately after the encounter with the ghost, Hamlet reveals his emotions, which mainly concentrate on the issue of his father's murder. Although Hamlet was relatively incoherent in the first soliloquy, his increasing amount of repetition and emphasis on words here indicates that he is now more distressed after seeing the ghost than he was with his mother's incestuous and hasty marriage to Claudius. This would mean that Dover Wilson was more accurate when he suggested that Hamlet's madness was a culmination of factors such as his father's death, his mother's remarriage and his throne being stolen by his uncle. His mother is only mentioned in one line, "O most pernicious woman!" ( 1.5.105), which indicates that he has almost put it out of his mind at this point in the play. This again weakens T.S Eliot's argument because it shows that it can't have been that much of an issue for him.There is also a lot of evidence to suggest that Hamlet was affected by a loss of faith after the appearance of the ghost as well. Dover Wilson would cite this as a major trigger for Hamlet’s emotional turmoil as it occurs just before Hamlet's second emotionally charged speech. This also has nothing to do with his mother and therefore he is not dealing with the effect of his mother's sins.
As Protestants do not believe in ghosts, they see them as angels or demons playing tricks on them, Hamlet is deeply confused and troubled by his sighting of the ghost. We can clearly see that he is a religious man because at the start of the soliloquy Hamlet wants resolve and strength to help him in his time of need. He asks Heaven for help and then Earth, then even considers asking Hell, as he is so desperate for inspiration and help, "O all you host of heaven! O earth! what else?/ And shall I couple hell?" ( 1.5.92). This shows that he is slowly turning crazy because he is even considering going against his faith to help him in his time of need. He also wants to be completely focused on avenging his fathers death and therefore must wipe his memory clean of anything that is unimportant, such as his mother’s relationship with his uncle, "from the table of my memory/ I'll wipe away all trivial, fond records/ All saws of books, all forms, all pressures past". By clearing all his past issues with his mother he can properly take care of Claudius. This indicates again that Gertrude is not one of the biggest issues in his life and that T.S Eliot was wrong to suggest that it was his mother's sins that caused his insanity if he can dismiss it this quickly.This is reinforced by the second soliloquy, which again mainly focuses on his father's death rather than his mother's sins. Hamlet is clearly struggling with whether or not to kill Claudius, as although he has all the reason in the world to, he has a twisted respect for him. He sees himself as a coward because he hasn't done anything yet, even though Pyrrhus killed Priam for less. Whereas he talked about his father with respect in the first soliloquy, it now appears that he can see flaws in his father's warrior like character and sees himself in some way in Claudius. Dover Wilson would point out that when Hamlet asks, "who does me this?" ( 2.2.570) in reference to Claudius, he answers his own question with "ha!" (2.2.571) because he can't say his name. This is the way he treated saying his mother’s name and sins in the first soliloquy so this suggests that this is just the way he deals with things that are uncomfortable to him and that he doesn't have any sexual feelings for his mother. This would rebuke the argument for Eliot given previously when I suggested that Hamlet's incoherence in the first soliloquy was a direct reaction to his mother’s sins alone. On the other hand, Eliot could say that Hamlet can't talk about his mother at all and his reaction is more intense so he has more of an issue with his mother than Claudius. His twisted respect for Claudius is also shown in the scene leading up to Hamlet's 4th soliloquy. When Fortinbras marches through Denmark to invade a small, useless part of Poland, Hamlet reacts in a similar way to how Claudius would. He realises that the war is so pointless that the "Polack never will defend it" ( 4.4.23) and can't see that Fortinbras is doing it for honour and glory, much like his own father would have done. Hamlet realizes this in his subsequent soliloquy in which he says, "What is a man / If his chief good and market of this time / Be but to sleep and feed? A beast no more." ( 4.4.33). The beast is Claudius as he is not a true man with honour like Old Hamlet in Hamlet's eyes. This shows that he is trying to talk himself into being like Old Hamlet because he isn't really a violent character and is trying to show his hatred for Claudius. This indicates that he is more concerned with Claudius' sins than his mother’s because he is deliberately trying to be unlike him. The theory of double entry during Act II Scene 2 can be interpreted to support either Dover Wilson or Eliot. The argument is whether Hamlet overhears the conversation between Ophelia, Claudius and Polonius or if he is offensive to Ophelia in Act III Scene 1 for other reasons. During the conversation, the trio plot to find the cause of Hamlet's madness, with Claudius and Polonius both having separate motives. If Hamlet does overhear, this is evidence for Dover Wilson as his treatment for Ophelia is not motivated by a hate or disgust for women. On the other hand, if he didn't overhear, T.S Eliot could argue that he treats Ophelia disgracefully because he hates women and this relates back to his relationship with his mother. In my opinion, the evidence suggests that Hamlet did overhear the conversation, as he is witty and rude to Polonius after he fully enters the scene. He says, "You are a fishmonger." ( 2.2.174) which suggests that Polonius is a "pimp" to his daughter who he is using to fuel his own motivation to gain more power. He also acts like he is losing his mind, switching from subject to subject like he does when he is genuinely crazy but in this instance cleverly and coherently, "…being a / good kissing carrion- Have you a daughter?" ( 2.2.181). This means that he is putting on a show for Polonius, he doesn't want him to be aware that he knows about the murder or that he isn't genuinely mad.When Rosencrantz and Guildenstern enter, Hamlet admits that he has been miserable recently, but the reason for his misery is not the fact that he isn't King, "I could be bound in a nutshell and count / myself a king of infinite space". Eliot would suggest here that his motivation for his melancholy is his mother's actions as he isn't even sure if what the ghost has told him is true at this point. Hamlet asks his friends "what makes you at Elsinore?" because he wants them to admit their reasons for being there – to spy on him. This would indicate that Dover Wilson is again more correct in his assumption that it is a range of factors rather than just his mother that causes his depression. At this point, Hamlet is also showing that he has become a misanthrope because he has become tired of life and although he can see the beauty of man, he has realized that it all become nothing once you die. This is a classic convention of a tragic hero and again supports Dover Wilson because he has lost all love of life; it is not specifically because of his mother. After the third soliloquy, Ophelia enters to return Hamlet's belongings after their relationship has ended. The subsequent scene can be interpreted in two ways depending on whether the double entry theory is true. If it is true, as Dover Wilson argues, Hamlet’s coarse and hostile language is a reaction to the fact that Ophelia is being used as a spy against him. On the other hand, if the analyst doesn't believe the double entry theory, like TS Eliot, it could be interpreted that Hamlet's cruel treatment of her is because of his hatred of women, which began because of his sexual obsession with his mother and her sins. Hamlet also treats his mother badly during the closet scene because he hates her for her treatment of his father. Hamlet also believes that Gertrude was involved in the murder but Shakespeare writes Gertrude ambiguously so that the audience never really knows if she was. Each of her responses to Hamlet's accusations can be construed differently- either as innocent bewilderment or as a guilty person trying to throw the scent of them. For instance, Hamlet says, "Almost as bad, good mother / As kill a King and marry with his brother." ( 3.4.28) and Gertrude replies "As kill a King?" (3.4.30) which could either mean she is shocked and worried that he knows or that she is genuinely bewildered. Dover Wilson would like to believe that Gertrude is guilty because then her sins are enough to warrant Hamlet's mental breakdown. TS Eliot stated that the play was a failure because Gertrude's sins were not enough and therefore he must believe she was innocent in the murder. During this scene he also accidentally murders Polonius, believing it is Claudius hiding behind the curtains. When Ophelia learns of her father's death, this and the end of her relationship with Hamlet drives her crazy. This is a reflection of Hamlet's own situation, where he slowly goes mad after the death of his father. Throughout the play there are many parallels similar to this: both Hamlet and Fortinbras have had their fathers murdered and their thrones stolen and both are named after their fathers, whilst Laertes also has a murdered father and a ‘whored’ mother, much like Hamlet. Perhaps this shows that the play is about fathers and sons and less about mothers and sons as TS Eliot suggests. Another example of a parallel sub-plot is the Mousetrap play within a play. In this scene Hamlet sets up a play to repeat the murder of his father in order to see if Claudius experiences any recognition or guilt of the events. It would seem that Hamlet would need to be in a position to look at Claudius, but instead he tells Horatio to look at him and he himself looks at Gertrude to see her reaction. Hamlet also lays across Ophelia's lap in a very inappropriate way in this scene and bombards her with sexual innuendos and gross images. In my opinion, this section of the play is Eliot's strongest piece of evidence to suggest that Hamlet's issue is with his mother mainly and other women as a result of his mother's sins because he seems relatively unconcerned with Claudius' reaction. In my opinion, there is a lot more evidence to support Dover Wilson's claim than Eliot's. If the discovery about the incest between a widow and brother in law had not been made, I believe Eliot would have had a much stronger case but as most his arguments seem to be supported on Hamlet having sexual feelings for his mother his argument is weakened considerably. Although some of Eliot's views do make more sense than Dover Wilson's, Dover Wilson presents a much more varied argument, including a wider range of factors and is therefore less easy to dismiss with counter evidence. In this case I believe that Eliot was wrong in stating that the play is a failure due to a lack of Gertrude's sins as it was a culmination of many factors that lead to Hamlet's downfall.

How far do you agree that Hamlet is “a play dealing with the effect of a mother’s guilt upon her son”?

LUKE AYLETT

T.S Eliot argues that Hamlet is “a play dealing with the effect of a mother’s guilt upon her son” and this is what motivated Hamlet to act in the way he does. However, he argues that this reason does not adequately support Hamlet’s actions and therefore the play fails; he states “Hamlet is dominated by an emotion which is inexpressible, because it is in excess of the facts as they appear”. On the other hand, the critic John Dover Wilson argues that this is untrue and the play therefore does not fail: Hamlet has many adequate reasons leading him to do the things he does, which trouble him more than “the effect of a mother’s guilt upon her son.” These reasons include the appearance of the ghost of his murdered father, whom was murdered by his uncle, not to mention the fact that the murderer has also taken a kingdom that was rightly his. The appearance of the ghost would ultimately lead to break down of his of his faith that would be assumed to be Protestantism. Also so many of his friends have turned against him; Ophelia is used to spy on him, (even though there is controversy whether Hamlet knows this or not,) also his school friends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are sent to spy on him, perhaps leading to misanthropy.

There is plentiful evidence to support both arguments; the first soliloquy particularly supports T.S Eliot’s theory, with Hamlet’s ranting about his mother. However, Dover Wilson would argue that this is because he has not yet found out the truth behind Claudius’ crowning.

Hamlet’s first soliloquy reveals him as an emotional wreck: He talks about “self slaughter,” and compares his flesh to “sullied” snow- something has made him impure. T.S Eliot would suggest that this overwhelming grief is to do with Hamlet’s feelings for his mother. When he speaks about his mother in this soliloquy we see words of genuine anger, Hamlet’s speech- which is normally extremely eloquent deteriorates into lists- “Fie on’t, ah, fie”. Also there is excessive use of punctuation, breaking his sentences and making them choppy. T.S Eliot says this is because his mother has driven him insane, in her actions. He is unable to think of Claudius and his mother whenever he gets close to it, he stops, he cannot say it; “Let me not think on’t.”

Later in the play we see Hamlet feign an “antic disposition,” it is directly after the meeting of the ghost, we see the same sorts of characteristics of madness as we do in the first soliloquy, Horatio comments “these are wild and whirling words my lord” after this comment we see Hamlet reveal his plan of displaying an “antic disposition” this could be perhaps to cover up his true insanity, as fresh from an encounter with his father’s murdered ghost, he is undoubtedly going to be suffering some emotional turmoil, but it could also be protection for him from Claudius, as if Claudius does happen to find out what is going on, he will have to do something about it. When we see him feigning this antic disposition he is still very articulate in his speech: however when we see him in moments of genuine emotional havoc, he is so overcome his speech is impeded.

Eliot also points out that continuous references are made to his mother’s hasty marriage yet he does not appear so obsessed with Claudius: he seems obsessed only with the part his mother played in it, he compares her to an “unweeded garden,” and when he talks about it he says “But two months dead-“ and his speech breaks off, perhaps showing his total disgust for this. He complains about her grieving with “most unrighteous tears” Hamlet feels his father has been betrayed, he feels great anger that she remarried so quickly “She married. O most wicked speed!” T.S Eliot states that he cannot speak about his mother and his speech is broken because he is “dominated by an emotion which in inexpressible, because it is in excess of the facts as they appear.” However Dover Wilson claims that Hamlet’s emotions are perfectly justified at this point because of other facts such as he has not been made king, as well as his mother’s “o’er hasty marriage.” Dover Wilson goes on to claim that Hamlet is “jealous” of his mother in the sense that he wants no one else to have her, he is not sexually envious of Claudius as T.S Eliot suggests. Wilson says that Eliot “would perhaps not go to the lengths of the psycho-analyst Dr Ernest Jones who declares that Hamlet suffers from and Oedipus complex because Shakespeare did also, but he seems to hint at such a solution.”
Hamlet refers to his mother’s bed sheets as incestuous: other references are made throughout the play, for example in Scene 3 Act 4 some directors portray Hamlet forcing Gertrude down on to a bed, however by some it is played as being forced down onto a chair; there is dispute how Shakespeare himself would have played it. However, Dover Wilson claims this to be untrue he states that at the time the play the written it would have indeed been incest for someone to marry their brother’s wife due to complications in Henry VIII marriage and the creation of the Church of the England. So the contemporary audience would have indeed seen this relationship as incestuous, this appears to be a point that is over looked by Mr. T.S Eliot. Yet more evidence that Hamlet does not have sexual feelings for his mother is that the ghost also terms the relationship as incestuous, he refers to Claudius as “that incestuous, that adulterate beast”

Another claim made by T.S Eliot is that Hamlet is perhaps also a misogynist, his terrible treatment of the only two women in the play, Gertrude and Ophelia gives him plentiful evidence to make this claim. His verbal abuse of Gertrude referring to her as “cold mother” and makes a mention to that fact she is not wearing “customary suit of solemn black”. He also treats Ophelia particularly badly in the closet scene, which we see the result of a trap set by Claudius and Polonius to find out the reason for Hamlet’s insanity. Hamlet tells her to “Get thee to a Nunnery” a Nunnery again having a sordid link and meaning brothel, although you can instantly see this is derogatory it may not be entirely to degrade her, as Eliot thinks. Dover Wilson claims that Hamlet knew that Claudius and Polonius were actually listening in due to the fact that he is actually already on stage and can eavesdrop on the conspirators, this may or may not have been expressed in Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre. Therefore this may influence his behavior on his reactions to Ophelia as he knows it’s a trap. THIS IS UNCLEAR- YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DOUBLE ENTRY SCENE AND THE LOBBY SCENE WITH OPHELIA.

The reason for this claim being down to the way the play is actually played, in Act two Scene two Wilson argues the double entry theory, this being that Hamlet actually comes on stage, and over hears the plan. As in Shakespeare’s Globe theatre Hamlet could have appeared on the covered part of the stage, and over heard the main dialogue on the outer stage. There are several hints that this could be true as immediately when the characters see Hamlet on stage he address Polonius as a “Fishmonger” or pimp, he also tells Polonius on the matter of his daughter “Let her not walk i’th’ sun” arguably this means that Hamlet has overheard and warns him do not let her walk in to the son of old Hamlet, it could also reference the fact that people tanned by the “sun” were those of the lower classes who worked in the fields, and if Ophelia was soiled by him but not married she would be worthless.

In the closet scene there is two possible meanings for what is unfolding, if the Dover Wilson’s double entry is true we would see Hamlet acting insanely and hatefully towards her to protect his plan to catch Claudius with a play, and if it is not and Eliot is right we will see Hamlet insane and hateful towards Ophelia because he has a problem with women. Before Hamlet asks the question”where is your father?” He does seem genuinely mad at Ophelia, and calls her a “bawd”, perhaps suggesting that it is Ophelia he does have a problem with, however even if the double entry theory is true he may also be mad at her due to her agreement to spy on her after all he says “I did love you once” this betrayal may have caused hatred. After the question about her father is asked we see him starting to be even more malicious to her perhaps as a show to Claudius and Polonius or perhaps in support of Eliot’s misogyny argument.

However Hamlet shows genuine anger when he continually refers her to a “Nunnery,” suggesting that she should either keep her self pure, or not allow herself to be used like a prostitute. Conversely, in support of the double entry theory Hamlet says “your honesty should admit no discourse to your beauty” basically meaning she knows he is being spied upon. Both interpretations are plausible, and maybe there is a little bit of both happening in this scene; Hamlet knows he is being spied upon, making him want to appear angry, but is also genuinely angry with Ophelia for going along with this plan.

In Act 3 Scene 4 we see the encounter between Hamlet and Gertrude in her chamber; it is also in this scene we see the murder of Polonius. In this scene Hamlet comments about the way he will treat Gertrude he says “I will speak daggers to her, but use none” This he does, calling his own mother a whore, sayng her lies to his father and promises to Claudius take the blush- “From the fair forehead of innocent love /And sets a blister there”
If Gertrude is portrayed as innocent, showing Eliot’s point of the view, she is therefore unaware of what has happened with the murder, and when Hamlet mentions the “bloody deed,” she responds with shock “As kill a king?” as to keep Eliot’s view point she has to be blissfully innocent so Hamlet’s reactions can be considered “in excess of the facts as they appear”. However although she does seemed shocked and wonder what she has done to warrant “thy tongue in noise so rude against” However is Gertrude is played as evil and aware of or part of Claudius’ plans, then this shock is just Gertrude attempting to deny that she had had any involvement. It is hard to determine what Gertrude’s thoughts are throughout the play, as we never see her alone and she has no soliloquies, unlike Hamlet who has five.
Hamlet uses sexually explicit phrases, such as “the rank sweat of an enseamed bed” infact Hamlet does seem to mention the sexual aspect of their relationship a lot, perhaps being a point for T.S Eliot every time he mentions Claudius he channels his thoughts in a sexual way (“incestuous sheets/ go not to my uncles bed”). However we know this is Hamlet’s plan, to “speak daggers to her,” in an attempt to induce her guilt. Also another argument for T.S Eliot is the fact that Hamlet is so worked up over his mother, perhaps so mad that he has hallucinated the ghost of his father, as his mother cannot see it “Alas, he’s mad!” is her reaction when he starts talking to the ghost. Yet when we have seen this ghost previously it has appeared to everyone, not just Hamlet.

Both critics make valid points about the play, and certainly T.S Eliot does have some ground on which to base his argument, Hamlet even says “I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself king of infinite space, were it not that I Have bad dreams,” so it is apparently not on his main agenda that he has lost his crown. Dover Wilson argue that when Hamlet lists his troubles it tends to be father first “That have a father killed, a mother stained,” Mother is mention second perhaps suggesting that this is secondary to the killing of his father. Also another major point for Dover Wilson to explain his extreme reaction to his mother is the fact he does react extremely too a lot of things, for example the scene of Ophelia’s funeral we see Hamlet violent reaction, he proclaims “whose wicked deed they most ingenious sense deprived thee of” before he leaps into grapple with Laertes. This is not the only thing to suggest that Hamlet has extremely poor way of handling bad news, when he finds out about Claudius plot for his murder he does not consider his to old school friends are innocent, he just condemns them straight to hell- “He should those bearers put to sudden death, Not shriving time allowed.” Despite this at the end of the play while Claudius is dying he proclaims “thou incestuous murderous damned Dane” T.S Eliot would note that he does mention ‘incestuous’ before he mention the murder, even though it is possibly not incest in the way T.S Eliot perceives, yet still his last words to Claudius are “follow my mother” not ‘follow Laertes’, who was after all in the same situation as Hamlet.

Despite all of this the end of the play is still mainly about sons and fathers, Laertes wanting revenge for the death of his, as does Hamlet, and also Fortinbras who Hamlet declares King in the last moments of his life, this parallelism in Hamlet does tend to suggest that the main theme of the play is not mothers and their sons: even though that is part of it, and Eliot does make some valid points, the true motivation of Hamlet is a combination of many ‘sins’ rather than an obsession with one.

Word count: 2,352

How far would you agree that Hamlet is “a play dealing with the effect of a
Mother’s guilt upon her son.”? (TS Eliot, The Sacred Wood)

LISA ECCLESTONE

According to TS Eliot, Hamlet’s chief motivation and the principle cause of his melancholy is his disgust at his mother, Gertrude, caused by her quick remarriage to his uncle. Furthermore, Eliot argues that Gertrude’s sins are not extreme enough to excuse Hamlet’s madness and that “his disgust envelops and exceeds her.” He goes on to argue that Hamlet’s inability to express his disgust is in fact Shakespeare’s own failure as a playwright and that he “tackled a problem which proved too much for him.” Eliot also seems to imply that Hamlet’s disgust is not at his mother directly but at his own incestuous feelings towards her: as the critic John Dover Wilson says “[Eliot] would not perhaps go to the length of the psycho-analyst Dr Earnest Jones, who declares that Hamlet suffers from an Oedipus complex, because Shakespeare did also, but he seems to hint at such a solution.”
Furthermore, Dover Wilson argues that it is a number of different causes which motivates Hamlet in his madness, including: his father’s death; Claudius’ usurpation of his crown; Ophelia’s ‘rejection’ of his love; his friends being used as informants against him; the disruption of his Protestant faith due to the ghost’s appearance as well as Gertrude’s hasty remarriage to his uncle. In Dover Wilson’s opinion it is the combination of factors, not one solely, which cause his depression and which lies behind his ‘antic disposition’ (1.5.180). He also understands, due to one historical fact that Eliot seems to have overlooked, that Hamlet has full rights to being disgusted at his mother due to her “incestuous” (1.2.157) marriage to his uncle and it is this point which can explain a lot of Hamlet’s concerns of his mother’s relationship in his first soliloquy.
From the first soliloquy it is obvious that Hamlet’s mind is tormented, he is melancholic, angry and suicidal, wishing “…that the Everlasting had not fix’d/ His canon 'gainst self-slaughter.” (1.2.131/2). His state of mind is confused and irrational, and this is enacted through the way he speaks: Shakespeare breaks the speech up with punctuation, creating pauses and stops, showing that Hamlet, an articulate individual, is made incapable of expressing his thoughts fluently,.especially in comparison to the speech Claudius gives at the beginning of the scene, which is calm, complex, well communicated and fluent.
Furthermore, we can see in the content of the speech that the focus of Hamlet’s anger is his mother. His irrationality communicates his particular anger at his mother not mourning long enough, as a widow should, and marrying just two months after his father’s death. Hamlet sees this as disrespectful to his father’s memory, but the main issue is arguably Hamlet’s apparent incapability in accepting his mother’s sexuality. His thoughts linger on his mother’s relationship with his uncle but every time he comes close to actually drawing on the fact that they are together, his thoughts change course “and yet within a month-/Let me not think on’t” (1.2.145/6).
Although there is disgust there also seems to be an element of fascination which makes Hamlet fixate on their relationship.
This is arguably evidence to conclude that Hamlet has an Oedipus complex, he is jealous of his mother and when he says “With such dexterity to incestuous sheets!” (1.2.156) Eliot argues that Hamlet is describing his disgust at his own incestuous feelings towards his mother, as Gertrude’s and Claudius’ relationship would not be deemed incestuous as they are not blood related.
However Dover Wilson argues that Eliot is oblivious to one important historical fact: Gertrude’s and Claudius’ relationship would have been deemed incestuous by a Shakespearean audience, meaning that it would have not only been incestuous to Hamlet, but also to Shakespeare, the players at The Globe and the audience. This is because whilst Henry VIII was looking for a loophole to divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn, he went to the Pope claiming to have found a law in the biblical prescription against marrying your brother’s wife, and Catherine had been married to Henry’s older brother Arthur. Therefore, a contemporary audience would have understood Hamlet’s disgust at Gertrude’s relationship.
Moreover, Dover Wilson argues that Hamlet’s “obsession” with Gertrude disappears when he is pressed by more important issues, such as the revelation of his father’s murder. After the ghost’s appearance we can see that Hamlet is again on the edge of emotional turmoil this time at the revelation of Claudius murdering Old Hamlet. This is important to Dover Wilson because it suggests that Hamlet’s speech in general becomes confused and inarticulate when he is discussing anything that troubles him not just Gertrude.
Essentially Hamlet’s mind being on the brink of madness is caused by a mixture of matters, particularly here the discovery of his father’s murder by his uncle and the loss of his religion due to the ghost’s appearance. It is also possible that the subject of Gertrude arises because of the possibility of her being involved in Old Hamlet’s murder. This can be inferred because the ghost of Old Hamlet calls Claudius “that incestuous, that adulterate beast” (1.5.42).
This could suggest that in death Old Hamlet has found out about an affair between Gertrude and Claudius whilst he was alive. In any case, the main concern on Hamlet’s mind and the cause of Hamlet’s emotional turmoil is the revelation of Claudius murdering his father.
Another factor in favour of Eliot’s view is Hamlet’s apparent misogynistic feeling towards the play’s women: his mother and his lover Ophelia. In Hamlet’s first soliloquy he says “Frailty, thy name is woman-” (1.2.146) in anger at Gertrude. He obviously models his idea of women on his mother and as he sees her as something of disgust and instead of exclaiming “Frailty, thy name is Gertrude” he imagines all women as something that have earned his disgust, anger and disrespect.
Of course when considering his treatment of Ophelia, one has to consider the so called ‘double entry argument’ and whether it is true or not, although this is open to interpretation by the director. At the Globe Theatre the stage would have been seen as two rooms, the inner stage is one room and the outer stage is another. So when Polonius says “Here in the lobby” Hamlet may appear reading a book, the other characters unaware of his presence, as if in another room through an archway. As Dover Wilson explains “In short, “Here in the lobby” is equivalent to a stage direction and marks with practical certainty the moment at which Hamlet comes in and the place of his entry.” (GIVE A PAGE REFERENCE FOR THIS OR AT LEAST CREDIT IT TO ‘WHAT HAPPENS IN HAMLET) So it is possible that before his entry on the outer stage, Hamlet would have been seen listening to Polonius’ plan therefore giving reason to his treatment of Ophelia. If the double entry is true then Hamlet has overheard Polonius’ and Claudius’ plan to use Ophelia against him and to spy on him to find out the cause of his malady. This means when he is speaking to Ophelia he is acting to quell Claudius’ suspicions of him. This would also explain Hamlet’s manner when speaking to Polonius after his entry, because as Polonius notices “Though this be madness, yet there is method in’t.” (2.2.205)
Hamlet’s speech hints that he has heard the plan and is disgusted by the fact that Polonius is going to “loose” (2.2.163) his daughter to him. He calls Polonius a “fishmonger” (2.2.174) which can be interpreted as Hamlet calling Polonius a pimp, again reinforcing the truth in double-entry. This justifies Dover Wilson’s point that he is just treating Ophelia badly to throw Claudius off the scent.
However Eliot would regard the double entry as untrue and his treatment of Ophelia is just his misogynistic nature “Get thee to a nunnery” (3.1.121) implying that he hates women as a whole. Also the fact that he proudly announces that he is “proud, revengeful, ambitious” (3.1.125) suggests that he has no knowledge of them being watched, after all he would not want Claudius to know that he was a likely threat to him.
Arguably, the explanation could be somewhere between these two critics point of view: Hamlet has heard the plan and therefore decides to put on an act to please Polonius and Claudius, but psyches himself up so much that he starts believing his act and it ceases to be so, and he therefore shows his anger at Ophelia, for being used against him, by sexually bullying her and throws in threats towards to Claudius- “Those/ that are married already- all but one- shall live” (3.1.150)- because he has worked himself up so much that he cannot control his feelings any longer.
However, in the second soliloquy Hamlet asks why he “Must like a whore unpack my heart with words” (2.2.581), likening himself to a prostitute having to talk herself into feeling desire, as he must talk himself into revenge. However, at even the metaphorical mention of women he loses his hold on sanity and his thoughts become irrational, fortifying Eliot’s view on Hamlet’s misogyny.
When it comes to the Mousetrap Hamlet tells Horatio to watch Claudius “Give him heedful note/ For I mine eyes will rivet to his face, /And after we will both our judgements join.”(3.2.84/5/6) However, when it comes to the play actually starting it appears that Hamlet has other things on his mind- namely, his mother. As well as adding the lines of the play illustrating his father’s supposed murder he has added a part of the Queen exclaiming her undying love for her first husband, and her loyalty in never wanting to remarry if he should die. Hamlet tries to prick Gertrude’s conscience and purposely sits away from her so he can observe her reaction- specifically, he answers ‘No, good mother’ when Gertrude invites him to “Come hither, my dear Hamlet, sit by me.” (3.2.107/8) Perhaps he does this to watch her and when she does not appear to react he asks her “Madam, how like you this play?” (3.2.224) this shows that at the moment when he is supposed to be concentrating on Claudius to observe his guilt, he is preoccupied with his mother, arguably because of his obsessive disgust with her. This reinforces Eliot’s opinion, that at such a crucial part in the play, Hamlet is more concerned about his mother than avenging his father.

However it does seem that when it comes to the part of the Mousetrap that is important to testing the ghost Hamlet’s attention does divert back to Claudius just in time to observe his panicked exit from the play and he is certain of Claudius’ guilt “O good Horatio, I’ll take the ghost’s word for a/ thousand pound. Didst perceive?” (3.2.280/1).
Here Hamlet is finally convinced and certain of what he has to do now, and all thoughts of his mother disappear: in his fourth soliloquy he describes how he “will speak daggers to her, but use none.” (3.3.387) he wants Gertrude to realise that marrying Claudius disrespected his father and hurt Hamlet, he has no intentions of doing any more than prick her conscience.
However when it comes to the actual Closet scene, this theory seems to have been lost and Hamlet works himself up so much in his disgust for her that he kills Polonius, mistaking him for Claudius “How now? A rat! Dead for a ducat, dead.” (3.4.23) and it is after this bloody deed that he begins to forget himself and lose his temper at the thought of his mother being whored “takes off the rose/ from the fair forehead of an innocent love / And sets a blister there” (3.4.42/3/4) Here he starts to become cruel towards her either in a bid to make her realise her wrongdoings as would back up Dover Wilson’s theories, or just because he is angry and disgusted at her which would argue Eliot’s point. Indeed, in Hamlet’s final comments he cannot refrain from advising Gertrude to stop her sexual relationship with Claudius “Refrain tonight/ And that shall lend a kind of easiness/ To the next abstinence, the next more easy” (3.4.167/8/9) This implies that no matter how much he convinces himself that he is just trying to the best for his mother, it always ends up going back to the focus on her sex life, and his obsession with it.
A major point for Dover Wilson’s point of view is the theme of parallelism which runs through the play. Hamlet is a prince with a murdered father and a usurped crown, and this is echoed by Prince Fortinbras of Norway, whose father was murdered by Old Hamlet and who is not King. Another parallel situation to Hamlet would be that of Laertes and Ophelia, whose father Polonius has been murdered by Hamlet. This action causes Ophelia to go mad and commit suicide “Your sister’s drown’d, Laertes.” (4.7.163) and Laertes to accuse Claudius of having an affair with Laertes’ late mother
“Cries cuckold to my father, brands the harlot” (4.5.117/)
Firstly this implies that Claudius has a reputation as a womaniser, for Laertes to jump to the assumption that Claudius killed Polonius after he found out about a former affair between the two. However more importantly it demonstrates that the way that Hamlet has reacted about Gertrude marrying Claudius is arguably a normal reaction of any son who thinks that their mother is being whored, as Laertes shows the same anger. Secondly it shows that losing your sanity after a father’s murder is not deemed so irrational, as the murder of Polonius drives Ophelia mad, echoing the circumstances in which Hamlet was at the edge of sanity about. Furthermore, the fact that there are parallel subplots all about sons with murdered fathers would suggest that Shakespeare meant Hamlet to be a play about the relationship between fathers and sons not sons and mothers as Eliot alleges.
In conclusion TS Eliot has many valid points in supposing that Hamlet is “a play dealing with the effect of a mother’s guilt upon her son” as there are many points in the play when Hamlet seems completely enthralled with disgust at his mother and her sexuality, particularly in the first soliloquy. However there are arguably as many points for Dover Wilson’s counterargument. Within Hamlet’s emotional turmoil, his disgust at his mother is a recurring but not dominating factor: it is not this that primarily motivates Hamlet in his madness, and therefore the play cannot be called ‘an artistic failure’ as Shakespeare articulates for Hamlet sufficient range of motivation to be psychologically convincing.

Word count- 3050

WORD COUNT AFTER EDIT 2430
Bibliography

Hamlet William Shakespeare Methuen & Co. Ltd Croatia 2003
What Happens in Hamlet John Dover Wilson Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2005

2006-11-27T14:02:00.000-08:00

Y12 Hamlet essays first thousand words

If you've submitted it electronically, I've marked it below. Please do use 'lightingfools' for this, it's what it was designed for and makes life a lot easier for student and teacher- marking in cyberspace is very effective! My marking and comments are in BLOCK CAPITALS. Remember, this mark forms your first AfL assessment.

Matthew Milner 18th November 2006How far would you agree, Hamlet is ?a play dealing with the effect of a mother?s guilt upon her son? (TS Eliot, The Sacred Wood) ?THE critics, TS Eliot and John Dover Wilson have contrasting views on Shakespeare?s Hamlet, his emotions and his actions within the play. TS Eliot believes that Hamlet is distraught with the actions of Gertrude, his mother, and that is the most important reason for his emotional turmoil and his APPARANTLY INSANE actions and thoughts, but as Gertrude`s actions are not SINFUL OR REPREHENSIBLE enough to warrant this sort of a response from Hamlet, Eliot believes that the play has failed AS A SATISFYING WORK OF ART.However, John Dover Wilson?s view on the character of Hamlet is that there are many valid, or at least UNDERSTANDABLE reasons which THE AUDIENCE can SYMPATHISE WITH for his actions and grievance. Dover Wilson sees Hamlet?s brooding on his mother and women in general, especially Ophelia as being simply motivated by jealousy and disgust, RATHER THAN BY AN OEDIPAL OBSESSION, WHICH ELIOT SUGGESTS SHAKESPEARE FORCED INTO THE PLAY BECAUSE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF HIS OWN (LOOK AT ELIOT’S OWN WORDS HERE AND USE A QUOTATION0. John Dover Wilson CONCLUDES HIS RESPONSE TO ELIOT’S VIEW ON THE PLAY WITH THE ASSERTION ‘the facts as they appear, account for Hamlet’s madness and melancholy and treatment of the women in the play, but whether they excuse him raises another and different problem’.SOME ELEMENTS OF THE PLAY, DEPENDING ON INTERPRETATIVE JUDGEMENT, support TS Eliot`s view of Hamlet being distraught with his mother and some support John Dover Wilson?s view that there are many possible reasons for this emotional turmoil. SIGNIFICANTLY, MUCH DEPENDS ON THE DIRECTOR’S CHOICES; THE SAME SCENES, if presented in different ways, can support either CRITICS’ view.Hamlet?s first soliloquy is extremely important to the overall understanding of TS Eliot`s view of Hamlet?s actions and the play itself. ONE CAN SEE EVIDENCE FOR ELIOT’S ASSERTION THAT ‘Hamlet is a play dealing with the effect of a mother?s guilt upon her son’ IN THE LINE?O that this too too solid flesh would melt? (1.2.129). What this implies is that Hamlet feels dirty and that he would like to melt away into nothingness, commit suicide, Also the word ?solid? could also BE?sullied?, DEPENDING ON WHICH EDITION OF HAMLET IS TRUSTED, which means dirty. This could mean that possibly he feels dirty because of what his mother and uncle have done, whether it is their hasty marriage or the fact that they are together or also because he has sexual feelings for his mother. He then goes on to say
‘Or that the Everlasting had not fixed His canon `gainst self slaughter? (1.2.131-132).
This supports TS Eliot`s view of the play because this could mean that he wants to commit suicide so he can get away from the sins of his mother (EXPAND THIS- IS IT THAT HE WANTS TO DIE TO ESCAPE FROM HIMSELF AND HIS OWN ‘OEDIPAL EMOTIONS’ TOWARDS HIS MOTHER?). Another quote that supports This distress towards his mother is when he struggles on many occasions to complete his sentence and says ?and yet within a month-Let me not think on`t?. This shows that Hamlet is obsessed with his mother because he cannot bear to think of his mother, Gertrude, even being close to Claudius let alone sleeping with him. TS Eliot would say that due to the speaking about not having the throne or even his own father`s death, this soliloquy would be about his mother and nothing else.On the other hand, Dover disagrees with this. He believes that Shakespeare had a particular interest in the subject of jealousy as he constantly included the subject in a lot of his work, especially in his Sonnets. John Dover Wilson also points out that TS Eliot doesn?t mention the fact that Gertrude`s relationship with Claudius is incestuous. At the beginning of Hamlet, Hamlet just refers to his mother as ?so loving to my mother? (1.2.140) but later on goes on to talk about women as a whole, ?Frailty, thy name is woman? (1.2.146), which would give the AUDIENCE the impression that he has a problem with women in general, rather than just his mother, and some people could say he suffers from misogyny, which means that someone just hates women all together.Later on in the play, in the scene between Opehlia and Hamlet which is Act 3 scene 1, it is made clear, as stated by Dover Wilson, that Hamlet has a problem with women in general rather than just his mother. ?You jig and amble, and you lisp, you nick-name God?s creatures? (3.2.146/7), this quote suggests that Hamlet has strong feelings on how women trick men with their charm and looks, rather than his feelings for his mother and her actions after his father?s death.The scene which follows Hamlet?s meeting with the ghost of Old Hamlet is similar to Hamlet?s first soliloquy, but Hamlet?s source of anger is different.Hamlet only mentions his mother once during this scene, ?O most pernicious woman? (1.5.105). This suggests that he is more wooried about what the ghost has said to him about his father?s murder. This supports Dover Wilson?s agrument that Hamlet?s ?antic disposition? is due to many factors not just purely his disgust with his mother.In Act 2, Scene 2 the ?double entry? comes into the play. Dover Wilson and TS E liot both have contrasting views on this section and both have enough evidence to agrue their view is correct. The question is whether Hamlet overhears Claudius, Gertrude and Polonius`s plan to set Hamlet up by secretly listening to Hamlet and Ophelia talking, when they will be behind aN mirror which they can see out of but Hamlet cant see in 9THAT’S ONLY IN KENNETH BRANAGH’S FILM VERSION. IN THE PLAY, THEY JUST HIDE BEHIND AN ARRAS- A WALL-HANGING0. Polonius is trying to prove to Claudius that it is Hamlet?s love for Ophelia that is the cause of his madness, where on the other hand, Claudius is trying to show that Hamlet is only pretending to be ?mad? and that there is more behind this uncharacteristic behaviour. We do not know when Shakespeare intended Hamlet to appear in this scene, but this would be crucial to find out whether the double entry is true or not.John Dover Wilson belives that the double entry in true andthat Hamlet knows that he is being spied on. It could well be that Hamlet enters the scene when Polonious says ? You know sometimes he walks for hours together here in the lobby? (2.1.160). John Dover Wilson thinks this is true and that Hamlet knows to put up a smoke screen and pretend that is was Ophelia?s rejection that has led to his madness.

WELL DONE- A FLUENT AND ORIGINAL START. YOU NEED TO EVALUATE THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH CRITICS A LITTLE MORE AND LOOK AT THEIR STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES. ALSO, PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO MY COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS ABOVE

20/30 C+

Mallory Schartz How far would you agree that Hamlet is “a play dealing with the effect of a mother’s guilt upon her son”? (TS Eliot, The Sacred Wood)TS Eliot and John Dover Wilson both have differing critical standpoints on Hamlet’s motivations and for the causes of his madness and melancholy. TS Eliot’s maintains that Hamlet is appalled with his mother’s behaviour and that Hamlet is, in principle, “a play dealing with the effect of a mother’s guilt upon her son”; however, he goes on to argue that her hasty marriage to his uncle Claudius is not terrible enough to lead to his emotional turmoil, therefore the play is a failure. On the other hand, Dover Wilson has evidence for believing that Hamlet has adequate reasons for his state of mind and melancholy: Hamlet’s motivation can be seen as the net result of a number of factors, which do include the ‘sins’ of his mother- more precisely, the possible incestuous relationship between Claudius and his mother- but, significantly, a range of other reasons, such as the murder of his father, his encounter with the ghost, the subsequent questioning his Protestant faith and the fact that Claudius is on the throne of Denmark and not him.

Dover Wilson argues that Hamlet’s issues with his mother and with women generally have their roots in simple jealousy, which appears in many of Shakespeare’s plays, rather than any Oedipal obsession (USE A QUOTE FROM JDW). He also comments on the fact that a Shakespearean audience would have seen Hamlet’s disgust for his mother as perfectly rational because it was considered incest if you married your in-law in the 17th century, because of the way Henry VIII used an obscure biblical reference to marriage between in laws being a form of incest. He was unable to divorce his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, in order to marry Anne Boleyn. Through research, he discovered that it was an abomination against God to marry someone who has previously been married to your brother: this was the turning point for Henry VIII as Catherine had earlier been married to his elder brother.(EXPLAIN HOW THIS WOULD HAVE EFFECTED SHAKESPEARE’S FIRST AUDIENCE, ESPECIALLY IN THEIR RESPONSE TO THE FIRST SOLILOQUY) TS Eliot hints at the idea that Shakespeare was suffering from his own personal troubles to do with his mother, therefore was writing about himself. 9USE A QUOTE FROM ELIOT HERE)Hamlet’s first soliloquy (I.II.129) tends to favour TS Eliot’s arguments due to the fact that Hamlet’s main anger is focused on his mother’s “o’er hasty marriage”. The opening line, “O that this too too sullied flesh would melt”, suggests that Hamlet feels dirty, possibly because he has sexual feelings towards his mother. This is also evident when he struggles, on numerous occasions, to finish his sentences, for instance, “and yet within a month – Let me not think on’t –” (I.II.145/6). This implies that he is infatuated with her because he cannot bear to think of her with Claudius. TS Eliot would argue that, due to the lack of concern about not inheriting the throne and his father’s recent death, the first soliloquy shows that this is the main cause for his antagonism. However, Dover Wilson disagrees with this, “the strain, however, I associate, not with any mysterious complex, but with the more common-place derangement known as jealousy”. He believes that Shakespeare had a particular interest in the subject of jealousy as he repeatedly wrote about it, especially in the Sonnets. Dover Wilson also points out that TS Eliot doesn’t mention the fact about Gertrude’s relationship with Claudius being “incestuous” (I.II.157). At the beginning he just refers to his mother, “so loving to my mother” (I.II.140), yet goes on to generalize from his mother to all women, “Frailty, thy name is woman –” (I.II.146) giving the impression that he has an irrational disgust for women, pointing to an irrational disgust for his mother. Later on, in the scene between Hamlet and Ophelia (III.I), it is made apparent as stated by Dover Wilson, that Hamlet is indeed something of a misogynist rather than just having an uwholesome obsession with his mother. “You jig, and amble, and you lisp, you nick-name God’s creatures” (III.II.146/7) suggests that Hamlet has strong feelings about the way women trick men by using their femininity. (IS THIS AN ARGUMENT FOR ELIOT OR JDW? YOU SEEM TO BE ARGUING BOTH WAYS HERE!)The scene directly after Hamlet’s interaction with the Ghost of Old Hamlet is similar to his first soliloquy, however the source of anger is different. Hamlet only mentions his mother once, “O most pernicious woman” (I.V.105) which suggests that he is more concerned with the recent information about his father’s murder. This backs up Dover Wilson’s argument that Hamlet’s “antic disposition” is the result of many factors rather than purely disgust for his mother. (EXPAND THI- WHAT ARE HAMLET’S CONCERNS HERE IF NOT HIS MOTHER? REMEMBER TO ANALYSE QUOTATION)In Act 2, Scene 2 the “double entry” argument is brought into the play. T.S Eliot and Dover Wilson have opposing views on the matter and adequate evidence so support their beliefs. The question is whether Hamlet overhears Polonius, Gertrude and Claudius’ plan to set him up by secretly listening to Hamlet and Ophelia having a conversation. Polonius is trying to prove that it is Hamlet’s love for Ophelia that is the root of his madness, yet Claudius is suspicious that Hamlet is only pretending to be mentally unstable and there is more behind his unusual behaviour. We are unsure when Shakespeare wanted Hamlet to enter the scene, which is the crucial point in determining the double entry argument true of false. It is possible that Hamlet comes on when Polonius says, “You know sometimes he walks for hours together here in the lobby” (II.I.160). Dover Wilson believes this to be so and that Hamlet knows to act as if it is Ophelia’s rejection that has led to his emotional turmoil. Other evidence that Hamlet is present when they are discussing the plan is that he calls Polonius a “fishmonger”. (YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN THE DOUBLE MEANING OF FISHMONGER AND WHY IT’S REVEALING)The reason for this is that he knows he is using Ophelia for his own profit. It also relates back to Polonius stating that he will, “loose” his daughter to Hamlet. The word “loose” refers to sending a cow to mate with a bull when she is in heat. Polonious is comparing his daughter to a cow and treating her like a piece of meat, giving Hamlet a means to call him a “fishmonger”.

Hamlet changes the subject from, “sun breed maggots in a dead dog” (II.I.181) to “Have you a daughter?” (II.I.182). This implies that Hamlet feels that what Polonius is asking his daughter to do is disgusting. Hamlet also tells Polonius “Let her not walk i’th’ sun” (II.I.184) meaning don’t let her go down in the world by carrying out the plan. On the other hand T.S Eliot’s counterargument is that, due to his state of mind, he is just making it all up and has no meaning behind it. Hamlet could appear on stage just before he starts talking meaning he is unaware of the whole plan.Mallory

VERY DECENT START, MALLORY. PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO MY ADVICE AND THE CHANGES I HAVE MADE HERE. YOU’VE WRITTEN ABOUT THE FIRST 1200 WORDS HERE-WELL DONE! TO IMPROVE, YOU NEED TO EVALUATE THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF BOTH TS ELIOT’S AND JDW’S ARGUMENTS

19/30 C+

Eleanor Cobbe How Far Would You Agree That Hamlet is “a Play Dealing With the Effect of a Mother’s Guilt Upon Her Son”? [T.S Eliot]There are many different views of Shakespeare’s Hamlet; the opinions of T.S Eliot and John Dover Wilson being of particular interest and dispute. T.S Eliot suggests that the cause of Hamlet’s madness, THE EXPLANATION FOR HIS MELANCHOLY AND THE MOTIVATION FOR HIS ACTIONS A is his mother’s hasty and incestuous marriage to his uncle Claudius. This leads him to suggest that the play is a failure because his mother’s actions are not sufficient to justify his subsequent actions and emotional turmoil. John Dover Wilson, on the other hand, believes that Hamlet’s anguish is the result of a combination of factors, such as the death of his father, the fact that his uncle has stolen his crown and THE TRAUMA OF ENCOUNTERING his dead father’s ghost which rocks his protestant beliefs. Dover Wilson would then assume that Hamlet’s actions were, if not justified, THEN AT LEAST understandable to the audience and therefore the play is not a failure.(USE A QUOTE FROM JDW HERE) T.S Eliot’s main reasoning behind suggesting that Hamlet is obsessed with his mother is that he is suffering from an Oedipus complex. 9CAREFUL- USE QUOTATION FROM JDW- ELIOT NEVER ACTUALLY SAYS THIS, ALTHOUGH HE DOES SUGGEST IT STRONGLY) This means that Hamlet is sexually attracted and obsessed with his mother and therefore he is envious of Claudius’ relationship with her. He is also feeling sexual jealousy because another man has taken his mother away from him and he can’t handle the idea of her being sexually impure.(MORE SIGNIFICANTLY, HE IS DISGUSTED WITH HIMSELF FOR HAVING SUCH PERVERSE FEELING FOR HIS MOTHER0 Eliot justifies this view by looking at the way Hamlet calls his mother’s sheets “incestuous” in his first soliloquy and suggests that the incest is in fact his own feelings over his mother as, in modern eyes, the relationship between his mother and his uncle is not incestuous.9YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE FIRST SOLILOQUY IN A LOT MORE DETAIL, CONCENTRATING ON LANGUAGE AND ITS ALMOST COMPLETE FOCUS ON GERTRUDE RATHER THAN CLAUDIUS) However, Dover Wilson can argue this by saying that it was, in fact, incest at the time as Henry VIII had created the Protestant faith just 40 years ago (NOT CREATED THE PROTESTANT FAITH- THAT WAS MARTIN LUTHER- BUT RATHER THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, WHICH IS A BRANCH OF PROTESTANTISM. PROTESTANS ARE SIMPLY ANYONE WHO CALLS THEMSELVES A CHRISTIAN BUT ISN'T A CATHOLIC)on the basis that marrying your brother in law was a sin, as read in the Bible. This HISTORICAL FACT weakens Eliot’s whole argument considerably, as it becomes apparent that the Shakespearean audience would have agreed with Hamlet and therefore it seems obvious that he was only talking about his mother and Claudius’ relationship. Dover Wilson also disagrees that this Oedipal theme is a reflection of Shakespeare’s own incestuous feelings for his mother, an idea that is portrayed in many of Shakespeare’s plays and hinted at by Eliot 9GO FURTHER INTO THIS, USE QUOTATIONS- ITS A BIT UNCLEAR AT THE MOMENT AND IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING MANY OF SHAKESPEARE'S PLAYS HAVE OEDIPAL THEMES, WHICH NEITHER JDW NOR ELIOT SUGGESTS- ELIOT JUST SAYS HAMLET IS MOTIVATED BY AN UNHEALTHY, POSSILY OEDIPAL, OBSESSION WITH HIS MOTHER, AND PERHAPS THIS CAN ONLY BE EXPLAINED BY SHAKESPEARE HAVING A SIMILAR PROBLEM WHICH HE WANTED TO WORK OUT THEOUGH EXPLORING IT IN THIS PLAY).Hamlet’s first soliloquy is the AUDIENCES’ first insight INTO his character. It reveals Hamlet’s emotional turmoil after the death of his father and the remarriage of his mother. Overall, the soliloquy focuses more on Hamlet’s anger towards his mother getting remarried rather than the fact that he isn’t King or his father’s death. His anguish is apparent from the fact that he cannot finish any sentence concerning his mother’s incestuous sexual relationship with his uncle, for example “…and yet within a month-“ [1.2.145] as if the thought of it sickens him to the point that he can’t even think of it. He has become incoherent at the thought of this incest, which is perhaps an indication of his tormented mental state as he is usually an extremely intelligent and eloquent character. This soliloquy shows that Hamlet is slowly being driven crazy by the thought of his mother’s incestuous relationship with Claudius more than any other factor. He has become incoherent and has almost hysterical thoughts about the idea and cant even bring himself to think about it sometimes. This would indicate that Eliot is correct in saying that Hamlet is extremely emotionally disturbed by the fact that his mother has married so quickly and that this is a huge factor of his eventual breakdown. However, at this point Dover Wilson could argue that Hamlet isn’t even aware of his father’s murder by his uncle and therefore of course he hasn’t mentioned it and it is not at the front of his mind. In the scene IMMEDIATELY AFTER HIS ENCOUNTER WITH THE ghost, Hamlet delivers his second soliloquy, which mainly concentrates on the issue of his father’s murder. Although Hamlet was relatively incoherent in the first soliloquy, his increasing amount of repetition and emphasis on words in the second indicates that he is now more distressed after seeing the ghost than he was with his mother incestuous and hasty marriage to Claudius. (VERY GOOD, BUT YOU NEED SOME QUOTES AND ANALYSIS HERE TO SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTIONS)This would mean that Dover Wilson was more accurate when he suggested that Hamlet’s madness was a culmination of factors such as his father’s death, his mother’s remarriage and his throne being stolen by his uncle. His mother is only mentioned in one line, “O most pernicious woman!” (1.5.105), which indicates that he has almost put it out of his mind at this point in the play. This again weakens T.S Eliot’s argument because it shows that it can’t have been that much of an issue for him.There is also a lot of evidence to suggest that Hamlet was also affected by a loss of faith after the appearance of the ghost. Dover Wilson would cite this as a major trigger for Hamlets emotional turmoil as it occurs just before Hamlet’s second emotionally charged soliloquy. This also has nothing to do with his mother and therefore he is not dealing with the effect of his mother’s sins. As Protestants do not believe in ghosts, they see them as angels or demons playing tricks on them, Hamlet is deeply confused and troubled by his sighting of the ghost. He may be unsure whether the ghost is merely a demon lying to him about being murdered and therefore faces a crisis – should he risk avenging his father’s death or not? However, this theory is contradicted by the fact that Hamlet calls it “thou poor ghost” (1.5.96) which indicates that he believes it really is the ghost of Old Hamlet. We can clearly see that he is a religious man because at the start of the soliloquy Hamlet wants resolve and strength to help him in his time of need. He asks Heaven for help and then Earth, then even considers asking Hell, as he is so desperate for inspiration and help, “O all you host of heaven! O earth! what else?/ And shall I couple hell?” (1.5.92). This shows that he is slowly turning crazy because he is even considering going against his faith to help him in his time of need. He says “grow not instant old” (1.5.94) because he doesn’t want to be paralysed by fear or misery at this crucial stage in his life where he has the responsibility and knowledge to take his life in his own hands. He also wants to be completely focused on avenging his fathers death and therefore must wipe his memory clean of anything that is unimportant, such as his mothers relationship with his uncle, “from the table of my memory/ I'll wipe away all trivial, fond records/ All saws of books, all forms, all pressures past”. By clearing all his past issues with his mother he can properly take care of Claudius. This indicates again that Gertrude is not one of the biggest issues in his life and that T.S Eliot was wrong to suggest that it was his mother’s sins that caused his insanity if he can dismiss it this quickly and if his fathers murder takes prevalence.ELLIE, word count 1269.

23/30 B WELL DONE ELLIE- THIS IS FLUENT AND INTELLIGENT. TAKE CLOSE NOTE OF MY MARKING AND YOU NEED TO TRUST YOUR OWN JUDGEMENTS MORE- YOU SHOULD GET AN A FOR THIS, BUT WITHOUT SOME MORE PERSONAL INPUT, THE VERY HIGHEST MARKS ARE NOT AVAILABLE. THE EXAMINERS VALUE ORIGINAL THOUGHT MORE THAN ANYTHING- THINK AND WRITE- THERE ARE NO WRONG ANSWERS (JUST BETTER WAYS OF PUTTING YOUR ANSWER!)

Lisa Ecclestone
How far would you agree that Hamlet is “a play dealing with the effect of a mother’s guilt upon her son.”? (TS Eliot, The Sacred Wood)

The critics TS Eliot and John Dover Wilson have very different opinions in what motivates the actions of Hamlet and the causes of his emotional turmoil. According to TS Eliot, Hamlet’s chief motivation and the principle cause of his melancholy is his disgust at his mother, Gertrude, caused by her quick remarriage to his uncle and his possible incestuous feelings towards her. DON’T LUMP THESE TWO IN TOGETHER- THEY ARE VERY DIFFERENT, ESPECIALLY AS THE ‘INCESTUOUS FEELINGS’ ALLEGATIONS IS PURELY A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION- THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE FOR IT IN THE PLAY. USE A QUOTE FROM ELIOT TO SUPPPOT YOUR POINT HERE AND KEEP THE DISTINCTION CLEAR. Furthermore, he argues that the extent of Gertrude’s sins are not extreme enough to excuse Hamlet’s madness making the play “most certainly an artistic failure”. He argues this because he views Hamlet’s inability to express his feelings whilst talking about his mother as Shakespeare’s inability to express why Hamlet should be disgusted and angry at her and sees this as his failure as a writer. GOOD, BUT YOU AT LEAST NEED TO MENTION THE FIRST SOLILOQUY HERE EVEN IF YOU DON’T ACTUALLY ANALYSE IT AT THIS POINT IN YOUR ESSAY BUT LEAVE THAT UNTIL LATER. *
However, Dover Wilson argues that it is a number of different causes which motivates Hamlet in his madness, including: his father’s death and murder; Claudius usurpation of his crown; Ophelia’s rejection of his love; the betrayal of his as they are used as informants against him to Claudius; the disruption of his Protestant faith due to the ghost’s appearance as well as Gertrude’s hasty remarriage to his uncle. In his opinion it is the combination of these factors, not one solely, which cause his depression and which lies behind his ‘antic disposition’.

He also understands, due to one historical fact that TS Eliot seems to have overlooked, that Hamlet has full rights to being disgusted at his mother due to her “incestuous” (1.2.157) marriage to his uncle. I KNOW YOU’RE LEADING UP TO A FULL DISCUSSION OF THE FIRST SOLILOQUY, BUT IT STILL FEELS ODD TO LEAVE THIS POINT ‘HANGING’ HERE. YOU NEED TO FIND A WAY TO LEAD FROM * ABOVE INTO THIS AND THEN INTO *2 BELOW MORE CLEANLY.

*2 Essentially, both critics have valid points of view and evidence can be found for both throughout the play. TS Eliot argues that Hamlet’s motivation is purely disgust at his mother and this can be particularly seen in Hamlet’s first soliloquy. From the first soliloquy it is obvious that Hamlet’s mind is tormented, he is melancholic, angry and suicidal “Or that the Everlasting had not fix’d/ His canon 'gainst self-slaughter. O God!
God!” (1.2.131/2).
His state of mind is on the edge of emotional turmoil, and this is shown through the way he speaks: Shakespeare breaks the speech up with punctuation, creating pauses and stops, showing that Hamlet, an articulate individual, is made psychologically transparent through his incapability of expressing his thoughts- HIS SOLOLOQUY DOES NOT SIMPLY TELL THE AUDIENCE WHAT HE IS FEELING AND HIS CONFUSION- IT ENACTS THAT CONFUSION IN ITS CONFUSED, CHOPPED-UP EXPRESSION. His thoughts stall and don’t flow like those of an articulate person, in comparison to the speech Claudius gives at the beginning of the scene, which is calm, complex, well communicated and fluent. Furthermore there is the length of his sentences; “But two months dead-nay, not so much, not two-” (1.2.138).
They are short and occasionally unfinished again associating his inarticulateness with his emotional turmoil.
Furthermore, we can see in the content of the speech that the focus of Hamlet’s anger is his mother Gertrude. His irrationality communicates his particular anger at his mother not mourning long enough, as a widow should, and marrying just two months after her first husband’s death. Hamlet sees this as disrespectful to his father’s memory, but the main issue is arguably Hamlet’s APPARANT incapability in accepting his mother’s sexuality. His thoughts linger on his mother’s relationship with his uncle but every time he comes close to actually drawing on the fact that they are together, his thoughts change course “and yet within a month-/Let me not think on’t” (1.2.145/6).He cannot bare to think on his mother with Claudius. Although Hamlet seems disgusted by his mother there also seems to be an element of fascination there for him, explaining why his mind keeps drawing back to the subject.
This is arguable evidence to conclude that Hamlet has Oedipus complex, he is jealous of his mother and Claudius and when he says “With such
dexterity to incestuous sheets!” (1.2.156)
TS Eliot argues that Hamlet is describing his own disgust at his incestuous feelings towards his mother, as Gertrude’s and Claudius’ relationship would not be deemed incestuous as they are not blood related. He cannot express his disgust at himself for having incestuous feelings for his mother, which possibly echoes Shakespeare’s inability to express those types of feelings, which he may have suffered from as well. WELL ARGUED, THIS.
However Dover Wilson argues that TS Eliot is oblivious to one important historical fact. Gertrude’s and Claudius’ relationship would have been seen as incestuous by a Shakespearean audience, meaning that it would have not only been incestuous to Hamlet, but also to Shakespeare, the players at the globe and the audience. This is because whilst Henry VIII was looking for a loophole so he could divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry Anne Boleyn, he went to the Pope claiming to have found a law in the Bible saying that it was against god to marry your brother’s wife, and Catherine had been married to Henry’s older brother Arthur. So with Hamlet being in production only about fifty years after that point, their relationship would have been seen as incestuous, giving Hamlet every right, as far as a contemporary audience would be concerned, to be completely disgusted and angry at his mother.
Moreover, Dover Wilson argues that Hamlet’s apparent obsession with Gertrude disappears when he is pressed by more important issues, such as the appearance of the ghost. In the speech after the ghost’s appearance although we can see that Hamlet is yet again on the edge of emotional turmoil, it is most arguably not caused by Gertrude, but at the thought of revenge for his father and anger at his uncle murdering him. What is important in this speech for Dover Wilson is that Gertrude is only a subject of the speech for a few lines “O most pernicious woman! /O villain, villain, smiling damned villain!” (1.5.105) this implies that Hamlet has more important matters to express and arguably if he was obsessed with his mother, as TS Eliot argues, then no matter how distraught he would have been by the news of his father’s murder, he would have probably discussed her more.

Essentially Hamlet’s mind being on the brink of madness is caused by a mixture of matters, particularly here the new found knowledge of his father’s murder by his uncle and the loss of his religion in believing the ghost is his father. It is also possible that the subject of Gertrude arises because of the possibilty of her being involved in Old Hamlet’s murder. This can be infered because the ghost of Old Hamlet calls Claudius “that incestuous, that adulterate beast” (1.5.42). This could suggest that in death Old Hamlet has found out about an affair between Gertrude and Claudius whilst he was alive.
But in any case the main concern on Hamlet’s mind and the cause of Hamlet’s emotional turmoil is the new knowledge of Claudius murdering his father. Also from this scene Hamlet tells Horatio that his going “To put an antic disposition on-” (1.5.180), this means that he will not always mean what he says and intends to put on an act to stop arising suspicion.
Another factor in favour of TS Eliot’s view of Hamlet is Hamlet’s apparent misogynistic feeling towards women, shown through his behaviour towards his mother, Gertrude and also towards his lover Ophelia. The first bit of evidence for this in Hamlet’s first soliloquy where he says “Frailty, thy name is woman-” (1.2.146) in anger at Gertrude. He obviously models his idea of women on his mother and as he sees her as something of disgust instead of exclaiming “Frailty, thy name is Gertrude” he imagines all women as something that have earned his disgust, anger and disrespect. Of course when considering his treatment of Ophelia, one has to consider the so called ‘double entry argument’ and whether it is true or not, although this is open to interpretation by the director. YOU DO NEED TO EXPLAIN THE MECHANICS OF THE DOUBLE ENTRY AND THE REASONS FOR BELIEVING IT. If the double entry is true then Hamlet has overheard Polonius’ and Claudius’ plan to use Ophelia against him and to spy on him to find out what the cause of his malady is. This means when he is speaking to Ophelia he is acting to quell Claudius’ suspicions of him. So, it is possible that he is aware of Polonius’ and Claudius’ presence and is acting up for them. However TS Eliot thinks that double entry is not true and his treatment of Ophelia is just his misogynistic nature showing through “Get thee to a nunnery” (3.1.121) implying that he hates women as a whole because he uses Gertrude as a model for women in general and he feels disgust towards her. Also the fact that he proudly announces that he is “proud,
revengeful, ambitious” (3.1.125)
suggests that he has no knowledge of them being watched, after all he would not want Claudius to know that he was a likely threat to him.

Arguably, however, it could be partly because of both reasons. Hamlet has heard the plan and therefore decides to put on an act to please Polonius and Claudius, but psyches himself up so much that he starts believing what he is saying and it ceases to be an act, and he therefore shows his anger at Ophelia, for being used as a spy against him, by sexually bullying her and throws in subtle threats towards to Claudius “Those/ that are married already- all but one- shall live” (3.1.150) because he is worked himself up o much that he cannot control his feelings any longer.

Word Count- 1,549

21/30 (B-) WELL DONE- THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE PERSONAL EVALUATION OF THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF BOTH ARGUMENTS HERE AND I’M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT YOU HAVE ONLY LEFT YOURSELF 500 WORDS TO COVER THE MANY OTHER IMPORTANT EPISODES IN THE PLAY, BUT THIS REMAINS A VERY EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION AND SHOWS CONFIDENT UNDERSTANDING.

Sinead Gervis

How far would you agree that, Hamlet is ?a play dealing with the effect of a mother?s guilt upon her son.?( TS Eliot, The sacredwood)?TS Eliot believes that Hamlet is a play dealing with the effect of a mother?s guilt upon her son and he also feels that the play is a failure WHY DOES HE THINK IT’S A FAILURE? YOU NEED TO CONNECT THE TWO POINTS TOGETHER- ELIOT DOES!. John Dover Wilson disagrees with this and suggests that Hamlet’s mother does have a part in Hamlet’s psychology, but only a part, a contributing factor along with many others factors such as old King Hamlet’s death, Claudius ruling Denmark and Hamlet himself not being king.In Hamlet’s first soliloquy the audience would perhaps expect him to talk about how he is not king or how upset he is about his fathers death, but instead the speech focuses almost obsessively on his mothers relationship with Claudius. You can see it in two ways, that Hamlet is upset as his mother married too quickly ?Would have mourned longer-married with my uncle, my fathers brother (But no more like my father that I to Hercules) within a month?. He thinks she moved on too quick after his fathers death. Or you can see it as he envies Claudius and wants his mother for himself. THIS NEEDS REDRAFTING- IT ISN’T CLEAR WHAT POINT YOU AR MAKING HERE AND WHICH INTERPRETATION IS FAVOURABLE TO WHICH CRITIC.TS Eliot thinks that the whole first soliloquy is AN EXPRESSION OF how Hamlet is jealous of his mother and has sexual feelings for her. Hamlet seems to think that Gertrude?s and Claudius? relationship is wrong and ?incestuous? .TS Eliot sees the word ?incestuous? as the way Hamlet feels for his mother and that if they did have a relationship it would be incest, but Dover Wilson thinks that this is talking about his mothers relationship with Claudius ,which back in the time when the play was first written it would have been seen as incest. AGAIN. THIS NEEDS TO BE EXPRESSED MORE CLEARLY, USING QUOTATIONS FROM THE PLAY ITSELF, FROM THE CRITICS AND AN EXPLANATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF HENRY 8th’s DIVORCE FROM CATHERINE OF ARAGON.TS Eliot thinks that Hamlet has feeling for his mother because of how worked up he gets when talking about her and Claudius, he can barely talk or finish his sentences. He keeps talking about his mothers relationship with Claudius but cannot bring himself to say the words. ?Like niobe, all tears. Why, she-? ,He stops talking in the middle of a sentence, its almost as if he cannot get the image out of his mind but the words won?t come out either.Dover Wilson perhaps disagrees with this as he thinks that whenever Hamlet gets very upset he does not talk properly- THE INARTICULACY OF THE FIRST SOLILOQUY IS NOT LIMITED TO THOUGHTS OF HIS MOTHER, BUT TO ANY THOUGHTS THAT HAMLET FINDS PARTICULARLY UPSETTING. FOR EXAMPLE In Hamlets second soliloquy he is very angry with Claudius and THERE cannot bring himself to say Claudius? name. ?Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindless villain.? When talking about Claudius he lists a lot of adjectives to avoid saying his name. So Dover Wilson argues that in Hamlets first soliloquy its not that Hamlet has feelings for his mother its just the fact that when he is upset he cannot express his feelings and finds it hard to talk. GOOD- THIS IS AN ORIGINAL AND INSIGHTFUL BIT OF ANALYSISIn Hamlets second soliloquy TS Eliot believes that even though he is angry with Claudius and at himself for not getting revenge ,his mother is still on his mind. Hamlet uses words like ?whore, drab and stallion?,’STALLION ISN’T- NOT SURE WHERE YOU GOT THAT FROM! These are all words for prostitutes or low women. Perhaps he uses these words to show he is still thinking about his mothers low behaviour. After Hamlet says this though, he starts to break down again and struggles to get his words out. ?A stallion! AHA- YOU MEAN ‘SCULLION’, NOT STALLION- LOWLY MAID, ASSUMED TO BE OF EASY VIRTUE.Fie upon?t, foh! About, my brain!? He uses a lot of punctuation. SO WHAT/? WHAT IS THE EFFECT/ AND HAMLET DOESN’T USE PUNCTUATION- SHAKESPEARE DOES!TS Eliot argues that he struggles to talk because he is thinking about his mother again but Dover Wilson thinks that its not just his mother it is because he is talking about women in general. AGAIN, THAT DOESN’T CONTRADICT WHAT ELIOT SAYS- HIS FEELINGS FOR HIS MOTHER LEAD HIM INTO DISGUST FOR HIMSELF AND THEREFORE DISGUST FOR ALL WOMEN WHO HE KNOWS HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE HIM FEEL ASHAMED OF HIS OWN PERVERSE SEXUALITY- IN ELIOT’S VIEW!T.S. Eliot does believe that Hamlet cannot get his words out when talking about his mother but he also thinks that? the play is certainly a artistic failure? , and he thinks perhaps Hamlet does not finish his sentences in the first soliloquy because Shakespeare could not think of what hamlet could say. USE A QUOTATION FROM ELIOT TO EXPLORE THIS FURTHERHamlets third soliloquy backs up Dover Wilson?s theory as it is difficult to see how Hamlet is upset about his mother in this as all he talks about is the crown not being his, law and office. Hamlet would rather trade in the pain of life for death.? But that the dread of something after death?, but he only wants to die if there is no after life, so he still wouldn?t be in pain after his death. Hamlet always thinks before he acts, and this is why he feels angry with himself because he wants to get revenge on Claudius. ?Thus does make cowards?, the reason he has not taken any action yet is because he is still not sure if the ghost was his father or not and if it was telling the truth.YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN THE MECHANICS OF THE DOUBLE ENTRY HERE In the ?Double entry? when Hamlet is talking to Ophelia his mother comes into it straight away and he talk about how he wishes he was not born but phrases it in a odd way. ?It were better my mother had not born me?. There is no need to involve his mother in this but he still cannot help but blame her. The double entry could be false as Hamlet uses the words ?revengeful? and ?ambitious? and he would not say this if Claudius was listening as it would make him suspicious. Also the double entry could be true as Hamlet asks Ophelia ?wheres your father??, then after he says this he starts laying into to Ophelia. Perhaps he didn?t know they were there until he asked , then by her answer he could tell so he started puttin on a act. Towards the end of talking to Ophelia he seems to get confused and caught up in the moment. He threatens Claudius by saying ?I say we will have no more marriage. Those that are married already-all but one-shall live.? This appears as Hamlet does know they are there but takes it a bit far and ends up making it obvious which makes Claudius suspicious of him.To find out if Claudius really is guilty Hamlet puts on ?the mouse trap?, which is a play in the play and Claudius? reaction will make up Hamlets mind to get revenge. NOT REALLY RELEVANT TO THE ESSAY, THIS COMMENT.

Word count 1,009

17/30 C THIS IS A VERY PROMISING EFFORT, AND THERE ARE SOME GENUINE IDEAS OF YOUR OWN HERE- NICE TO SEE YOU WITH THE CONFIDENCE TO FOLLOW YOUR OWN NOTIONS ABOUT THE PLAY. YOU DO NEED TO FOLLOW MY MARKING CAREFULLY, THOUGH, AS THIS DOES NEED TO BE IMPROVED.

2006-10-21T09:09:00.000-07:00

Y12: Half-term homework on Hamlet essay

Have a a look at these two examples, which should help you write your opening sections. Obviously, this is not the whole opening sectin- I expect you to write a bit more than this to show you understand the main points made by Dover Wilson and TS Eliot.

How far do you agree that Hamlet is “a play dealing with the effect of a mother’s guilt upon her son”? (TS Eliot, The Sacred Wood)

T.S. Eliot argues that Hamlet is, “a play dealing with the effect of a mother’s guilt upon her son”, and Shakespeare failed to make this theme work within the inherited story. John Dover Wilson opposes this, asserting that Hamlet has many good reasons for acting the way he does, beyond “excessive” disgust with his mother, Gertrude.
Hamlet believes Gertrude is guilty of many things. Firstly, she married again within two months of Old Hamlet’s death. Hamlet is angry and upset by this, as he doesn’t feel she has grieved long enough, and doesn’t care for his father’s memory.

In this essay I aim to evaluate TS Eliot’s theory on Hamlet, by comparing it to the counter argument made my Dover Wilson.

TS Eliot stated that “Hamlet is dominated by an emotion which is inexpressible, because it is in excess of the facts as they appear”. TS Eliot therefore believes that Hamlet is an artistic failure. Hamlet has many reasons for which he could be upset such as:His father has recently died; his mother has got married to his uncle within a month of his father’s death, he has not inherited his father’s throne after he died and his uncle [Claudius] has inherited it therefore he feels cheated. As TS Eliot believes the plays theme surrounds a mother’s guilt, we need to establish what Gertrude is guilty of before we analyse the reasoning. The most undeniable act Gertrude is guilty of is marrying Hamlets uncle [Claudius] ‘within a month’ of old Hamlet dying.

2006-10-14T04:48:00.000-07:00

Y11: Equus One of you chaps emailed me and asked what the connection was between the personal response and stuff about consumerism and religion as themes of the play you are doing now and the main body of the essay, which is about dramatic devices and theatricality. Good question. My reply is below as it ay help you.

Good question- genuinely. Right, bit of course design for you- you have two essays on drama for Literature (the Shakespeare essay counts for Language as well but we'll leave that aside) - your pre-1914 play (in our case, Romeo and Juliet) and your post 1914 play- Equus. The marking scheme for both is identical. So, I try to use one essay to cover some of the aspects of the marking scheme and the other to sweep up the rest. Your R and J essay was about character and social historical context- we spent ages looking at Juliet as a character and her place as a woman in a patriarchal society and how that reflected Shakespeare's own historical moment, right? We also did a bit of stuff on theatricality and personal response. With Equus, the focus was on theatricality- looking at the play specifically as a play and thinkng about how it's staged, with a little bit of social historical context (the consumerist 70s) and personal opinion- the stuff you're writing about now. That way, we've got tightly focussed essays that cover everything without wasting time hitting the same objectives twice in detail: both essays do cover everything, but with a very definite bias one way or the other.

What that means is there isn't a tight connection between the cultural stuff/ personal response stuff you're doing now and the rest of the essay- I'm just making sure we've covered all the bases. For students like you who are aiming for A*, you should be concerned that that means the last section will appear a bit 'bolted on'. Glad you noticed! So, here's a couple of ways you can connect the theatricality bit with the context / personal response bit:

1. The staging of the play itself is symbolic and refers to Greek theatre. Theatrical style in the 70s was generally very naturalistic- the sets looked like real rooms with the forth wall taken out. The very theatrical style of shaffer's play, therefore, insists on the importance of symbols, the imagination, things beyond the material world. You should get something out of that, hopefuly...

2. The play is didactic, polemical, parabolic, allegorical (look these up and use the one you like best). It's about Dysart and Strang, who strike me as pretty convincing characters, but they are also symbolic characters- Strang is disaffected youth, alienated by a society that doesn't stimulate the imagination, Dysart is the generation that, despite itself, allowed this to happen by losing its own passion and imagination. We are encouraged to look at the characters as symbols because so much of the play's staging is symbolic- the horses, the wooden square etc. Usually, symbloc characters are very 'flat' and unrealistic. Shaffer manages to be both realistic in his characterisation ('these are real people') and symbolic ('these characters tell you something about society') Staging and meanng / theme are connected that way, too.

2006-09-28T14:23:00.000-07:00

Y10: In case you need help with your homework, here it is. Remember, your story needs to cover the fight and the entrance of Prince Escalus and his threat- in my example, it would be Sheriff Escalus!

lightingfools.blogspot.com

All must:
Rewrite the story, up to and including the entrance of Prince Escalus

Most should:
Set the story somewhere other than 12th Century Italy- Baz Luhrmann chooses 21st century America!

Some could:
Use some of the dialogue from the original play.

Date due in: Friday 6th

Word count: At least 500 (2 ½ sides or so)

Example: Wild West Romeo and Juliet

The desert sun beat down hard on Sam and Greg, two bad-ass cowboys from the Capulet ranch, just outside the one-horse town of Verona, Texas. On their way to Verona’s only saloon, the two men kicked up dust as they swaggered down the street, throwing evil glances at the good folk of the town and boasting to each other about their days of hard liquor and fist fighting.

Suddenly, the street fell as silent as Jesse James’s grave as two good ol’ boys from the Montague ranch strode round the corner. A tumbleweed blew between the four men: you could cut the tension with a blunt Bowie knife.

Slowly, carefully, Sam reached to his holster and eased out his revolver. “My naked weapon is out,” he whispered to Greg, “quarrel, I will back thee.”

2006-09-25T14:00:00.000-07:00

Y11: A link to the article about consumerism as religion I was talking about on Tuesday- this makes for inteesting reading and you might be able to use it the conclusion to your Equus essay.

I never thought I'd be reading- and recommending that my students read- a sermon from an obscure American preacher, but that's one of the joys of literature: any book will eventually lead you to every book (and if you've got an internet connection, you've got every book in your house!)

http://www.rochesterunitarian.org/2000-01/20010729.html

2006-09-14T13:27:00.000-07:00

Y10: Welcome to "lightingfools". below you will find some information on cannabis that I have collected, plus some links to other reliable websites. Remember, you are looking for facts and statistics which will help your argument.

Marijuana- frequently asked questions
Can you die of a marijuana overdose?
No. There is no evidence that anyone has ever died of a marijuana overdose. Tests performed on mice have shown that the ‘effective’ to ‘lethal’ ratio for cannabis is about 40,000: 1 – in other words, if one joint gets you ‘stoned’, it would take 40,000 joints to kill you. The ratio for alcohol is generally between 4:1 and 10:1- in other words, if you feel drunk after a pint of beer, 10 pints will certainly kill you.

Does marijuana cause brain damage?
No. Marijuana is psychoactive because it stimulates certain brain receptors, but it does not produce toxins that kill them (like alcohol), and it does not wear them out as other drugs do. There is no evidence that marijuana use is a cause of brain damage.

Does marijuana affect your memory?
Yes. Marijuana does impair short-term memory. Persistent impairment of short-term memory can occur in marijuana smokers even after giving the drug up.

Does marijuana cause heart problems?
Probably. Smoking anything, including marijuana, may cause and will certainly worsen heart problems like hypertension, cerebrovascular disease, and coronary atherosclerosis.

Does marijuana damage the immune system?
Yes. Studies in which lab rats were injected with large quantities of cannabinoids have found that marijuana does harm the body’s ability to fight infection. It shuts off certain cells that fight bacteria, but this is only for the duration of intoxication. There also exists some evidence that marijuana stays in the lungs for up to seven months after smoking has ceased, possibly affecting the immune system of the lungs.

Does marijuana cause cancer?
Yes. Smoking marijuana has the potential to cause both bronchitis and cancer of the lungs, throat, and neck; some scientists believe it is more carcinogenic (cancer-causing) than tobacco, others disagree. However, marijuana is usually mixed with tobacco in a ‘joint’, and tobacco is a major cause of lung cancer. Because joint-smokers tend to inhale more deeply and hold the smoke in their lungs for longer than cigarette-smokers, tobacco smoke does more damage to joint-smokers than to cigarette-smokers.
Joint smokers who average 3 - 4 joints per day show similar symptoms to cigarette smokers who get through a whole pack of 20 in a day, including a bad cough and chest problems.

Does marijuana decrease motivation?
Sort of. ‘Amotivational syndrome’ is as a condition in which a person loses ambition or motivation. Recent studies have found that marijuana use may consistently produce amotivational syndrome in adolescent monkeys. However, a full recovery to normal motivation levels occurred about three months after the scientists stopped exposing the monkeys to marijuana.

Is marijuana addictive?
Sort of. It is generally agreed that marijuana does not create a tolerance, withdrawal symptoms, or physical dependence in the user. However, many long-term marijuana users find it very difficult to give up and often have trouble sleeping or relaxing without the drug.

Does marijuana cause accidents?
Yes. One study shows that daily marijuana smokers tend to have a 30% higher risk of accidental injuries than non-users.

Does marijuana use lead to the use of other drugs?
Difficult to say. Many people believe that marijuana use acts as a ‘gateway’ to the use of harder drugs. However, studies show that when the Dutch partially legalized marijuana in the 70's, heroin and cocaine use substantially declined. If the ‘gateway’ theory were true, use should have gone up rather than down. Some people argue that marijuana use tends to substitute the use of more dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin, rather than lead to their use. A National High School survey in the USA tells us that in 1990, 40.7% of all high school students had tried marijuana at least once, whereas only 9.4% and 1.3% had ever used cocaine and heroin. This means that, at maximum, only 23% of marijuana users go on to use cocaine, and only 3% go on to use heroin.

Health Consequences of Marijuana Abuse
Acute (present during intoxication)
· Impairs short-term memory
· Impairs attention, judgment, and other cognitive functions
· Impairs coordination and balance
· Increases heart rate
Persistent (lasting longer than intoxication, but may not be permanent)
· Impairs memory and learning skills
Long-term (cumulative, potentially permanent effects of chronic abuse)
· Can lead to addiction
· Increases risk of chronic cough, bronchitis, and emphysema
· Increases risk of cancer of the head, neck, and lungs

http://www.mentalhealth.com/book/p45-mari.html

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/marijuana/index.html

http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm

2006-09-10T12:28:00.000-07:00

Y13 Classics: I adapted this slightly from a philosophy website called ‘Age of the Sage’. Paste this link into your browser if you want to look at the original site- it is a short but properly scholarly treatment of the subject and worth reading.

http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/greek/philosopher/trial_death_socrates.html

The Trial and Death of Socrates
Socrates’ Apology

A friend, in consulting the Oracle at Delphi, asked was any man wiser than Socrates. The Oracle replied that there were not!!! Upon being told of this answer Socrates maintained that this implied that he, alone, had this claim to wisdom - that he fully recognised his own ignorance.
From that time he sought out people who had a reputation for wisdom and, in every case, was able to reveal that their reputations were not justified. Socrates regarded this behaviour as a service to God and decided that he should continue to make efforts to improve people by persuading and reminding them of their own ignorance. What we now call the "Socratic method" of philosophical inquiry involved questioning people on the positions they asserted and working them through further questions into seemingly inevitable contradictions, thus proving to them that their original assertion had fatal inconsistencies. Socrates refers to this "Socratic method" as elenchus. The Socratic method gave rise to dialectic, the idea that truth needs to be approached by modifying one's position through questionings and exposures to contrary ideas. Socrates did not seek to involve himself in the political life of Athens as he felt that there would inevitably be compromises of principle that he was not prepared to make. As a prominent citizen he was called upon to fulfil minor political roles where his sense of principle had caused him to place himself in some personal danger by holding out alone against the unconstitutional condemnation of certain generals. He later refused to participate in the arrest of an innocent man that had been ordered by a corrupt body of "Thirty Tyrants" who ruled Athens in the wake of her defeat by Sparta. This refusal might have cost Socrates his life but for the overthrow of the Thirty Tyrants and a restoration of democracy.
This restored democracy was however markedly traditionalist and reactionary in its religious views - this led it to see Socrates, as a teacher of novel ideas of morality and justice, with some disfavour. Socrates had also alienated many powerful men by acting as a relentlessly questioning gadfly causing them to face their personal ignorance or own to shortfalls in office. In 399 B.C. Socrates was accused of "impiety" and of "neglect of the Gods whom the city worships and the practise of religious novelties" and of the "corruption of the young". The trial, last days, and death of Socrates are successively related in several works by Plato. These works are the Apology (i.e. Defence Speech), Euthyphro, Crito and Phaedo

The last days of Socrates

The Apology (defence speech) consists of three speeches made by Socrates at his trial before a jury of five hundred or so Athenians who had gathered to hear him answer the charges. He had not prepared any defence but, being sure in his own mind that he was innocent, was hoping that his words of truth would secure an acquittal. He at this time was more than seventy years of age and he asked the jury to make allowances if he spoke in the sort of language he might use in discussions in the market-place as he was unfamiliar with law courts and the stylised language used in formal trials.

Plato - Apologythe first speech

Socrates told the jury that he thought that he had two sets of accusers, old and new, and that the old accusers he feared moreso and wished to present a defence against first of all. Socrates saw these old accusers as being influenced by prejudiced opinions that he had indulged in natural philosophy physical speculations or took money as a teacher. Those who indulged in physical speculations were routinely assumed to recognise no Gods. In earlier days a play by Aristophanes had featured a character named Socrates who seemed to be such a person but Socrates called on those assembled at his trial to produce evidence that he, the real Socrates, had ever taught along those lines In response to the idea that he took money as a teacher Socrates insisted that the life he led had brought him utter poverty rather than monetary reward. He lived that life in response to what the Pythian prophetess at Delphi had told his friend Chaerephon:- that no one was wiser than Socrates. Socrates suggested that he had made many abiding enemies by personally approaching people who had reputions for wisdom only to reveal through questionings that their wisdom was specious. Others had been alienated by young persons who had witnessed Socrates' methods of questioning similarly revealing yet other people's pretensions to wisdom to be baseless. Socrates made the case that his questions had tended to vindicate the utterance of the Oracle at Delphi by showing that he, Socrates, did indeed have a particular claim to Wisdom in that he at least fully recognised his own ignorance.
Socrates then addressed his new accusers in the form of Meletus the prosecutor. These new accusers accused Socrates of Impiety, of neglecting the Gods approved by the state, and, of introducing new divinities. Meletus, who was obliged to answer Socrates' questions delivered before the jury eventually commited himself to a straight assertion that Socrates was a complete atheist. Socrates then showed the fatal contradiction in Meletus accusation - how does someone whom the prosecution holds to be a complete atheist come to be accused of introducing new divinities or religious novelties. Having exposed the contradictions in the "new accusations" Socrates again mentioned that he feared his old accusers - those who had their pretensions exposed in the past - moreso than the new.
As the trial continued Socrates insisted that he had lived his life the way he had in response to God calling him to fulfill a philosophic mission. Even were he faced with death as an alternative, (death might for all we can know be a great relase into good), Socrates insisted that he would not give any undertaking to cease from moral teachings designed to encourage people to pay great attention to the "improvement of the soul". Socrates went so far as to suggest that if the Athenians sentenced him to death that it would be a sin against God. God had made him into a sort of Gadfly that was intended to stir the Athenian state into moral improvement. Socrates response to this call from God was to live a life of an unpaid teacher and he was in a state of utter poverty through neglect of private affairs.
Socrates maintained that he has long lived with an inner "oracle or sign" that occasionally forbade him from following certain actions and reminded the jury of the real danger that he put himself at the time of the unconstitutional trial of the generals and again when he refused to obey the Thirty Tyrants over the arrest of an innocent man. Socrates' great concern was not to avoid danger that might arise by alienating the powerful but rather to avoid committing any unrighteous or unholy act. Socrates then spoke of his followers stating that they enjoyed hearing his cross-questioning of those with pretensions to wisdom and that Meletus was making no effort to call any of them as witnesses for the prosecution. As to his family Socrates said that whilst it is far from unknown for accused persons to bring their tearful families to the attention of the court as an argument for leniency he, Socrates, could only regard such behaviours as being discreditable. Socrates hopes that his arguments alone will convince the court of his innocence and will not resort to such devices. In the event the five hundred or so strong jury before which Socrates was standing trial found him guilty by a narrow majority of sixty. Meletus moved that the sentence should be death, in reply Socrates had the right to propose a sentence that the court might select as an alternative.
This is the subject of the second speech in Plato's Apology

The last days of Socrates
Plato - Apologythe second speech

Towards the end of the first speech of the Apology Plato relates that the five hundred or so strong jury before which Socrates was standing trial found him guilty by a narrow majority of sixty. Meletus moved that the sentence should be death, in reply Socrates had the right to propose a sentence that the court might select as an alternative.
This is the subject of the second speech:- Although now an officially guilty man Socrates, true to his own estimation of his past actions, suggested that he has actually done great good to the state and that he deserved reward rather than punishment!!!
The trial jury was asked to entertain the idea that he, Socrates, should be maintained at public expense, such as was awarded to famous Olympian charioteers, so that he would have leisure to impart beneficial instruction. Socrates then backtracked a little from this suggestion, reminded the court that no one actually knew if death was a disaster or a release, and said that he was reluctant to suggest a real penalty in preference to death which might be a blessing. He had no money to pay any fine, he did not feel he deserved imprisonment, exile would bring great uncertainties for a man who even in a foreign city was bound to continue to instuct towards the "improvement of the soul".
Socrates openly suggested that he could himself pay a small fine of one Mina but that his friends were prepared to pay, on his behalf, a fine of thirty Minae.
In the event the trial jury thought that Socrates proposed alternative - the fine of thirty minae - was significantly too lenient and voted for the sentence of death rather than the fine being imposed and voted that way by an increased majority.
Plato - Apologythe third speech
Socrates asked those who had voted in favour of his being guilty to bear in mind that, even though he did not consider himself to be wise, the rivals of Athens would say that the Athenians had ordered the death of a wise man who lived among them. He also reminded those who had condemned him that although he was not to be around much longer as a Gadfly other, younger, and possibly less considerate, people might well fulfil the same role in the future. To those who had voted in favour of his being declared innocent Socrates gave assurances that he was not afraid of death, his sure guide - the inner Oracle or sign, - had not made its presence felt in ways that would have led him to believe he was on a wrong path. Whether death led to a state of utter unconciousness or else to a transmigration of the soul Socrates foresaw something that would be not completely unwelcome. To go into an eternity of a single, quiet, night or else to have the opportunity as a transmigrated soul to converse with, and to question, the heroes in Hades. Amongst his closing remarks Socrates asked his friends there present to visit punishments and troubles on his three sons if they seemed to care more about riches than about virtue, or if they seemed to be pretentious.
Socrates' closing words in this third speech of Plato's Apology being:-
The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways - I to die, and you to live. Which is better God only knows.
In most circumstances Socrates would have been obliged to submit to execution by drinking the deadly poison Hemlock within twenty four hours of his sentence. It happened however that executions were traditionally suspended whilst a certain sacred ship made an annual voyage to the Island of Delos. This ship was presently on the seas and this allowed a certain stay of execution. The ensuing events are related by Plato in his Euthyphro and Crito
The last days of Socrates

Plato - The Euthyphro

In his Apology Plato relates the trial and sentencing of Socrates - The sentence being that of death by imbibing a fatal poison.
In most circumstances Socrates would have been obliged to submit to execution by drinking the deadly poison Hemlock within twenty four hours of his sentence. It happened however that executions were traditionally suspended whilst a certain sacred ship made an annual voyage to the Island of Delos. This ship was presently on the seas and this allowed a certain stay of execution. Plato continues his relation of the last days of Socrates by presenting him in the days immediately following the trial in his "The Euthyphro". In the Euthyphro the reader is presented with an example of the Socratic method of enquiry. The Euthyphro opens with both Socrates and Euthyphro being present at the door of a King Archon prior to the presentation of law suits. Socrates' case arises from his being accused by one Meletus, (who is described as having a beak, long straight hair, and an ill grown beard), of corruption of the young. Euthyphro's case arises out of Euthyphro having accused his father of the murder of a servant. Euthyphro's case gives rise to a long discussion about the nature of Piety and Impiety. Socrates seems to hope that Euthyphro can shed some light of the nature of Piety and Impiety which could be of the greatest use in his trial against Meletus. In the event the Socratic dialogue shows the extreme difficulty of achieving a satisfactory definition of Piety and Impiety. The Euthyphro does not shed much light on Socrates' character or philosophy but does show how relentless questionings such as Socrates cultivated in a search for the good and the true could well have an unsettling effect on persons who thought that they had a grasp on such things as what Piety or Impiety might be.
Plato - The Crito
Plato's relation of the last days of Socrates continues in the Crito which deals with the imminent arrival of the sacred ship back from its voyage to Delos. Crito visits Socrates in prison and finds him apparently untroubled by the prospect of his imminent demise. Socrates tells Crito of a dream in which a fair and comely woman clothed in white had advised that he, Socrates, had but three days of this life remaining before "to Phthia shalt thou go"
Although Socrates' friends offer him a sure escape to Thessaly Socrates insists that he cannot return evil for evil. He has a duty to respect the due process of the Law in the city that had nurtured him. The final episode in Socrates life is related in the Phaedro
The last days of Socrates

Plato - The Phaedo

As related in the Crito Socrates is imprisoned awaiting the time when a sacred ship returns from Delos as this will lift a prohibition on the completion of the sentence he faces - the drinking of the fatal poison - Hemlock. Socrates' friends offer him a sure escape to Thessaly but Socrates insists that he cannot return evil for evil. He has a duty to respect the due process of the Law in the city that had nurtured him. The very last days of Socrates are related in Plato's the Phaedo. The sacred ship has arrived back from Delos, Socrates shackles are removed and he is allowed a final visit from his weeping wife Xanthippe who has brought with her their infant son in her arms.
Following Xanthippe's visit Socrates' final hours were spent in discussion with a group of his friends, the subjects of discussion including "the immortality of the soul". This discussion was later written about by Plato who was not actually present on this last day possibly because his own distress might well have disappointed his friend Socrates.
The discussions set out in the Phaedo feature a justification of a life lived with a view to the "cultivation of the Soul". The Orphic and Pythagorean faith background against which Socrates lives accepted the deathlessness of ths Soul, and accepted physical death as also involving the release of the Soul. Where a person had lived a good life, - had cultivated their Soul, - they were held to merit a far more pleasant situation in an afterlife reincarnation than where a person had led a bad life. The very fact of belief in an afterlife making the cultivation of the Soul a matter of the utmost importance. People were deemed to be "chattels of God" however and were not deemed to be free to seeking induction into the afterlife by taking their own lives. Crito asks Socrates in what way would he like to be buried. Socrates replied that he would be happy to be buried any way Crito likes, provided the Crito can get get hold of him and takes care that he does not walk away.
Socrates then addressed the whole company present and smilingly commented that Crito had difficulty in perceiving that the real Socrates would soon depart to the joys of the blessed and that only his body would remain to be buried. Socrates went into the bath chamber in order to wash and save the womenfolk the task of washing his body after death. While he was gone his friends considered amongst thenselves how like a father Socrates was to them and how like orphans they would be before long. After a final visit from Socrates sons and womenfolk just before sunset a jailer entered and respectfully and tearfully told Socrates that the time was come for him to drink the cup of Hemlock. Shortly thereafter the Hemlock was brought to Socrates who drank it as if a libation to the Gods. Socrates upbraided some of his assembled friends for the extremity of their distress.
As was usual in such cases Socrates was required to walk about a little until a certain heaviness, due to the effects of the Hemlock, crept into his legs. Thereafter condemned persons could expect their bodies to be increasingly overtaken by a fatal numbness.
Just before his death Socrates last words were:-
Crito, we owe a cockerel to Aesculapius; please pay it and don't let it pass.
Aesculapius was the God of Medicine and these words implied that Socrates felt that he owed a debt to the God of Medicine because of the cup of Hemlock he had just drunk. After Socrates' death opinion in Athens turned against his accusers

2006-09-02T08:06:00.000-07:00

Y13: A2 Classics Module 6- ‘Socrates and Athens’
Introduction to the Coursework Assignment

General- content and presentation
· Assignments at A2 should be 2,500 – 3,000 words long.
· The purpose of the assignment is to test your ability to :
-assemble and make use of information from books and other sources;
-demonstrate understanding of the material by analysing and evaluating it;
-write a well-argued and coherent account of the aspect(s) of the topic chosen, showing evidence for judgements and conclusions.
· Coursework must contain appendices including the following information:
-a bibliography providing details of all books, articles, etc. consulted
-a list of any places visited in connection with the assignment
-the names of all persons consulted, with an indication of the help received
from them.
· All direct quotations, from any source, must be enclosed in quotation
marks and accompanied by a reference to the source.
· Coursework should be typed, double-spaced on one side of A4, 12 point,
secured in the corner with one treasury tag.

Socrates and Athens- coursework content

The assignment should be a study of the life, death and philosophical significance of Socrates.
Candidates will be required to study a significant aspect or aspects of Plato, Euthyphro, Crito and Apology (all in The Last Days of Socrates)
Candidates will be required to demonstrate, as appropriate to their chosen area of study, knowledge of:
Biography-the life, trial, sentence and death of Socrates.
Biography and thought-Socrates’ principles and assumptions
Philosophical method and meaning-the literary form, philosophical methods and significance of the texts
Context-the Sophists and the intellectual, religious, political, social and cultural context of Socrates’ life.

The drafting process- get help, use help, fly!

· The specifications say, “It is expected that the teacher will wish to give advice and assistance to the candidates (in some cases more than others);”
· You need to assemble information and then structure it so you have an informed argument- if you just quote you’re not demonstrating thought and if you just argue you’re not demonstrating knowledge.

· This is what you’ll need help with getting right- don’t expect me to do the work for you, expect me to help you do the work.
· Ways of contacting me:
-I’m in L7 most of the time.
-Use my web-log: http://lightingfools.blogspot.com/ This is filtered in school but you can access it at home.
-Direct by email- ask me for my address!

Titles

· The titles which candidates choose for their assignments should be in the form of a direct question which requires them to present an analytical argument and reasoned conclusion.
· Examples:

To what extent was Socrates’ trial, verdict and death justified?

In Plato’s Crito, is there a valid ‘agreement’ between Socrates and the City Of Athens, as Socrates claims? To what extent would such an agreement justify Socrates’ decision?

What is the significance of Plato’s choice of dialogue form?

To what extent might Plato’s ideas be described as totalitarian? Argue with reference to Crito.

Assessment Criteria

Your coursework will be assessed by three criteria:
-Knowledge and Understanding: 45% of the marks
-Evaluation and Analysis: 45% of the marks
-Communication: 10% of the marks

Web Resources

http://san.beck.org/Crito.html#16 (web version of the Crito)

http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/academic/digitexts/plato/crito/crito.html (good introduction to the Crito, giving ideas of the issues)

http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/crito/section1.html (good on-line study notes, although some annoying animations on the site)

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/euthyphrodilemma.html (bit of proper
philosophy on the Euthyphro dilemma)

http://www.friesian.com/euthyph.htm (some detailed notes on the Euthyphro)

http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/ApologyPlato.html (introduction to and summary of
the Apology)

http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Article/567831 (historical context of the Apology
and links to on-line notes)

2006-08-26T04:38:00.000-07:00

September 2006- back once again with the ill behaviour.

I'm back from my holidays (Norfolk, Greece and Turkey in that order) and looking forward to the new school year.

Y10s (now Y11s): If you want the marks for the first part of the Equus essay, let me know in a comment below and I'll post them, or email me direct on gdavies0@tinyworld.co.uk

Y11s (now in Y12 / work / apprenticeships / eating cheesy Wotsits and watching SpongeBob): Not a bad set of results- couple of disappointing grades and a couple of very good ones. On the whole, you did better at Language than at Literature- I've got my own ideas on why but I'd like to hear yours. As a class, you did on average half a grade better in Language than in your other subjects, and in Literature pretty much the same as in your other subjects.

Y12s (now Y13s): With a couple of exceptions, I'm pleased with your AS results. Most of you got your ALLIS predicted grades.

Y13s (now University students/ work/ eating cheey Wotsits and watching SpongeBob): Bit of a mixed bag, but overall pretty good and a couple of really pleasing results. Again, email me if you want to talk about your results.

Mr.D

2006-06-28T02:14:00.000-07:00

Y13: Notes on different interpretations of Tennyson's "Ulysses".

AO4: Different interpretations of Tennyson's "Ulysses"
Tennyson's ‘Ulysses’ can be said to have four possible — that is more or less self-consistent — interpretations.

1. Interpretation one- the stiff upper lip
· By far the most popular reading of the poem matches the popular Victorian one, builds to the famous final line: "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." According to this reading, "Ulysses" embodies the Victorian stiff-upper lip, the need to endure when things get difficult and unpleasant.
· Going outside the poem, we recall that Tennyson stated he wrote it shortly after learning of Arthur Henry Hallam's death*, and said that the poem ‘gave my feeling about Hallam's death perhaps more simply than anything in ‘In Memoriam,"’ so "Ulysses" turns out to be in some sense a reaction to the traumatic death of his closest friend.
· According to the usual reading of "Ulysses," then, the poem's final line fits perfectly with the poet's situation as a mourner. Victorians tended to read this poem pretty straightforwardly, as an avowal of faith in the necessity of striving ever onward.

2. Interpretation two- faith in neither gods nor men
· In 1954 E. J. Chiasson called this accepted reading of the poem into question when he pointed out the speaker's marital and social irresponsibility and pursuit of adventure- what have being patronising to your loyal wife, thinking your people are worthless and hankering after excitement got to do with bravely struggling on?
· According to Chiasson, then, the poem, which so many take to be an uplifting call to courageous perseverance, is in fact a form of satire, which "can be read as the dramatic presentation of a man who has faith neither in the gods nor consequently in the necessity of preserving order in his kingdom or in his own life" (172), and thus dramatizes an intellectual position that the poet wishes to explore but not accept.
· Chiasson's reading depends upon two points: first, the speaker's apparently scornful treatment of his wife, son, and people — so unlike the protagonist of The Odyssey. Second, Chaisson assumes that Tennyson speaker is the Ulysses of Dante's Inferno, which condemns him to hell for overreaching pride, rather than the main character of the Homeric epic. The justification for making this assumption was the statement by the poet's son that his father referred to Dante's, not Homer's, Ulysses.

3. Interpretation three- death as the last adventure
· "Ulysses" can be seen as a deathbed poem, which treats death as the last great adventure into the unknown — a reading that fits perfectly with Tennyson's statements about the occasion on which he wrote the poem.
· According to this interpretation, Tennyson's speaker is the character who appears in Homer rather than Dante. In this reading of the poem, the mariners Ulysses addresses are the ghosts of his crew from The Odyssey, all of whom perish.

4. Interpretation four- it’s a dramatic monologue, but who is listening?
· Robert Langbaum takes yet another tack, arguing that in the dramatic monologue the removal of context makes it extremely difficult not only to know how to judge but to be sure if one should judge at all.
· To see that Ulysses's comments on Telemachus are contemptuous is one thing; to argue that this contempt acts to condemn Ulysses is something else. Essentially, how can we condemn Ulysses when his comments are taken out of context: we don’t know if he’s being ironic, or trying to butter someone up and therefore not saying what he really thinks, or having a drunken chat he doesn’t really mean, or what..
· We as readers asked to respond simultaneously on two contradictory levels: that of distant critical judgment and that of absorbed, direct experience. We must and we cannot do both; and we realize, therefore, the tension between the now disjoined meaning and experience.
* In 1833 Arthur Henry Hallam died suddenly at the age of twenty-two, while on a trip to Vienna. Although a promising poet and essayist, Hallam is chiefly remembered as the one eulogized in Tennyson's In Memoriam. The two first met at Cambridge, where they became members of the legendary intellectual club, the "Apostles," and best friends. For sixteen years after Hallam's death Tennyson wrote his series of poems; though connected as stages in an evolving grief, the whole was not foreseen, nor was publication planned. When gathered together and anonymously printed on June 1st, 1850, In Memoriam was immediately popular-60,000 copies sold in six months.

2006-06-12T02:12:00.000-07:00

2006-06-11T09:31:00.000-07:00

Prince of Wales Educational Summer School: Sue Horner, QCA and 'Literary Study'.

Welcome delegates of the 2006 Sumer School- glad you found my blog! I use this with students so please do not leave any contact details on your comments: they might be misused. However, my email is gdavies0@tinyworld.co.uk- the kids I teach have this anyway so I don't mind publishing it here.

I'm sure you'll remember why this blog came up in Sue Horner's talk on Saturday: she wanted some suggestions for the design of the 'Literary Study' component of the new English GCSE orders, and we only had a few minutes to respond. As the ESS website does not yet exist, I suggested using this blog to collate your thoughts.

It's very easy- just click on 'comments' below, check the 'anonymous' box and type away, or cut and paste from Word. You'll also need to copy the squiggly letters into the box marked 'word verification'- this prevents the blog being spammed (I can't believe I just wrote that!). Please leave your name and school in the text of your submission. I'm also happy to pass any questions or comments you have on to the ESS Steering Group or the Cambridge academics if you do not have their contact details yourself.

The immediate challenge for us all now is to hold on the the best of ourselves when we're back in the cinderblocks and cynicism of everyday school life. Good luck with that, and I hope you'll all stay involved in some capacity or other.

Best regards,

Gareth

2006-05-14T12:23:00.000-07:00

Prince Of Wales Educational Summer School Chaucer Survey

Dear all,
Hello- I hope you are well and enjoying the fabled ‘slack time’ which is supposed to appear now that your Year Elevens, Twelves and Thirteens are likely to be on study leave. Only the GCSE moderation sample, the update of the schemes of work, your PGCE student’s final report, all those PM observations you haven’t done yet and that pile of SATs marking you’ve taken on to pay for your holidays in spite of your disgust with the test (which was particularly iniquitous this year) to do!

To business- as part of my preparations for this year’s Summer School, I want to collate as much information as possible about the way Chaucer is taught (or not taught) in schools. Please take a few moments to complete this survey and email it back to me, or cut and paste it onto my weblog at www.lightingfools.blogspot.com . It’s open access, just pick the post called ‘Prince of Wales’ and add a comment. Many thanks for your help and I look forward to seeing you if you’re coming to the Summer School this year.

All the best,

Gareth

Do you have scheme of work for teaching Chaucer in Key Stage Three? If so, give details of year group, which texts you use and what kinds of things you do with it.

Do you have any way of studying Chaucer in Key Stage 4? Please give details, including which board you use at GCSE and how Chaucer studies fit into the syllabus.

Do you have any AS /A2 classes studying Chaucer? To my knowledge, AQA has taken The General Prologue off the syllabus for Unit 5 in 2006 and The Merchant’s Tale was examined for the last time in Unit 1 in 2004. Is there a similar picture with other boards?

Please make any comments on the perceived importance of- or interest in- teaching Chaucer in your department.

Many thanks again for responding to this- a few words would be greatly appreciated.

2006-05-02T05:51:00.000-07:00

Y13: Emma Knighton- please take careful note of the marks.

Compare and contrast the use of different voices in the war poetry of Siegfried Sassoon and Pat Barker’s Regeneration
Emma Knighton

Regeneration by Pat Barker and the war poetry of Siegfried Sassoon both have the common subject of The Great War, examining the physical and emotional effects of the conflict of both the soldiers and civilians resulting in sociological and psychological trauma. By laying these two texts side by side we can see how the two writers use different narrative voices in their literary technique.
Pat Barker is a female author writing in the 20th century who usually focuses upon working class women. The novel, Regeneration, was published in 1991 and reflects a historical perspective on The Great War. The novel has a larger architecture than Sassoon’s poetry and concentrates on exploring three dimensional characters. Pat Barker wrote Regeneration to look at the English culture during the War rather than at the war itself. She basis her examination of the theme on a factual encounter between Siegfried Sassoon and his psychiatrist Dr W.H Rivers in the war hospital of Craiglockheart, between the months of July and November, which expands to involve other fictional and fictionalised characters. She uses the relationship of Rivers and Sassoon to create what she herself described in an interview in Time Out magazine as an ‘s-shaped structure’ to the novel. EXPLAIN THE S-SHAPED STRUCTURE Pat Barker uses a combination of research and imagination to bring factual characters to life for a 20th century audience.
As Barker wanted to show both the sociological and PSYCHOLOGICAL effects of the War she wanted to get inside the CONSCIOUSNESS OF many of her characters. Therefore, she wrote the novel using free indirect style, using third person narrative to give her the freedom to move between characters but dipping in and out of characters’ consciousness to show their state of mind. Pat Barker allows her characters to invade the narrative space, she poses between 3rd and 1st person so we experience the narrative in the characters language. It has been called a polyphonic novel as this literary technique uses many different, contrasting voices in the novel. She attempts to give each character narrative space to view there opinions so the reader can judge the characters without Barker explicitly telling the reader what to think. The Russian critic Mikhail Bakhtin argues that “the novel is a genre most capable of technically dismantling the dictatorial authorial voice that regulates and resolves any interplay of other voices in the text.’ She uses a narrative trick to make the reader think they are reading a dialogic novel using several voice to guide the narrative, but arguable behind all these voices are Pat Barker’s. EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN BY THIS
She shows this narrative technique by the language they use. “Pale skin, purple shadows under the eyes. Apart from that no obvious signs of a nervous disorder”.(chapter 2) we know that this is from inside Rivers’ head as he is analysing Sassoon first appearance the way a psychiatrist would. This is PRESENTED IN THE STYLE OF HOW medical notes would be taken; this is shown through the grammar and punctuation in his sentences. There is sort analysis as if he is noting them in a list formation.
In contrast, Barker uses reference from Sassoon’s poetry to give his character as much of a realistic or historically accurate presentation as possible; using the words “Glimmering arc” to describe his environment of the first interview with Rivers which is similar to the words used in his poem ‘The Death Bed’–“Blowing the curtain to a glimmering curve”. Barker uses their language to show the reader that you are inside Sassoon’s head. As Rivers heads up to a room in Craiglockheart the piping is described as if it looks like intestines, “Pipes lined the walls, twisting with he turning of the stair, gurgling from time to time like lengths of human intestine.” This is clearly from Rivers own personal analysis, as he is a doctor and would think in this manner.
Barker can incorporate free indirect style in subtle ways, such as including thoughts in to a narrative sentence for example “Yes Burns would worry about upsetting other people.” This is written as if Rivers is saying this to himself.
Reflections on the characters’ internal voices can also appear through more traditional narrative methods, such as in the dreams that some of the characters have. Burns and Anderson both have significant war dreams and strange actual experiences which symbolise the effect they experienced from the war. Barker challenges the reader to interpret these dreams and strange experiences; it is a technique used by Barker to make her characters psychologically transparent. The reader is given permission by Barker to decode the symbols and analyse the dreams and flash backs in Freudian terms. QUOTE FROM PAGE 28 AND 29 TO SHOW HOW BARKER DOES THIS- INTRODUCES ANDERSON AS BEING A CYNIC ABOUT FREUD AND THEN HAS RIVERS MORE OR LESS DEFENDING FREUDIAN INTERPRETATION AND GIVING AN INSIGHTFUL ANALYSIS OF ANDERSON’S DREAM IN FREUDIAN TERMINOLOGY In Anderson’s dream the reader is encouraged to take the place of Rivers and with him work out the symbols in his dream, “what the er snake might suggest is that medicine is an issue between your self and your father in law” (chapter 4). Barker wants the readers to asks questions like Rivers to decode the symbols. Anderson’s dream shows the life changing effects that the war can have as it made him afraid of blood which being a doctor has ruined his career and has left mental scaring.
THE INFLUENCE OF Burns’ INTERNAL voice IS CLEAR IN BARKER’S PRESENTATION of his trip to the woods, Barker PRESENTS HIM in a vulnerable psychological state as the smallest thing such as rain trigger his traumatic experiences over the war. She does this by using her narrative voice to explain the incident for him instead of using 1st person to show that he isn’t mentally stable enough to explain it himself rationally. THIS IS CONFUSED- THE POINT HERE IS THAT THE PASSAGE IS IN THE THIRD PERSON, BUT USES FREE INDIRECT STYLE TO ALLOW US ACCESS TO BURNS’ INTERNAL VOICE- THE WAY THE BRANCH ON THE BUS TRIGGERS HIS MEMORIES OF MACHINE-GUN FIRE, FOR EXAMPLE.
Barker uses different language to show the contrasts between the different classes: IN OTHER WORDS, THE SOCIAL VOICES OF HER NOVEL ARE DIFFERENTIATED BY STYLE AS WELL AS BY SENSE. The language that characters such as Sassoon and Rivers of a higher social background are clearly separated from characters such as Prior and Sarah Lumb who have a working class background. Although it is apparent that Barker shows much empathy for characters such as Prior as they are given a lot of narrative space the characters use their own language to reflect there personality and social background so the reader can see this for themselves. Sarah Lumb is portrayed as an outspoken northern working class woman, something Baker as most experience writing about. Her language, as one of the few women in the novel, is a representation of working class women of that time. When Prior meets her, Sarah and her friends speak in a northern dialect, this is reflected in the text “he says, hadaway and shite” and “D’ y’ get a hat”: language that is clearly different FROM how Sassoon and RiverS would talk. Rivers seems to treat Prior differently when he is cured of his mustism “Hearing Proir’s voice for the first time had a curious effect of making him look different. Thinner, more defensive. And, at the same time, a lot tougher. A little, spitting, sharp-bones alley cat.” (Chapter 6). It seems as if Rivers is making judgements according to the voice of others. IT MAY BE THAT BARKER IS PLAYING WITH THE READER HERE- DO WE MAKE THE SAME KIND OF ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT PRIOR AND SARAH ACCORDING TO THEIR DIALOGUE IN THE NOVEL, AND DOES THIS CONTRAST WITH THE SUBTLE, THOUGHTFUL, INTELLIGENT INTERNAL VOICE WE GET FROM BOTH CHARACTERS THAT WE PERHAPS WOULDN’T EXPECT OF THE WORKING CLASS, REFLECTED IN THE PASSAGES OF FREE INDIRECT STYLE- FOR EXAMPLE, SARAH’S ATTITUDE TO THE INJURED SOLDIERS IN THE HOSPITAL WHICH IS A LOT MORE SOPHISTICATED THAN SASSOON’S VERSION OF WHAT THE AVERAGE WORKING CLASS WOMAN WOULD THINK, AS REFLECTED IN ‘THE GLORY OF WOMEN’. YOU MENTION MUCH OF THIS LATER IN YOUR ESSAY BUT TRY TO MAKE THE CONNECTION HERE.
Bakers uses speech and silence as an index of psychic injury, therefore the more traumatised a patient is the less able they can talk about their experiences and express themselves. Speech and silence seems to be linked to rank as Sassoon, Anderson and Rivers have stutters and slight pauses in speech and many soldiers in the front line were likely to go completely dumb. The characters who stutter tend to be most effected when talking of a traumatic past experience or are hearing of one. “every thing I’ve done to to to to… a state of mental breakdown” Sassoon says this in a way which leads the reader to believe he almost doesn’t want to say what is coming next. Barker uses the difference between classes to show that Prior, although at the same rank as Sassoon, goes completely dumb. Prior’s muteness is from the fear of the consequences of speaking his mind, something that Sassoon could express in his poetry, therefore his mind is protecting himself by striking him dumb; Barker shows how even though his rank is the same, as characters such as Sassoon’s, he gets the same side effects as an ordinary solider, instead of a mild stutter, this could suggest that as he is of a lower class he is effected in he same way as a working class solider would be effected. “I imagine….Mutism seems to spring from a conflict between wanting to say something, and knowing that if you do say something the consequences will be disastrous.” This is Rivers interpretation of Prior’s incapacity to speak. He suggests that because he feels from the way he was brought up that he must ‘be a man’ and keep his feeling to himself hat this has resulted in his mutism. Prior, during the period where he can’t speak, writes on paper to communicate, writes everything he says in block capitals this gives the impression that he is shouting or anger all the time it could also be another way to keep people from knowing to much about him so nobody can analyse his writing, Prior may not want Rivers to know too much about him and this is another way of protecting himself against anybody or himself finding out too much.
He also wants to be hypnotised by Rivers and pushes for it from a very early stage in his therapy. “I thought it was a good idea. I mean you’re more or less saying: things are real, you’ve got to face them, but how can I face them if I don’t know what they are” (Chapter 6) This may because he is only willing to talk about his feelings when he will have no choice under hypnosis and wants the decision to talk about what has effected him to be made for him, it could also be so he can talk about hi experience of war without having to consciously remember what has happened. The fact that he was brought up to have a ‘stiff upper lip’ means that the only emotion he could show after learning of what had made him mute was “Prior seized Rivers by the arms, and begun butting him in the chest, hard enough to hurt”, “this was the closest Prior could come to asking for physical contact”. The voices that Barker uses in the novel can be transferred in to Sassoon’s poetry, there are many links between his poetry and what Barker has decided to include in to her novel. YOU NEED A STRONGER LINK- SOMETHING ABOUT THE TENDENCY OF SASSOON’S POETRY TO BE MONOLOGIC- REFLECTING HIS OWN VOICE AND OPINIONS- IN CONTRAST WITH BARKER’S POLYPHONIC STYLE, ALTHOUGH REMEMBER THERE ARE SOMETIMES MANY VOICES IN SASSOON’S POETRY AND BARKER’S NOVEL IS ARGUABLY EXPRESSIVE ONLY OF HER VOICE AND THOSE CHARACTERS WHOSE OPINIONS CLOSELY MATCH HERS.
Siegfried Sassoon was and army officer in The Great War who was sent to Craiglockheart after writing a letter entitled ‘a soldiers declaration’ in 1917 which showed his ‘wilful defiance of military authority’ and protested that the war was unnecessary. To escape any public support for the argument, the army medical board with the help of his friend Robert Graves sent him to Craiglockheart, against his will, under the supposed illness of neurasthenia. Sassoon wrote the majority his poetry during his stay using a combination of memory and imagination to create sympathy for the soldiers who he fought with and as an unintentional side effect it became a therapeutic experience. Rivers, in Regeneration, explicitly comments on this, “Writing the poems had obviously been therapeutic, but then Rivers suspected writing the Declaration might have been therapeutic too”. (Chapter 3) His poetry mainly uses one voice, his own, to make a powerful message and make an emotional plea for his soldiers. He incorporates some free indirect style in to a few of his poems but not to the same extent as Barker as it is not necessary for him to want to see the minds of the people in his poems as his voice is the most important. He uses a mix of epic and lyrical voices in his poems to convey a powerful political message, which is often satirical. DEFINE THE TERMS ‘EPIC’ AND ‘LYRIC’
Sassoon tends to be patronising towards women and gives little value or sympathy to them in poems like ‘The Glory of Women’, a poem written with an almost vengeful voice. He uses a lyric voice to show how angry he is about how women treat soldiers after they are mutilated by war,
“You love us when we’re heroes, home on leave,
Or wounded in a mentionable place.”
This contrasts with what Barker writes when Sarah Lumb enters the hospital with her friend and finds that, men’s “mutilations” have been hidden away from the public. SEE MY NOTE ABOVE She is outraged that she, nor anyone else knew of this and is horrified by what she sees, “her sense of her own helplessness, her being forced to play the role of medusa when she meant no harm, merged with anger she was beginning to feel at their being hidden away like that.” It seems as if Barker may of used this poem to write a retaliation of it using Sarah Lumb who’s job is to make shells for the war which is mentioned in the poem “You make us shells”. This is evidence of the research Barker may have used to construct her novel. In Sassoon’s poem ‘Does it Matter?’ he uses a lyrical voice I’D SAY THIS IS EPIC- HE’S DIRECTLY ADDRESSING THE READER AFTER ALL AND NOT WRITING ABOUT HIMSELF, APART FROM, ARGUABLY, WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT PSYCHIC INJURY IN THE FINAL STANZA to furthermore display his anger about how he seems to think that nobody cares about the soldiers after the have been injured by war. He uses a patronising tone and simple rhyme scheme so that it is blunt and straight to the point, therefore it is easy for the reader to understand the message that he is trying to show,
“Does it matter?-losing our sight?...
There’s such splendid work for the blind”
He is using irony to show the reader that the subject he is dealing with is serious as people who lived during the War were very dismissive about the consequences of the war.
The poem ‘Survivors’, written during his stay in Craiglockheart, focusEs on young men who war has become second nature to, so much so that they are almost portrayed as being empty, free from emotions or feelings towards killing or people who are killed as there is nothing they can do about it,
“They’ll soon forget their hunted nights; their cowed
Subjection to the ghosts of friends who died”
This is also ironic, as from what was shown in Regeneration we know that dreams are not easily forgotten. Sassoon also makes a connection between speech and silence, about men who have been effected by the war having “stammering, disconnected talk”, which is typical to the characters at Craiglockheart such as Anderson and Rivers, Barker may of read this poem and picked it up as an important issue, therefore making it a prime subject and common to many of the characters in the novel.

NOT BAD AS FAR AS IT GOES, BUT YOU NEED TO LOOK AT DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SAME IDEA AND YOU DON’T HAVE ENOUGH POETRY HERE. LOOK AT ALL THE ESSAYS ON LIGHTING FOOLS PLUS THE A GRADE ONE I GAVE OUT THE OTHER DAY PLUS YOUR OWN NOTES TO HELP WITH THIS.

2006-04-30T13:13:00.000-07:00

Y13: Sarah May- have alook at the marking throughout. I agree that your conclusion is weak, but I've given you a few ideas here on how to mend it. Watch your word count and remember the 'different interpretations' thing!

Sarah May - my complete 2nd draft. The conclusion is very weak as Emma has the copy of the A grade essay you gave us, so can i have some help with that please? Its not 3,231 words long.
Sarah- if you’ve loaned Emma the essay, you’ll find copy of it on lightingfoolsPat Barker’s Regeneration ITALICS FOR TITLES THROUGHOUT PLEASE is a novel set in 1917 at Craiglockhart hospital just outside Edinburgh, where those who were directly involved in the war and suffered from neurasthenia were sent for pioneering psychological therapy and treatment. W.H.R Rivers, an army psychiatrist, and Seigfried Sassoon, a soldier sent to Craiglockhart for political as much as medical reasons, are the main characters. Sassoon was sent to Craiglockhart by the government because his ‘Soldier’s Declaration’ was a considerable embarrassment for them, and it was politically more useful to discredit him as writing it while suffering from neurasthenia rather than allow him the publicity that a court-martial would give him.
Regeneration was written in the 1990’s, giving Barker an historical perspective on the events she portrays and this allows her to reflect on the times and the attitudes of her characters with some detachment, allowing her to present the reader with a variety of different viewpoints on the war and its consequences. Barker’s main purpose for writing her novel was to give a fresh approach to writing about the war as she takes her readers through the psychological and social consequences of the trenches, rather than describing the action on the battlefields themselves. The novel presents us with three dimensional, developed characters, fictional and fictionalised, and shows the effects of the war on a variety of people with a variety of civilian and military experiences. The historical Seigfried Sassoon was an educated, aristocratic trench officer in the war, compared to Barker who is a working class, female novelist with no war experience. Sassoon’s poetry makes a very strong point of protest and as he has first hand experience of the war, it is easier to do this. Much of his poetry was actually written whilst in trenches or in hospitals; in fact, some of his poems were written during his stay at Craiglockhart in 1917, the setting for Barker’s novel. Sassoon had a number of purposes for his work: he used it as a method to voice his protest, to create sympathy for the soldiers and, perhaps unintentionally, because it was therapeutic; as Rivers notes in Regeneration of the fictionalised Sassoon and his relatively speedy recovery, ‘writing the poems had been therapeutic’ (page 26). His poetry is short, dense, direct, and powerful and he makes his point very clearly.
In Regeneration, the governing narrative technique is varieties of free indirect style. NICELY PUT Free indirect style is a technique of third person narration, which allows the narrator to drop into a character’s consciousness unannounced, for example in lines like, ‘the net curtain behind Rivers’ head billowed out in a glimmering arc’ (page 11). This tells us we are in Sassoon’s head because, as he is a poet, no other character would think with that amount of imagery and descriptive vocabulary. This line mirrors ‘blowing the curtain to a glimmering curve’ in Sassoon’s poem, ‘The Death Bed’, which shows Barker may have used this poem as an aspect of research for the novel. By using the third person narrative perspective, but populating it with a variety of her character’s own voices by using free indirect style, Barker achieves a great deal. Firstly, she reflects a number of her character’s personalities and opinions; secondly, she allows the reader to experience events of the narrative from a character’s perspective and finally allows her to have more than one main character and gives the reader an intimate knowledge of a number of characters. The critic Mikhail Bakhtin, writing on Dostoevsky, states that, ‘language is constitutively intersubjective (therefore social) and logically precedes subjectivity’, this SUGGESTS that free indirect style is a narrative trick as the dialogue is actually between the author and the reader. are being told the story, by the author, rather than being shown it by the characters, as it appears to be. As Regeneration is a psychological and sociological novel, it looks at the consequences of the war on society and the people in it. Barker examines and analyses the psychological effects of the war by using free indirect style and constantly dropping into a character’s consciousness. By this we can see how the war has affected them, ‘he woke to a dugout smell of wet sandbags and stale farts’ (page 101). This is when Prior has been hypnotised to help him recall what has struck him dumb, Barker drops into his consciousness so the reader can see what he is recalling too. During Prior’s hypnosis, the main literary technique we are shown is free indirect style, this is because without it we would only learn about Prior’s experiences by him telling us about them which wouldn’t ‘work’ because Prior cannot recall his experiences. Rivers and the readers soon discover the extent to which Prior is affected by the war by one, in particular, incident that has happened, ‘what am I supposed to do with this gobstopper?’ (page 103). This shows his callousness towards the war, and how harsh it has made him, because this is his reply when a man he was talking to minutes before, was blown up and he picked up his eyeball. When Prior has woken and realises the incident, he is shocked that that is what had struck him dumb, saying ‘is that all?’, because the war had had such an affect on him psychologically, that particular incident had seemed very minor to him.Timothy Marshall states that ‘the technical resources of narrative in prose (the varieties of indirect discourse in particular) do have an inherent capacity to represent languages other than the author’s’. This comment is more relevant to Barker’s work over Sassoon’s because Barker at least presents herself as a neutral narrator. Although we don’t get Barker’s voice directly in the novel it is easy to see she isn’t completely invisible by the way she presents her characters. For example, Barker believes that neurasthenia was an actual effect of the war, so her characters that also believe this are given more time and credibility in the novel. Prior’s view on this subject is the same as Barker’s, whereas Langdon’s aren’t. We can tell by the representation of these characters that Barker favours Prior. Some characters are given more speech than others and Barker tries to create sympathy for others, from the readers, ‘it was the closest Prior could come to asking for physical contact’ (page 104). This is after Prior’s hypnotism when he is upset and he ‘seized Rivers by the arms and began butting him in the chest, hard enough to hurt’ (page 104). This appears to be Prior’s way of wanting comfort because during the war it was unaccepted for men to express their emotions. Prior seems to be the character who Barker creates the most sympathy for, this could be because they are both from a working class background. As Barker uses free indirect style the readers can tell whose viewpoint we are sharing, by the way they think and what they think, even if these thoughts themselves aren’t introduced as such. ‘Pipes lined the wall, twisting with the turning of the stair, gurgling from time to time like lengths of human intestine’ (page 17), we know this is Rivers’ perspective because he is a doctor so he is likely to think that objects are body parts. Rivers’ and Sassoon’s vocabulary and the way they converse show their educated discourse, unlike prior Sarah and Ada, where what they say and how they say it shows their working class background. ‘Noting that grove between radius and ulna was even deeper than it had been a week ago’ (page 18), this shows Rivers’ education and also tells the reader we are in Rivers’ head, as no other character would think this way. In contrast, the line, ‘Sarah began to feel green and hairy’ (page 159), shows Sarah’s working class BACKGROUND through Barker’s voice and language as she compares herself to a gooseberry, which is typical of her colloquial discourse. Barker also uses silence as a psychologically – revealing voice, particularly with Prior. Rivers believed that ‘the talking cure’ as Sigmund Freud called it, was the only way to express repressed memories of battlefield experience, when the patient had, ‘usually been devoting considerable energy to the task of forgetting whatever traumatic events had precipitated his neurosis’ (page 26). However, it was socially unacceptable for a man to express their emotions, ‘they’d been trained to identify emotional repression as the essence of manliness’ (page 48), because if they did they would be labelled ‘sissies, weaklings, failures’ (page 48). This left the men bottling up their emotions and feelings and, in the case of Prior, struck dumb. When Prior is hypnotised he, Rivers and the readers finally learn what traumatic event had caused his muteness, ‘a numbness had spread all over the lower half of his face’ (page 103). We also know that it took a while for it to be cured, because he didn’t ever discuss his emotions.
YOU NEED TO LINK THIS BETTER- THE OBVIOUS LINK BEING THAT SASSOON’S CHILDISH STYLE AND ANGRY TONE MAY BE AS MUCH OF AN EFFORT TO DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM HIS OWN EMOTIONS AS PRIOR’S SILENCE AND MUTISM IS.In Sassoon’s poetry there is juxtaposition between the anger and the childish innocent style, that he portrays, for example in ‘Died of Wounds’ there is a simplistic nursery rhyme rhythm, contrasting with the horror of its content. ‘Does it Matter?’ is a satirical and sarcastic and is written in an epic voice and leans towards a lyric voice in certain places. YOU NEED TO DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN BY EPIC AND LYRIC VOICE. The epic voice in this poem is Sassoon addressing the reader and himself, for the purpose of creating sympathy for soldiers and displaying his views on the war. The lyric voice in this poem is Sassoon addressing himself, thinking through his experiences and working out his fears, feelings and emotions.‘As you sit on the terrace rememberingAnd turning your face to the light.’This shows great detail of how a man in distress might behave, which is where we can see Sassoon’s lyric voice, so these two lines could be a reflection of his own experiences. This poem can be compared to pages 159-160 of Regeneration when Sarah Lumb is walking around a hospital and finds a hidden ward with soldiers who have occurred very bad injuries, such as mutilation. ‘Does it Matter?’ has an upbeat and jolly feel of how to deal with mutilation because it is satirical and ironic, even though it gets across the same points as the section of Regeneration. ‘And you need not show that you mindWhen the others come in after huntingTo gobble their muffins and eggs.’This gives the message that society ignores men who are mutilated, which is the same message given in the novel. ‘If the country demanded that price then it should bloody well be prepared to look at the result’ (page 160), this is Sarah’s opinion of the way these men should be treated by society. She is so shocked by what she had seen and by the way the men are put away in a hidden ward so that no one can see them.‘Glory of Women’ can also be compared to the same extract from the novel as ‘Does it Matter?’. This poem has a monological voice because it is Sassoon’s voice and no one else’s voice appears. The general point of this poem is that Sassoon think women don’t want to see the effects of the war, that they only care when their men are still well or have small heroic wounds.‘You love us when we’re heroes, home on leave,Or wounded in a mentionable place.’This can be compared to Madge in Regeneration who visits her boyfriend in a hospital, for physical injuries. ‘Madge was now sitting on the bed…to bask in the admiration of her resorted lover and to plan what they would do on his leave’ (page 158-159). This shows that Madge does still care about her lover, when he has a wound which shows his bravery but we are unsure whether she would still behave in the same way if he had a bigger injury or was mutated. Barker proves Sassoon wrong in his opinions that women don’t want to see the effects of the war with her character Sarah. When Sarah Lumb comes across the hidden war she believes society should be forced to look at the consequences of the war. ‘Glory of Women’ reveals Sassoon’s prejudices and assumes that women fall for propaganda. Women are excluded from the poem and they don’t get a voice. In Regeneration Sarah does have a voice and she is a lot more sensitive and thoughtful than the stereotyped woman that Sassoon satirises.In ‘The Death-Bed’ Sassoon uses experience of the war as the voice of his character in the poem, whereas Barker has no experience of war so the voices of her characters are based on research.‘He stirred, shifted his body; then the painLeapt like a prowling beast, and gripping and toreHis groping dreams with grinding claws and fangs.’This gives the impression that Sassoon is writing from experience because his character’s opiate is wearing off and Sassoon describes how it is feeling in great detail, which gives the readers the impression that he is writing from his own experience of opiate wearing off. EXTEND THIS- TO WHAT EXTENT IS THIS REVEALING OF A GENUINELY PERSONAL, AUTHENTIC VOICE, AND TO WHAT EXTENT IS SASSOON USING THE READER’S KNOWLEDGE OF HIS WAR EXPERIENCE TO GIVE A SENSE OF AUTHENTICITY TO HIS WORK? DOES BARKER HAVE TO WORK HARDER FOR THE SAME SENSE OF AN AUTHENTIC VOICE? He does this by using an epic voice like he does in ‘Does it Matter?’. Aspects of this poem are written in free indirect style, like the novel. The character is drifting between consciousness and unconsciousness, so when he is drifting off to sleep, we hear about his dreams and what is going on in his head because of free indirect style. A point of comparison is the line: ‘Blowing the curtain to a glimmering curve’ which is very similar to the line in the novel: ‘The net curtain behind Rivers’ head billowed out in a glimmering arc’ (page 11). These lines are very similar and Barker may even have got the inspiration for this line from the line in Sassoon’s poem.‘The General’, ‘The Rear-Guard’ and ‘To the Warmongers’ are a major point of comparison as they feature in the novel. In the novel Graves has given Sassoon an envelope, after Graves leaves Sassoon opens the envelope with Rivers and inside is a few sheets of paper. ‘On the top sheet, dated the 22nd April, Sassoon had written in pencil ‘I wrote these in hospital ten days after I was wounded’’ (page 24). Following this quote are the poems; ‘The Rear-Guard’, ‘The General’ and ‘To the Warmongers’. ‘The General’ was written in Denmark Hill Hospital in April 1917, ‘To the Warmongers’ was also written at Denmark Hill Hospital on the 23rd April 1917 and ‘The Rear-Guard’ was also written in the same place about ten days after Sassoon was wounded. NOT SURE OF THE RELEVANCE OF THIS. About this poem, the historical Sassoon said ‘he thought I was in severe shock. But if so, could I have written such a strong poem?’. Barker has clearly written pages 24-25 from Sassoon’s real life experiences as the dates mentioned in the novel fit with when he wrote them in real life. OKAY- THIS TIES IN WITH THE POINS ABOUT AUTHENTICITY- SASSOON’S POETIC VOICE AND HIS OWN STATE OF MIND SEEM INEXTRICABLY LINKED, WHEREAS BARKER HAS TO ONLY HER IMAGINATION, NOT HER EXPERIENCE, TO INFORM HER PRESENTATION OF WAR TRAUMA.‘The General’ is written in a very childlike manner which contrasts with the horrendous content. The voice of the character, the general, is very cheery ‘’Good morning, good morning!’’ and implies he doesn’t understand and doesn’t care what the soldiers are going through. This poem is written through the voice of experience and sounds like it could be Sassoon’s voice. ‘Repression of War Experience’ is written in a free verse and appears to be Sassoon enacting his thoughts. The poem includes hyphens which show a stream of consciousness.‘And scorch their wings with glory, liquid flame – No, no, not that – it’s bad to think of the war’Here the character is almost interrupting himself so he doesn’t think of the war.‘Draw a deep breath; stop thinking; count fifteen,And you’re as right as rain….’Again, the voice in the poem appears to be stopping himself thinking.‘The Rear-Guard’ was written about the Hindenburg Line and the soldiers who were fighting on it. It begins with a three line stanza, then a four line stanza, following with an eleven line stanza and ends with a seven line stanza. All have a simple rhyme structure, like most of Sassoon’s poems.‘Groping along the tunnel, step by step,He winked his prying torch with patching glareFrom side to side, and sniffed the unwholesome air.’This poem creates a huge amount of sympathy for Sassoon’s fellow soldiers, like many other of his poems and his declaration in Regeneration.When Sassoon wrote the poem ‘Letter to Robert Graves’ he didn’t intend for it to be published. The poem is certainly a lyric by T.S Eliot’s definition- it is the poet talking to himself in his own voice, to such an extent that Sassoon never intended the poem fro publication I’VE INSERTED THIS POINT- ELIOT WAS THE POET AND CRITIC WHO CODIFIED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LYRIC, EPIC AND DRAMATIC VOICES- YOU’LL NEED TO CREDIT HIS BOOK ‘ON POETRY AND POETS’ IN YOUR BIBLIOGRAPHY- he didn’t want to reveal his private side to the public, but Graves published it in his autobiography even though Sassoon objected. It was then withdrawn from Graves’ autobiography, but shortly after fifty copies were printed. So the voice in this poem is A PRIVATE VOICE MADE PUBLIC. YOU NEED TO QUOTE FROM THE POEM TO SHOW HOE SASSOON’S VOICE DIFFERS IN THIS MOST PRIVATE OF POEMS. THERE’S SOME GOOD STUFF IN SARAH T’S ESSAY ON THIS.
This theme of public versus private can be seen in Regeneration too with Rivers. Rivers has a public persona as the steady, reliable doctor versus his private worries, ‘what do you do when the doctor breaks down?’ we also see Rivers’ private trauma. ‘’We-ell, it’s interesting that you were mute and that you’re one of the very few people in the hospital who doesn’t stammer.’ ‘It’s even more interesting that you do’Rivers was taken aback. ‘That’s different.’’ (Page 97).There is also a contrast between Sassoon not wanting his ‘letter’ to be published as it reveals the ‘real him’ too much and Rivers revealing his own trauma in his stammer and his doubts. This is his only private poem, as all the rest were used to get his views of the war across. There is one significant private part of Regeneration which this poem can be compared with. This is page 38-39 when Burns leaves the hospital and lies naked among the trees with animal corpses, ‘he felt a great urge to lie down beside them, but his clothes separated him,’ (page 39). This is a very private past of the novel because none of the other characters know what happened and it is never talked about again. This part of the novel can also be compared to ‘Repression of War Experience’, as Barker may have got her idea for this section from this poem. In ‘Letter to Robert Graves’ Sassoon mentions Rivers and says that he cheers him up, helps him and saves him. ‘And I fished in that steady grey stream’, Sassoon makes a pun on Rivers’ name and a metaphor for him, which is complimentary to Rivers because Sassoon talks about him in a letter to one of his dearest friends. This poem mentions ‘Jolly Otterleen’ who is ‘Ottoline Morrell’ (page 23), and a leader of the pacifist movement as well as one of Sassoon’s friends. She encouraged Sassoon to write the declaration as it will help the war, although it won’t help him.Overall, we can see many comparisons between Regeneration and Sassoon’s poetry, there are many parts of the poems that Barker may well have got her ideas from, such as, ‘Repression of War Experience’, ‘Does it Matter?’ and ‘Glory of Women’. The main comparison is with the voices they use, particularly indirect style as Sassoon uses it too in many of his poems, for example ‘The Death Bed’. Both the novel and the poetry are strong, influential and in some ways very similar, but many aspects are also very different.
YOU NEED A STRONGER CONCLUSION- HAVE A LOOK AT KYLE’S ESSAY WHICH IS ON LIGHTINGFOOLS- AND MAKE THE CHANGES I HAVE INDICATED. MOST IMPORTANTLY, YOU NEED TO LOK AT EVALUATING DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS- I’VE TRIED TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF HOW TO DO THIS IN THE TEXT OF YOUR ESSAY, BUT IT WILL BE WORTH YOUR WHILE TO LOOK THROUGH THE MARKING OF KYLE’S AND AIMEE’S AS WELL.

2006-04-30T09:49:00.000-07:00

Y13: Kyle- here you go- you need to look at the different interpretations marking point, just as Aimee does- read my remarks on her essay as well, it wil help. This is very nearly there, though and will gain you a pleasing mark- you should be very happy with this!

kyle's first finished draft the end is weak in my opinion but i have a leat got a copy to u at last. I have added in the alteration you mentioned to do on tues so nearly there now.Pat Barker’s Regeneration PUT REGENERATION IN ITALICS ALL THE WAY THROUGH, PLEASE is a novel based around the inhabitants of Craiglockhart war hospital in Scotland and contains a mixture of fictional characters and fictionalized historical figures, such as Siegfried Sassoon and Captain W.H.R. Rivers. Barker maintains an informed historical perspective on both real and imagined events, along with a fresh approach to the well-trodden ground of novels about the Great War. Regeneration is concerned with the psychological and sociological consequences ofwar, rather than the battlefield itself.Barker’s novel can be described as polyphonic: her narrative is presented through a multiplicity of different voices reflecting the personalities, social backgrounds and viewpoints of her characters, meaning the story of the novel is composed of a variety of individual stories. The larger architecture of the novel helps present rounded characters and Barker’s third person narrator is able to dip in and out of their viewpoints using free indirect style, most definitely the dominant narrative technique of the novel. In contrast with Barker’s historical perspective, Siegfried Sassoon wrote most of his poetry contemporaneously with the war and his purpose was to present not only what he had personally experienced but also to make a political point: to help show his opposition to the war’s continuation and to highlight ‘political errors’. Not only this, he wanted to elicit sympathy for the suffering soldiers and help raise the public’s awareness of what they were going through.The often short, linguistically dense poems Sassoon wrote are much more emotionally direct that Barker’s more expansive, exploratory text. For example, the poem “Enemies” is a nightmarish, imagined encounter between soldiers (likely to be Sassoon’s own brother) stood among the “hulking Germans” the voice within the poem had “shot” and reduced to “patient, stupid, sullen ghosts of men”. Told almost certainly in Sassoon’s own, authentic, autobiographical voice, the poem shows the repercussions of the war on his psychology and imagination. This very hard-hitting, inescapably personal approach in Sassoon’s poetry is apparent in the talk of the Germans “that I shot/When for his death my brooding rage was hot”; a mission of vengeance that the voice finds ultimately unsatisfactory and even unexplainable. It is the dead Germans who, at the conclusion of the poem, can see why they were killed, not because of the voice’s explanations of his anger but “Because his face could make them understand”.
It is interesting however, that Rivers theorises that the fictionalized Sassoon of Regeneration may have recovered from war trauma so quickly because his poetry was a “therapeutic” way of him expressing his feelings, helping him to deal with his repressed memories, confused and conflicting emotions of sympathy and hatred and his horrifying nightmares. The reader can certainly see elements of this “therapeutic” benefit in a poem like “Enemies”.This tendency of Sassoon to use his own voice, which is often angry and satirical, yet frequently reveals, perhaps accidentally, the complexity of his own psychology and the war’s affect on it, is in contrast with the variety of individual character voices Barker very carefully ‘directs’ in her novel. GOD PASSAGE THIS, MAKING MATURE AND INSIGHTFUL JUDGEMENTS This is a major point of difference in narrative technique between the novel and the poetry: Sassoon’s voice may be complex, but it always remains recognisably Sassoon’s whereas Barker’s voice is disguised behind the characters she creates or fictionalizes for the novel. She does this so effectively by using free indirect style, giving her the ability to gain many perspectives on different situations and issues surrounding the war. Also, and perhaps more importantly, her use of free indirect style means she can maintain the advantages of the third person narrative perspective while allowing the reader to correspond with their individual personalities and backgrounds. This helps gain an intimacy with each character and develops a recognizable voice for the reader to identify with.For example, when Sassoon first has a conversation with Rivers at “afternoon tea” for new arrivals we hear his perspective describing the light on the curtains in the room as a “glimmering arc”, the poetic voice used helps the reader know who is talking. This mirrors an image in Sassoon’s poem “The Death Bed” – “Blowing the curtain to a glimmering curve” – presenting Barker’s research into capturing a true to life voice for Sassoon. We can see something similar happening in the voice she creates for the character of Captain. Rivers. For example, as he heads down a corridor at Craiglockhart the narrative voice notes that “pipes lined the walls….gurgling from time to time like lengths of human intestine”. Here, the use of the medical reference helps the reader understands the description to be from Rivers’ viewpoint.Timothy Marshall, in his reflections on Mikhail Bakhtin’s discussion of free indirect style in Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, comments that Dostoevsky’s novels contain many voices: “They are so because, in his view, language is constitutively intersubjective (Therefore social) and logically precedes subjectivity. It is never neutral, unaddressed, exempt from the aspirations of others. In his word it is dialogic”. This perspective deals with the idea that free indirect style is not the reader overhearing the voice or thoughts of the characters, but that the author is allowing the reader to hear what he wants us to pick up from the character, in order to grasp a better understanding about the individual. This therefore creates for the reader a recognizable voice, and one that we are almost “tricked” into believing is authentic because it is not the same as the author’s narrative voice. Sassoon’s voice in his poems insists that it is authentic because the reader is likely to know Sassoon himself experienced what he writes about. In contrast, Barker’s voices seem authentic because they are different from each other, making them seem individual and the novel be looked at as ‘polyphonic’ or ‘dialogic’ in structure. THIS IS GOOD, BUT YOU NEED TO LOOK AT EVIDENCE AND EVALUATE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS- A MAJOR POINT IN THE MARKING SCHEME. SO, WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT BARKER IS GIVING US A GENUINELY POLYPHONIC NOVEL- LOTS OF DIFFERENT CONTRASTING VIEWPOINTS ON THE WAR- AND WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT AL THE VOICES ARE REALLY ONE VOICE- HERS. AFTER ALL, THISE WHO D NOT BELIIVE IN PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES, LIKE LANGDON FOR EXAMPLE, ARE GIVEN NO NARRATIVE SPACE. LOOK TOO AT MY MARKING OF AIMEE’S ESSAY FOR FURTHER REMARKS ON THIS SUBJECTTo help grasp a fuller understanding and gain a further insight into how Pat Barker uses free indirect style, to help identify voices we can concentrate on one character, Billy Prior. Within Billy Prior’s own individual story, Pat Barker dives into his past along with both his sociological and psychological rehabilitation inside the novel. We are first introduced to Billy Prior as a mute Second Lieutenant who cannot communicate with anyone apart from through the use of a pen and pad. The way in which Pat Barker presents this not necessarily his voice, but certainly his means of communication through the pad is important, as Prior always writes in capital letters “I DON’T REMEMBER”. This IS when Prior is being asked what his nightmares are about as a way of Rivers helping his rehabilitation. So the introduction of Prior shows him as always being angry through the use of the capital letters on the pad, although Prior himself argues that capitals are simply ‘clearer’ and Rivers thinks he maybe trying to disguise his handwriting so that it can’t be analysed.
Prior is seen as being very much a man not willing to share information about anything purely because he does not ‘REMEMBER’. Apart from this, we at first are not able to gainany more information about Prior at this stage. YES- YOU COULD EXTEND THIS POINT- WHEN PRIOR IS LARGELY ‘HIDDEN’ FROM RIVERS BY HIS MUTISM HE IS ALSO HIDDEN FROM THE READER BY THE LACK OF INSIGHT THE NARRATIVE GIVES INTO HIS INTERNAL LIFE.
Prior’s muteness is gone in Regeneration when wakes up “shouting” we begin to gain more detail about his true voice which has a distinctly “northern accent”. In a conversation with Rivers we see prior’s resistance to talk about what he has gone through. “I don’t think talking helps. It just churns things up” he says. It is not that he does not want to be helped but just that he finds it hard to confront his emotions.

When Prior does begin to slightly open up he adopts a different voice, a satirical one aimed at higher ranked soldiers “The pride of the British army…”. This helps to show Prior’s anger and sarcasm towards the army and he goes on to described how he was in a dugout in “no mans land” for forty-eight hours” and had to stay there while him and his soldiers were bombarded with “one shell after the other”. Prior’s voice now has been able to develop and give the reader a more rounded look on him as a character and start to identify his voice as an individual. The satirical voice also appears in confrontations with Rivers about his own stammer “lucky for you, I mean…if your stammer was the same as theirs – you might actually have to sit down and work out what it is you’ve spent fifty years trying not to say”. GOOD PASSAGE, THIS

The confrontational voice towards Rivers- a person, in Prior’s eyes, in seeming power- can be compared with the satirical voices adopted in Sassoon’s poetry “The General”. For example, in the poem “The General” has a seemingly cheery outlook “Good morning, good morning” which makes him perceive to have no sympathy at all. THIS IS POORLY EXPRESSED- YOU NEED TO SHOW HOW THE GENERAL’S CHEERY GREETING CLEARLY IGNORES THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION AND IS THEREFORE THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT IT APPEARS TO BE- CALLOUS, RATHER THAN CHEERFUL AND CARING. He is seen to have smiled at soldiers even though he knows “most of ‘em dead” or that is what is awaiting them. The young boys, however, are inevitably going to die “by his plans of attack”.

YOU NEED TO DEFINE LYRIC AND EPIC VOICES- LOOK AT YOUR NOTES AND AGAIN, MY MARKING OF AIMEE’S ESSAY.The satirical voice and epic voice Sassoon uses is very similar to the way Barker manipulates Prior’s own actions towards Rivers in some respects. The epic voice being Sassoon’s way of showing his own disgust and anger towards the war, which is evident here. However, his lyric, therapeutic voice comes out in the poem “Letter to Robert Graves” something he never wanted published. Where he is able to bear all and deal with some inner emotions he was experiencing. He uses his lyric voice to deal with issues concerning his injury, “the bloody bullet missed its mark”. The use of black humour to present it may have been better to kill him.AGAIN, EPRESSION HERE IS UNCLEAR He also covers a deeper CONCERN that Sassoon often portrays the love between him and his troops for example “I made them love me. Although they didn’t want to do it”. Something that in Regeneration is the overriding reason he decides to go back “for his troops”. The lyric voice that Sassoon adopts here is a more sombre one as he confronts issues dealing with his injury and the feelings towards his troops this vulnerability within Sassoon could possibly be the reason he did not want this piece published. GOOD POINT HAVE A LOOK AT THE PASSAGE BELOW, THOUGH, WHICH GIVES YOU A NOTION OF THE SORT OF DETAILED ANALYSIS YOU NEED FOR THE HIGHER BANDS:

In ‘Counter Attack’ by Sassoon, he gives the account of a battle. The poem features several extremely lengthy sentences, ‘We held their line,
With bombers posted, Lewis guns well placed,
And clink of shovels deepening the shallow
trench.’
This shows the pace of the event and the sheer amount of tasks being carried out. The poem’s almost diary-like tone gives the reader an insight into the poet’s mind, or at least an impression of authenticity. It is likely therefore that the content of the poem will be sensationalised and exaggerated, the opening line, ‘we’d gained our first objective hours before’, for example, could be interpreted as sounding like an adventure for the soldiers. The poem is written as if Sassoon is talking to the reader, the endless clauses replicating speech. This style may have been intentionally used so as to appear more real and thus shocking to the reader.
Through the relationship with Sarah Lumb we are able to gain a different person’s viewpoint on the war and the consequences of this on the people and society in general. We are also able to draw both contrasting and comparative aspects with Sassoon’s poetry through the character of Sarah Lumb. She is first introduced to us at a café in Edinburgh where her voice is at first very much representative of her character. She is a hard working northern woman paid just “fifty bob a week”. This character may also not only be a love interest for Prior but in another way a tool for Barker to portray something she has a lot of knowledge of and is a common theme in her other novels, such as Union Street. Sarah Lumb brings a woman’s point of view to matters. Sarah’s interaction with Prior develops through the NOVELand we dip often into her own mind on numerous occasions with the use of free indirect style.
The first instance of this is when Sarah and Madge go to visit Madge’s injured husband in hospital. As Sarah walks around the hospital corridors, she notices “none of these men was badly wounded”. As she continues through the hospital, she finds herself lost and then enters an area where she becomes very “aware of a silence…..by her entrance”. The free and indirect style used here by Barker is to show Sarah’s own voice and reaction to “a row of figures in wheelchairs”. This helps give an account of every thing she is seeing and through voicing her opinions, we can gain how she feels about it all. These people hidden away with “trouserlegs sewn short: empty sleeves pinned to jackets” are also something Sassoon covers in two of his owns poems “Glory Of Woman” and to some extent in “Does it Matter”. “Glory Of Women” can almost seems based on Sarah Lumb’s own character when she uses the line “You make us shells” when referring to women during the war, which could link to Regeneration as Sarah’s actual job is that very thing; another example of possibly how Barker constructs the voices of her own characters by using examples and researching into Sassoon’s poetry. The final line by Sassoon in his very single-minded satirical voice which presents the idea of the delusional vision that some women have of their men fighting in the war “knitting socks to send your son, / His face being trodden deeper into the mud”. This portrait of how many women at this time thought and how unaware they were of the actual brutality and atrocities that were taking place is certainly defensible historically, but Sassoon can still be accused of telling only part of the story and being rather patronizing towards women here.

Sassoon’s very blunt point of view is one Barker challenges through the voice of Sarah Lumb. Sarah becomes very angry about the way these soldiers are hidden away and concludes that “If the country demanded that price, then it should bloody be well prepared to look at the result”. Her own voice here is showing the anger at mistreatment that she felt these men were enduring. This attitude almost mirrors Sassoon’s views in “Glory For Women” – Sarah’s voice, or the voice of a woman when one is allowed to speak, Barker seems to be arguing, is closer to Sassoon’s own personal voice than perhaps he would be comfortable with. Sarah Lumb’s voice in Regeneration helps to bring in a female perspective on the war and lets a woman voice her opinion in a very male-dominated novel. AGAIN, WORTH EXPANDING THIS- IS IT A MALE – DOMINATED NOVEL JUST BECAUSE MOST OF THE CHARACTERS ARE MALE, OR ARE THE FEMALE WRITER, THE FEMALE VOICES WITHIN IT AND THE ‘FEMININE’ CONCERNS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES RATHER THAN ACTION-PACKED BATTLE SCENES OF PAIN AND GLORY ENOUGH TO ACTUAL MAKE IT A ‘FEMININE’ NOVEL. WORTH EVALUATING FOR ‘DIFERENT INTERPRETATIONS’ MARKS.
“Does It Matter?” is another poem by Sassoon which demonstrates his frustration with the war. This is shown by Sassoon thorough the use of his epic voice. This poem also can be closely compared with the character of Sarah Lumb in Regeneration and her attitude to the treatment of the patients in the hospital. This attitude is mirrored within the poem “Does It Matter – losing your legs?” Sassoon’s own voice narrating is clearly satirical and reflecting his own personal feelings once again. This satirical voice continues with the use of the line “splendid work for the blind” and “turning your face to the light” the best you can now hope for to gain any glimpse of colours and seeming light. Through Sassoon’s structure of this poem we are able to see how THIS SENTIMENT can be truly seen as patronising. He uses a ridiculously jolly rhyming scheme, almost nursery rhyme-like, to help enhance the satire in his voice and poke fun at a very serious situation. Using this method, he presents an ironic distance with himself using this jolly rhyming scheme to portray ideas of mutilation. This is where Sassoon’s satirical voice is arguably connected with his lyric voice and can be a way of helping him therapeutically deal with the trauma of war. NICELY ARGUED AND A SOPHISTICATED POINT.

This carries through into the final line of the poem “And no one will worry a bit” this an example of how the public’s view of the war and all would be altered if they only knew the trouble soldiers went through. This can be closely linked to Sassoon’s own personal views, which are voiced right from the beginning of Regeneration within his Declaration where he talks “the endured suffering of the troops”.Other poems also within Sassoon’s work which help us see him in a different light is “To the Warmongers” with a one-stanza structure containing short lines to increase the speed it is to be read at. With a simple rhyme scheme, the pace of the poem is increased even further. The tone of the poem shows Sassoon’s lyric voice coming through presenting his seeming opinions on the war. The powerful short lines such as “I’m back form hell” and “Moan out there brutish pain” show Sassoon’s anger towards these people who want the continuation of the war. By looking at the time, it was written we can see this is just before he wrote his deceleration where he even states his protest for “those who are suffering”. The poem coming in my opinion from Sassoon’s own voice and producing a hard hitting poem of his own personal thoughts relating to the war. This run parallel to the portrayal of him in Regeneration as Pat Barker shows him upset in the bar at the golf club whilst looking at the old men sitting around discussing their views on the war. This most likely a tool used by Barker again using Sassoon’s own poetry to help construct a more true to life voice for his own character Representation. GOOD POINT, WORTH EXPANDING

Another poem where Sassoon challenges outsiders views and opinions in the war is in “Great Men”. Here we see his satirical voice used again to poke fun at other parts of the army “Talk our noble sacrifice and losses”. Sassoon here again aiming his views at people in power who seemingly want the war to continue but know nothing of the actual going s on within the war. This relating within Regeneration relating to not only Sassoon’s character but Priors own views which I earlier mentioned.Within the poem “The Death Bed”, we begin to see the darker side of Sassoon’s poetry, which helps reveal an even deeper side to his lyric voice. The inevitable awaiting for the passing of a soldier and the personification of “death” having its own voice helps Sassoon communicate a deeper meaning. This idea of the character drifting in and out of consciousness “through crimson gloom to darkness” along with the actual character of death “who’d stepped toward him” really emphasizes the trauma that Sassoon experienced during the war and something he is trying to overcome at this point.

Through these sorts of poems Rivers believes that Sassoon was able to overcome “war neurosis” so quickly. The coming to terms and dealing with death in this way helps Sassoon in his rehabilitation immensely. A similar poem in respects of dealing with aspects to do with the war itself is in “Counter Attack”. Sassoon once again here uses voices within his poem “Stand-to and man the fire-step!” to the poem a more realistic feel. He again here voices his attitude towards death “Down he sank and drowned, / Bleeding to death” this IS another example of how through his poetry Sassoon is able to voice his inner feeling and release things that other people suffering “war neurosis” find hard to do. Whilst looking through both pieces we can see clear differences in the voices used although some comparisons can also be made. Within Part Barker’s Regeneration she is able to adopt many different voices through her clever use of free indirect style. Such characters as Billy Prior and Sarah Lumb are tools which Barker uses in order to sometimes disguise her own opinions and thoughts about the war. Barker through thorough research is able to capture Sassoon’s voice even more true to life with references to her own work. This is also evident in her fictionalised characters where pieces of Sassoon poetry are also evident. Sassoon on the other hand deals with his poetry as a tool to convey his true feelings on things and voice personal opinion form someone who has experienced it all. Through the structure and rhythm of his poems Sassoon is able to voice the way in which he would like his poems to be perceived when read by a novice. Along with his usage of the epic, lyric and satirical voices, Sassoon poetry can be seen as a release as well a way for him to promote his own political feelings about the “continuance” of the war and to place the people in charge in a position of BEING BROADLY SATIRISED

.

2006-04-29T14:50:00.000-07:00

Y13: Aimie- your first complete draft, marked. Please note particularly the comments at the end and remember I need you final draft by the 9th. I'll bring a hard copy to school next week.

Pat Barker’s novel Regeneration PUT REGENERATION IN ITALICS THROUGHOUT is set in the PSYCHIATRIC war hospital, Craiglockhart just outside of Edinburgh. Barker uses fictional and fictionalised characters throughout Regeneration with one of the main characters being W.H.S Rivers, one of the hospital’s doctors. WHY MENTION RIVERS PARTICULARLY, RATHER THAN SASSOON- THE OTHER CANDIDATE FOR THE TITLE OF CENTRAL CHARACTER. Be they fictional or fictionalised, Barker uses her characters to allow the reader an insight into the psychological consequences of The Great War on a variety of soldiers and civilians. She does this by favouring the first person voice YOU NEED TO REPHRASE THIS- THE NOVEL IS IN THE THIRD PERSON AFTER ALL, IT’S JUST THAT THE USE OF FREE INDIRECT STYLE ALLOWS BARKER TO ALSO EXLPLOIT MANY OF THE ADVANTAGES OF FIRST PERSON PERSEPECTIVE, ESPECIALLY PSYCHOLOGICAL TRANSPARENCY which allows the reader to understand a particular character’s feelings, views and opinions on the war, and therefore the consequences of it. She skilfully balances this with a presentation of the social consequences of The Great War, which she reflects through the third person perspective which is the default narrative viewpoint of the novel. We see the social consequences through civilians on the home front, as well as from soldiers and doctors at Craiglockhart.
Barker takes a fresh new approach to writing a war novel in this sense as she doesn’t focus on the battlefield itself, like so many war novel authors choose to do. She wanted to explore her techniques as a writer and break away from her typical style – writing about working-class northern women. As Barker has so many vivid characters her choice to narrate in the third person is a wise one. She makes Regeneration a polyphonic novel through the use of free indirect style which allows her to have more then one voice and to drop into all her characters heads, making them psychologically transparent. THIS IS BETTER, BUT YOU’RE REALLY GOING OVER THE SAME GROUND AS YOU DO ABOVE- UNIFY THE TWO SETS OF COMMENTS, IT WILL SAVE ON WORDCOUNT TOO This gives the novel more depth and movement, as Barker is not restricting her novel to one perspective.

Regeneration was written as a demonstration to Barker’s critics that she could write about men in a male environment as it was something she had never done before YOU NEED TO MENTION HERE THAT SHE ARGUALBLY MAINTAINS A MORE ‘FEMALE’ PERSPECTIVE BY INCORPORATING THE EXPERIENCE OF CIVILIAN WOMEN AS WELL AS MILITARY MEN. She also wanted to take a different approach to a war novel by focusing on the consequences of the battlefield, not the battlefield itself.
In contrast with Barker’s historical perspective, writing as she did with a modern sensibility about the war and almost 80 years after the event took place, Siegfried Sassoon was writing contemporaneously with The Great War. As A FICTIONALIZED VERSION OF SASSOON is one of Barker’s main characters, she has featured some of his poetry in Regeneration and SHE OPENS HER NOVEL WITH the Declaration he wrote which lead to his ADMISSION TO Craiglockhart. There are a many contrasts between Barker and Sassoon with the main one being that Barker wrote a novel and Sassoon wrote a collection of poetry. This leads to a vast difference in style and purpose AND NARRATIVE VOICE. Sassoon’s poetry tends to be very brief and powerful getting his point across firmly in an emotive manner. He presents his poetry with a single voice, choosing his language carefully due to the BREVITY of his writing and the need of an instant reaction. The purpose of Sassoon’s poetry was to make a political point as he became strongly apposed to the war. He also wanted to show civilians back at home what the war was really like for the soldiers involved. He wanted to show that it was bloody and ruthless and that many young men died needlessly. His Declaration is A SUMMATION OF THIS INTENTION and in some ways is the starting point for BOTH Sassoon’s voice as a soldier-POET and Barker’s ORCHESTRATION of many voices.

SASSOON’S poetry is emotive as he is writing from first hand experience at the time it was happening, unlike Barker whose text is the product of research and literary imagination. Where Sassoon’s poetry IS mostly directed through a single voice, Barker writes in a more discursive manner due to the polyphonic style of the novel. This is also achievable because she is writing a novel so has more time to explore different ideas. GOOD DISCUSSION, BUT AGAIN YOU REPEAT A LOT OF SIMILAR IDEAS- HAVE A GO AT CUTTING THIS DOWN.
GOOD STUFF SO FAR AIMIE BUT IT BOTHERS ME THAT YOU HAVE GOT THIS FAR WITHOUT A QUOTATION- ILLUSTRATE F.I.S WITH A QUOTE OR TWO, SASSOON’S STYLE WITH A QUOTE OR TWO, THE DECLARATION WITH A QUOTE OR TWO.
It is vital FOR THE SUCCESS OF Barker’S NOVEL THAT SHE allows her characters to speak for themselves without smothering them with her own opinionS. However the absenCE of Barker’s voice is not complete from the novel. Through free indirect style Barker manages to perform a narrative trick by telling us what she wants the reader to think about a character “Small blue eyes, nibbled gingery moustache” tells us what Anderson looks like and that the war may have made him a nervous man from the description of his moustache, and “Mr Prior looked him shrewdly up and down” informs the reader that Mr Prior may be a crafty man. NOTE ALSO ‘MR PRIOR’, NOT SIMPLE PRIOR OR BILLY.

Another way in which Barker’s voice can be heard throughout the novel is by the amount of narrative space she gives each character. Barker clearly believes that neurasthenia does exist therefore gives more narrative space to characters who share her opinion, like Rivers. Free indirect style not only allows us to see what the character with the narrative DUTIES sees, it also allows us TO hear a characters’ thought process. “After all, why not?” shows us Sassoon thinking things over in his head and justifying his response. YOU NEED TO EXTEND AND CONTEXTUALIZE THIS QUOTE-DOESN’T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE ON ITS OWN. This can only be done through this narrative technique and allows Barker to show the reader a very personal side to each character. Burns, a PATIENT at Craiglockhart, was thrown by an explosion face first into a rotting corpse. When Rivers is talking to him about upsetting other people and Burns mentions that he wouldn’t have to worry about upsetting anyone if he could eat in his own room, Barker writes from Rivers’ perspective “Yes, Burns would worry about upsetting other people”. This tells us that Rivers is disagreeing in his head with what Burns has just said. We know he hasn’t said it out loud as there are no speech marks and Burns doesn’t enforce his own comment. River’s thought also tells us something about Burns. It shows us that Burns is a generally nice guy as he worries about his actions upsetting others. THIS IS ALL OKAY BUT A LITTLE WEAK IN EXPRESSION- ESPECIALLY ‘GENERALLY A NICE GUY’ This idea is reinforced when we see through free indirect style that Rivers is thinking to himself “He’s agreeing to make me feel useful, he thought”. “he thought” YOU’RE CONFUSED HERE- THE VERY FACT THAT BARKER USES ‘HE THOUGHT’ MEANS THIS IS NOT F.I.S- THE WHOLE POINT OF F.I.S IS THAT IT IS INDIRECT- ‘HE THOUGHT’ MAKES IT DIRECT- A DIRECT TRANSCRITION OF THE CHARACTER’S THOUGHTS EMBEDDED IN THE NARRATIVE, AS OPPOSED TO THE STYLE OF THE CHARACTER INFLUENCING THE STYLE AND VIEWPOINT OF THE NARRATIVE ITSELF. is the key part of the sentence as it gives the reader the knowledge that it was a look inside his head at his thoughts, not just third person narration. Burn’s worries about upsetting other people demonstrate some of the social consequences of the war. When Burns tries to eat he is violently sick due to his experience. This means he can no longer eat in public due to his embarrassment but not just that, he will affect everyone around him as well. Prior’s experiences lead to him being psychologically affected by the war as we see through his hypnosis. His hypnosis can by closely linked to Sassoon’s ‘Counter- Attack’ as it is based on memories of an event. The hypnosis, through free indirect style, tells us about the specific point that leads him to Craiglockhart as we see it through his eyes. He woke up to the smell of “stale farts”: his own TYPICALLY RAW interpretation of the smell of the trenches. YOU NEED A LOT MORE ANALYSIS OF HOW THIS EPISODE SHOWS PRIOR’S PERSONALITY Rivers is allowing him to remember what happened by taking him back to the trenches in France. As Prior became mute he wanted to find out the cause of it. Another advantage of free indirect style is that it allows there to be a change of time, setting or character without having to explain to the reader what is happening. We can see this before Prior’s hypnosis begins as he is talking to Rivers and then is back in France.

Barker shows a change in time, setting or character by beginning a new paragraph, making it clear a change has happened. What Barker wanted to depict with Prior was that he was from a working class background but was an officer, a title USUALLY ASSOCIATED WITH A well educated middle class man. Many of the soldiers would have suffered from mutism because if they were to say something negative about the war’s cause or reasons for fighting, the consequences would have been catastrophic, plus no one would have listened. However, officers tended to stutter or stammer due to the psychological effects of the war, like Rivers’ increasing stutter, “That’s d-different” and Sassoon’s stammer, “or or otherwise” which is a complete contrast to his poetry, where he writes in a clear manner with complete fluidity. NOT SURE WHAT YOU’RE DOING WITH THIS- NOBODY WRITES WITH A STAMMER. THERE MAY BE A POINT HERE ABOUT THE THERAPEUTIC NATURE OF THE POETRY THOUGH- THE VOICE SASSOON GIVES TO HIS EMOTIONS IN CONTRAST WITH THE MUTISM THAT INCREASES PRIOR’S TRAUMA STIL FURTHER This was because an officer was more likely to be listened to. It is almost as if the soldier’s subconscious is preventing them from speaking to save a disciplinary ACTION. As Prior is from a working class background and has been looked down on by other officers and even Rivers at first, he is showing the psychological effects of the war of a soldier not an officer.

Here it is possible to hear Barker’s opinion and voice coming through again as she can relate to Prior as they were both working class. It also feels like Barker is having a go at society at the time of The Great War for still having prejudices about social class at a time when everyone was in the same position, they were at war as one. Barker portrays Prior’s mutism by making him write down what he wants to say. Rivers observES Prior, waiting for him to answer his question ON WHEN HE FIRST LOST HIS ABILITY TO SPEAK Prior replies to him by writing “I DON’T REMEMBER.”. Not only is Prior mute but he is also angry, maybe at not knowing why he is mute, maybe for being in hospital when he wants to be back at the front or maybe because people like Sister Rogers have taken a PATRONISING ATTITUDE to him and he feels Rivers might as well. We know he is angry as he writes in block capitals so it appears he is shouting. YOU NEED TO MAKE THIS MORE EXPLICITYLY LINKED WITH THE IDEA OF SOCIAL VOICES IN THE NARRATIVE- DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WAY PRIOR AND SARAH SPEAK AT ONE END AND SASSON AND ALANGDON AT THE OTHER AND HOW OTHER CHARACTERS RESPOND TO THEM BECAUSE OF IT. I’D PUT THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH, WHICH DOES THIS BETTER, BEOFRE THE BIT ABOUT PRIOR TO ANNOUNCE WHAT YOU’RE DOINGAnother area that Barker looks at is the social voices of characters and the language they use. THAT’S WHAT YOU’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF PARAGRAPHS The majority of the characters in Regeneration are officers therefore are well spoken. We know this as Barker writes in well-spoken tone to reflect her characters. However characters like Billy Prior and Sarah Lumb are from working backgrounds, so Barker reflects this by the language she uses. When Prior is around Sarah, a northern girl, his roots come out and he starts to relax the manner in which he talks. “I always paddle with me boots on” shows that he has dropped the “my” for a “me” making a grammatically INcorrect sentence. Also the fact that Prior is using a metaphor to talk about contraception helps emphasisE his social class.HOW’S THAT THEN? WOULD A M/CLASS MAN BE MORE LIKELY TO SAY ‘I ALWAYS WEAR A CONDOM’ ? Sarah however understands his metaphor. It is possible to see River’s snobbery emerge when Prior’s voice returns. We hear through free indirect style that “hearing Prior’s voice for the first time had the curious effect of making him look different” to River’s. In the real world Rivers would never have to associate with men like Prior as they are from different words, yet Prior is from a working class background and the same rank as Sassoon, something River’s was not aware of.

Similarly, the reader encountetrs Sarah’s voice and accent through her speech, “Aye, and they can stop there ‘n’ all”. Ada Lumb tries to correct Sarah’s grammar, “You don’t say “what”, Sarah. You say “pardon””, but then she mispronounces “gunna”, “gotta” and “mebbe”. She is aware that it more socially acceptable to be well spoken and wants Sarah to be socially accepted. GOOD CLOSE ANALYSIS HERE. Ada may feel that Sarah and herself can hide the fact they are working class by speaking in a more educated manner, as when she speaks to strangers she “switches to her genteel voice”, trying to sound refined and courteous. Barker uses phonetic misspelling and dialect to show the social effects of the war on all members of society, not just the soldier as is by and large the case with war novels. It also brings a contrast between the different characters of the novel, Prior’s Manchester and Sarah’s northern accent juxtapose Rivers’ and Sassoon’s educated dialect. Sassoon, in his poetry, also adds voices making his officer characters possess a “stiff upper lip” euphemistic language. GOOD PASSAGE, THIS
Throughout his poetry, Sassoon tends to narrate in his own voice, LINK THIS TO THE PREVIOUS BIT BY TALKING ABOUT THE WAY SASSOON UNDERCUTS THE EUPEMISTIC LANGUAGE OF THE OFFICERS WITH HIS RAW, DETAILED, UNFLINCHING, BRUTAL VOICE however THERE ARE SIGNS OF WHAT TS ELIOT CALLS THE THREE VOICES OF POETRY IN HIS WORK (YOU MAY AS WELL NAME THE CRITIC AND GET THE AO4 POINT IN AS WELL!); the lyric voice, the epic voice and the dramatic voice. The majority of Sassoon’s writing is written with an epic voice as he is trying to drum up sympathy for the soldiers fighting and loosing their lives. In ‘Repression of War Experiences’ PUT TITLES OF POEMS INTO QUOTATION MARKS THROUGHOUT Sassoon writes in an epic voice, saying that the cause of neurasthenia is mainly down to repressing memories of the war. “And it’s been proven that soldiers don’t go mad unless they lose control of ugly thoughts that drive them out to jabber among the trees”. QUOTE POETRY LINE-FOR-LINE. Sassoon, through writing his poetry, has not repressed his feelings on the war and has managed to help himself by writing out his dark memories. However this extract from Repression of War Experiences tells the reader that there are plenty of men who have tried to bury their experiences with the hope that the memories would go away. This leads them to have severe mental breakdowns leading to irrational behaviour. We see in Regeneration that Burns, one of Barker’s fictional characters, has an episode in the woods. “He stood again in front of the tree” is Burn’s memories and experiences leading him to do exactly what Sassoon wrote about in Repression of War Experiences. The chances that Barker took this event of Burn’s from this poem of Sassoon’s are almost definite as he is a reflection of what Sassoon describes. Even though Sassoon showed “no obvious signs of nervous disorder” according to Rivers, we see from Repression of War Experiences that he hears guns being fired and shells going off, “you can hear the guns…I’m going crazy”. Sassoon’s poetry works in the same way as Rivers hypnosis and encouragement to remember war experiences.

‘Counter-Attack’ is based on Sassoon’s memories or events that he is sure would have happened, as it was first drafted in the trenches. This poem contains an epic voice again with evidence of a satire and political voice also. “An officer came blundering down the trench…”Fire-step…counter-attack!”” has the clear-cut image of no strong authority in the trenches. Sassoon uses the elision to show the panic in the officer’s voice and his clear lack of leadership skills. Sassoon is using this officer to make the point that many platoons are lead by men who are not capable of leading. The soldiers “sank and drowned, bleeding to death” like so many of the young men fighting in the war. This is why Sassoon tells River “I’m going back” because we wants his men to have a fighting chance. This poem can also be linked with Prior’s hypnosis as they are both written as memories.

SOME GOOD POINTS OF COMAPRISON AND CONTRAST HERE Barker’s free indirect style allows us to see into Prior’s past, where similarly Sassoon uses free indirect style to allow us to see the perspectives of different people in the trench. Sassoon, like Barker doesn’t completely focus his poetry on the battlefield itself. He tries to show the consequences of the war for soldiers who are no longer at war with the enemy, but are still fighting with their war demons, having to live with the mental and physical scars and memories. In Does it Matter, Sassoon demonstrates this point well. He writes with an angry voice which projects through the irony throughout the poem. “Does it matter? – losing your sight? There’s such splendid work for the blind” demonstrates his irony. He is reflecting this poem on societies attitudes towards war victims pointing out that society will see that a soldier is still alive and expect him to be grateful and get on with it. Sassoon tries to point out that a soldier losing his eyes doesn’t affect his sight as he can still see all the terrible things that took place in the trenches. The structure of Does it Matter? is very different FROM that of Counter-Attack as it is a short, powerful poem that is made punchy by the use of grammar. Each line forms a unit of sense as there is a natural pause at the end, adding emphasis to the last word. This makes the poem sound hard and gives it a clear rhythm which helps stress the point of the poem. Also Sassoon’s use of punctuation, mainly the placement of elision, causes pauses and allows the reader to ponder what he has just said, “losing your leg?...”, “losing your sight?...”. GOOD DETAILED ANALYSIS In Regeneration we can see Sarah shares the frustration that Sassoon does. We know through Barker’s use of free indirect style that she gives Sarah the opinion of “if the country demand the price, then it should bloody well be prepared to look at the result” when she stumbles across a hidden ward at the hospital full of physically mutated men. Glory of Women looks at similar ideas as Does it Matter? As it explores men’s fears that women don’t want to know about what actually went on in the trenches, they want to think of their men as “heroes”. Sassoon writes this in an angry voice using only one voice through the poem. He believes that women only want to look at wounds “in a mentionable place” because they don’t want a handicapped man. Barker however takes a more sympathetic approach making Sarah feel that “Simply by being there…, a pretty girl, she had made everything worse.” Letter to Robert Graves is what THE TITLE IMPLIES, : it is a lyrical poem using Sassoon’s person voice, therefore his personal experiences, throughout. It is a therapeutic poem as he tells Graves about his experiences in the trenches. “I timed my death in action to the minute”, shows how unhappy Sassoon was in the battlefield. He depicts his state of mind when he was in a hospital by showing how he had no sense of time, “MarshMoonStreetMeiklejohnArdoursandenduranSitwellitis” as everyone who visited him merged into one. However Sassoon writing poetry has helped him through his war dilemmas, as did Burn’s episode in the woods. Yet more evidence of free indirect style can by seen in Regeneration when Barker writes “now they could dissolve into the earth as they were meant to do” THIS IS CLEARLY BURNS’ VICE IN FREE INDIRECT STYLE, RATHER THAN A COMMENT BY BARKER AS THE NARRATOR when Burns puts all the dead animals on the ground. It is therapeutic as he feels as if he is giving his fellow soldiers the dignity of being allowed to dissolve into the ground, like the animals, and rest peacefully.
The General is a polyphonic poem ARGUALBLY- YOU NEED TO MAKE THE POINT THAT THE VOICES ARE NOHWERE NEAR AS THREE-DIMENSIONAL AND FULLY REALISED AS THEY ARE IN THE NOVEL as Sassoon includes the General’s voice, Harry’s voice – a soldier – and his own voice. It is an epic poem making a political statement. Sassoon is protesting on behalf of all the dead soldier, Harry and Jack, who died by the “General’s” “plan of attack”. This poem is similar to Counter-Attack as we hear Sassoon’s voice in the poem as an angry protest against the way Generals were leading their men. Through Barker’s research for Regeneration she would have become aware of Sassoon’s views on the generals at the war front and subsequently lets the reader know this by allowing Sassoon to say “they don’t give a damn about the “Bobbies” and the “Tommies””. Both Sassoon and Barker base their writing around the time of The First World War – 1917 – and both portray the effects it had on a different level then other war poets and war novelists. They both independently include the use of imaginary voices in their work through free indirect style allowing for many view points to be considered thus making their work polyphonic. Although MUCH of Sassoon’s poems contain only one narrative voice, he has the ability to change the tone giving his poems different meanings and addressing different members of society. Barker sets her novel in one location being Craiglockhart, with the exception of flash backs. Regeneration is, according to Jackie Wullschlager, “caged in a distinct time and place” thus weakening the novel. However, it could be said that the purpose of Craiglockhart being the main location, and the lack of description Barker provides for it, are necessary to portray the intensity of each character’s war neurosis. It is as if Barker mimics their memories of the war, which are locked in one place - each mans head - by only giving the characters one place to go, hence allowing her the opportunity to let these memories boil inside each man then explode INTERESTING IDEA THAT YOU EED TO TAKE FURTHER- CRAIGLOCKHART AS AN ORCCHESTRA OF MANY VOICES, SASSOON’S POETRY AS MANY ASPECTS OF A SINGLE VOICE.

THIS IS NEARLY 4,000 WORDS WITH MY COMMENTS INCLUDED, BUT I’VE GIVEN YOU SOME IDEAS OF WHERE TO CUT IT DOWN AND IMPROVE IT. BASICALLY, WHAT YOU NEED IS BETTER AO4- TO QUOTE FROM THE MARK SCHEME ‘CLEAR CONSIDERATION OF DIFFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF TEXTS WITH AN EVAKUATION OF THEIR STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES AND CLEAR EVIDENCE OF PERSONAL RESPONSE WITH TEXTUAL SUPPORT’. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU PHRASE YOUR DISCUSSION DIFFERENTLY, YOU CAN DO THIS THROUGH YOUR POINTS ABOUT BARKER’S VOICE NOT BEING SILENT- ONE INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE NOVEL IS POLYPHONIC AND THE CHARACTERS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, ANOTHER IS THAT BARKER NEVER DOES MORE THAN A VENRILOQUIST ACT- ALL THE CHARACTERS ARE ASPECTS OF HER AND NONE OF THEM SAY ANYTHING SHE WOULD FIND DISTASTEFUL. LINK THIS WITH SASSOON’S POETRY- HE IS MUCH MORE HNEST ABOUT HAVING A SINGLE, PROTESTING VOICE- HIS OWN- AND YET THE DIFERENCE BETWEEN THE PUBLISHED POEMS AND ‘LETTER TO RG’ SHOWS HIS PUBLIC VOICE IS MUCH MORE OF AN ARTISTRIC CONSTRUCT THAN MOST READERS ASSUME- OR IS IT? THIS IS THE SORT OF THING YOU NEED TO TO TO GET AN A OR B. BEST OF LUCK!

2006-04-24T14:03:00.000-07:00

y13: Kyle- this will be yours then, marked. Very good so far, and you've even go a critical comment in it, so that's AO4 at least covered. I've given you an idea at the end of where to take it from here.

Pat Barker’s Regeneration is a novel based around the inhabitants of Craiglockhart war hospital in Scotland IN 1917 and contains a mixture of fictional characters and fictionalized historical figures, such as Siegfried Sassoon and Captain W.H.R. Rivers. Barker maintains an informed historical perspective on both real and imagined events, along with a fresh approach to the well-trodden ground of novels about the Great War: Regeneration is concerned with the psychological and sociological consequences of war experience, rather than with the battlefield itself.Barker’s novel can be described as polyphonic: her narrative is presented through a multiplicity of different voices reflecting the personalities, social backgrounds and viewpoints of her characters, meaning the story of the novel is composed of this variety of individual stories. The larger architecture of the novel helps present rounded characters and Barker’s third person narrator is able to dip in and out of their viewpoints using free indirect style, perhaps the dominant narrative technique of the novel. In contrast with Barker’s historical perspective, Siegfried Sassoon wrote most of his poetry contemporaneously with the war and his purpose was to present not only what he had personally experienced but also to make a political point: to help show his opposition to the war’s continuation and to highlight, “political errors”. Not only this, he wanted to elicit sympathy for the suffering soldiers and help raise the public’s attention about what they were going through. VERY GOOD SO FAR, KYLE.The often short, linguistically dense poems Sassoon wrote are much more emotionally direct than Barker’s more expansive, exploratory text. For example the poem “Enemies” is a nightmarish imagined encounter between a soldier (likely to be Sassoon’s own brother) stood among the “hulking Germans” the voice of the poem had “shot” and reduced to “patient, stupid, sullen ghosts of men;”. Told almost certainly in Sassoon’s own, authentic, autobiographical voice, the poem showS the repercussions of the war on his psychology and imagination. This very hard hitting, inescapably personal approach in Sassoon’s poetry is apparent in his talk of the Germans, “that I shot / When for his death my brooding rage was hot”; a mission of vengenace that the voice finds ultimately unsatisfactory and even unexplainable. It is the dead Germans who, at the conclusion of the poem, can see why they were killed, not because of the voice’s explanations of his anger but “Because his face could make them understand.”
It is interesting however, THAT Rivers theorises that the fictionalized Sassoon of Regeneration may have recovered from war trauma so quickly because his poetry was a “therapeutic” way of him expressing his feelings, helping him to deal with his repressed memories, confused and conflicting emotions of sympathy and hatred and his horrifying nightmares. The reader can certainly see elements of this “therapeutic” benefit in a poem like “Enemies”.This tendency of Sassoon to use his own voice, which is often angry and satirical and yet frequently reveals, perhaps accidentally, the complexity of his own psychology and the war’s affects on it, is in contrast with the variety of individual character voices Barker very carefully ‘directs’ in her novel. GOOD POINT This is a major point of difference in narrative technique between the novel and the poetry: Sassoon’s voice may be complex, but it always remains recognisably Sassoon’s, whereas Barker’s voice is disguised behind the characters she creates or fictionalizes for the novel. She does this so effectively by using free indirect style, giving her the ability to gain many perspectives on different situations and issues surrounding the war. Also, and perhaps more importantly, her use of free indirect style means she can maintain the advantages of the third person narrative perspective while allowing the reader to distinguish the characters’ voices as she alters her style of writing to correspond with their individual personalities and backgrounds. This helps gain an intimacy with each character and develops a recognizable voice for the reader to identify.For example, when Sassoon first has a conversation with Rivers at “afternoon tea” for new arrivals we hear his perspective describing the light on the curtains in the room as a “glimmering arc”, the poetic voice used helps the reader know who is talking. This mirrors an image in Sassoon’s poem “The Death Bed” –“Blowing the curtain to a glimMering curve”- presenting Barker’s research into capturing a true to life voice for Sassoon.
We can see something similar happening in the voice she creates for character of Captain Rivers. For example, as he heads down a corridor at Craiglockhart the narrative voice notes that “Pipes lined the walls……gurgling from time to time like lengths of human intestine”; here, through the medical references used, the reader understands the description to be from Rivers’ viewpoint.Timothy Marshall, in his discussion of free indirect style in Mikhail Bakhtin’s work Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics, comments that Dostoevsky’s novels contain many voices: “They are so because, in his view, language is constitutively intersubjective (therefore social) and logically precedes subjectivity. It is never neutral, unaddressed, exempt from the aspirations of others. In his word it is dialogic”. This perspective deals with the idea that free indirect style is not the reader overhearing the voice or thoughts of the characters, but that the author is allowing the reader to hear what he wants us to pick up from the character, in order to grasp a better understanding about the individual. This therefore creates for the reader a recognizable voice , and one which we are almost ‘tricked’ into believing is authentic because it is not the same as the author’s narrative voice. VERY GOOD DISCUSSION THIS, AND YOU HAVE ‘NAILED’ THE AO4 REQUIREMENT WITH IT AS WELL. Sassoon’s voice in the poem insists that it is authentic because the reader is likely to know Sassoon himself experienced what he writes about. In contrast, Barker’s voices seem authentic because they are different from each other, making them seem individual and the novel seem ‘polyphonic’ or ‘dialogic’ in structure. To help grasp a fuller understanding and gain a further insight into how Pat Barker uses free indirect style to help identify voices we can concentrate on one character, Billy Prior. Within Billy Prior’s own individual story, Pat Barker dives into his past and both his sociological and psychological rehabilitation within the novel. We are first introduced to Billy Prior as a mute Second-Lieutenant who can not communicate with anyone apart from through the use of a pen and pad. The way in which Pat Barker presents this is not necessarily his voice, but certainly his means of communication through the pad is always important, as Prior always writes in capital letters “I DONT REMEMBER”. NO NEED FOR THIS QUOTE REALLY IF YOU’RE JUST USING IT TO PROVE PRIOR WRITES IN CAPITALS. This when Prior is being asked what his nightmares are about as a way of Rivers helping his rehabilitation. So the introduction of Prior shows him as always being angry through the use of the capital letters on the pad, although Prior himself argues that capitals are simply ‘clearer’ and Rivers thinks he may be trying to disguise his handwriting so it can’t be analysed. Prior is seen as being very much a man not willing to share information about anything purely because he does not “REMEMBER”. Apart form this we at first are not able to gain any more information about Prior at this stage. Prior’s mutism has gone further in Regeneration as he wakes up “shouting” we begin to gain more detail about his true voice a distinctly “northern accent”. In a conversation with Rivers we see Prior’s resistance to talk about what he has gone through. “I don’t think talking helps. It just churns things up”: not that he does not want to be helped, he just finds it hard to confront his emotions. When Prior does begin to slightly open up he adopts a different voice, a satirical one aimed at higher ranked soldiers GOD POINT THIS, AND ONE WORTH EXPANDING ON. “The pride of the British army….”. This helps to show Prior’s anger towards the army and he goes on to describe how he was dugout in “no mans land” for “forty-eight hours” and had to stay there while he and his soldiers were bombarded with “one shell after the other”. Proir’s voice now has been able to develop and give the reader a more rounded look on him as a character and start to identify his voice by itself. The satirical voice also appears in confrontations with Rivers about his own stammer “luck for you, I mean…if your stammer was the same as theirs- you might actually have to sit down and work out” YOU NEED TO FINISH THIS QUOTE_ YOU DON’T WANT TO LEAVE IT HANGING LIKE THIS.
The confrontational voice with Rivers a person in Priors in seeming power REDRAFT THIS SENTENCE- DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE AT THE MOMENT can be compared with the satirical voices adopted in Sassoons poetry. For example in the poem “The General” with his seemingly cheery outlook “Good morning, good morning” is perceived to have no sympathy at all. He is seen to have smiled at soldiers even though he knows soon his order will have “most of ‘ em dead” These young boys however are inevitably going to die “by his plans of attack”. The satirical voice and epic voce Sassoon uses is very similar to the way Barker manpulates Priors own actions towards Rivers in some respects. AGAIN< THIS IS GOOD POINT I’D LIKE EXPANDED_ DEFINE ‘EPIC VOICE’ FOR STARTERS AND HOW SASSOON USES IT IN THE POEM, HOW IT’S DIFFERENT FROM THE LYRIC VOICE OF SOME OF HIS OTHER VERSE, SUCH AS LETTER TO ROBERT GRAVES.Through the relationship with Sarah Lumb we are able to gain another persons viewpoint on the situation of the war and the consequences of this on the people and also society. We are also able to draw both contrasting and comparative aspects with Sassoon’s poetry through the character of Sarah Lumb. Sarah Lumb is first introduced to us at a café in Edinburgh, her voice at first is very much representative of her character: a northern hard working women paid just “fifty bob a week”. This character may also not only be a love interest for Prior but in another way a tool for Barker to portray something she has a lot of knowledge of, as expressed through her other novels: a working-class woman’s own point of view on things. Sarah Lumb’s interaction with Prior develops through the novel and the narration even dips into her consciousness and voice on numerous occasions with the usage of free-indirect style. NICELY DONE THS PASSAGE- THINK ABOUTBARKER GIVING VOICE TO THE VOICELESS WITH SARAH, ESPECIALLY AS SASSON TENDS TO BE PATRONISING TOWRDS WOMEN AND GIVES LITTLE VALUE OR SYMPATHY TO THEM IN POEMS LIKE ‘THE GLORY OF WOMEN’- SOME NOTES ON THIS IN THE TEXT OF ED’S ESSAY.

The first instance of this is when Sarah and “Madge” go to visit Madge’s injured boyfriend in hospital. As Sarah walks around the hospital “corridors” she notices that “none of these men was badly wonded”. As she continues through the corridors she finds herself lost and then enters an area where she becomes very “aware of a silence…..by her entrance”. The free indirect style here by Barker is used to show Sarahs own voice and reaction to “a row of figures in wheelchairs”. These people hidden away with “trouserlegs sewn short: empty sleeves pinned to jackets” are also something Sassoon covers in two of his own poems “Glory of women” and to some extent in “Does it Matter”. USE QUOTATIONS TO SHOW THE CLOSENESS OF THE TWO PASSAGES- DOES ONE INSPIRE OR INFORM THE OTHER? Glory of Women almost seems based on Sarah Lumbs own character in the line “You make us shells” as within Regeneration Sarah’s actual JOB is that very thing.The final line in Sassoons very single minded satirical voice best describes the almost delusional invisionments NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY THIS- RE-WRITE IT. on some women and their thoughts of there men fighting in the war. “knitting socks to send your son, His face is being trodden deeper into the mud”. Sasssons very blunt point of view is one Barker challenges through the voice of Sarah Lumb. Sarah becomes very angry about the way these soldiers are hidden away and comes to the conclusions that “If the country demanded that price, then it should bloody be well prepared to look at the result”. Her own voice showing the anger that she feels for these men. One that almost mirrors Sassoons views in “Glory for Women” and his own personal ones he feels about the treAtment of injured soldiers and the war on a whole. This revelation in the book here helps to bring in a female opposition to the war and let them voice there opinions in a very male dominated novel. THIS DISCUSSION WORKS A TREAT- JUST CORRECT IT IN THE PLACES I’VE INDICATED
KYLE- VERY GOOD SO FAR, YOU NOW NEED TO GET THE POETRY HALF DONE, ALTHOUGH YOU’VE MADE A GOOD START TO IT HERE- YOU NEED ABOUT 800 MORE WORDS, AND REMEMBER, MAYBE 8 POEMS ALL TOLD- CERTAINLY NO FEWER THAN THAT. I’D DEFINE ‘EPIC VOICE’ NOW AND THEN LOOK AT THE POEMS THAT BALANCE BETWEEN EPIC AND LYRIC- LIKE THE DEATH BED, AND THEN GO ON TO THE LYRIC ONES, ESPECIALLY LETTERTO ROBERT GRAVES, AND HOW THEY SHOW SASSOON’S PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FACES IN THE SAME WAY THAT BARKER’S DIALOGUE SHOWS HER CHARACTER’S PUBLIC FACES AND HER USE OF F.I.S SHOWS THEIR PRIVATE FACES.

2006-04-24T13:25:00.000-07:00

Y13: Edward Rance- your essay, marked. Shaping up nicely, just get the quotes in!

Edward Rance
The novel regeneration by Pat Barker is set in a World War 1 hospital in Craiglockhart, Scotland. Some of the patients featured in the novel are fictional characters and some are fictionalised historical characters, such as Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen. Barker is a female novelist of the 20th century who is best known for her novels about northern working class women, such as Union Street, so it is perhaps surprising for her to choose to explore the consequences of war on a group of men, who are mostly upper class as well. This makes it difficult for Barker to put a fresh approach on the Great War, however she does this using sophisticated literary techniques. NOT SURE OF YOUR MEANING- I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT BEING A LATE TWENTIETH CENTURY WOMAN AUTHOR RATHER THAN AN EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY MALE WRITER- LIKE SASSOON OR OWEN OR GRAVES- WOULD GIVE HER FRESH PERSEPECTIVE ON THE WAR, NOT A ‘STALE’ ! Siegried Sassoon, on the other hand, was an aristocrat who wrote war poetry. TRUE ENOUGH, BUT SASSOON’S EXPERIENCES AS A TRENCH OFFICER ARE FAR MORE RELEVANT TO HIS WRITING THAN HIS SOCIAL CLASS. Sassoon’s purposes for writing much of his poetry was to show the psychological consequences of war and to gain sympathy from the public for his fellow soldiers. I’D QUOTE THE RELEVANT PASSAGE OF THE DECLARATON HERE IF I WERE YOU. Barker’s purpose for writing Regeneration was to show a historical perspective of the Great War and how it affected society.
Regeneration is largely about the psychological and sociological aftermath of the Great War, with the only details of the bloody battles coming from the memories, dreams and flashbacks of the characters in the hospital. This allows the novel to be more about the consequences of battle, rather than a detailed description of trench combat itself. Because of this purpose in the novel, Barker uses a multiplicity of voices in free indirect style as her central narrative technique. This is to allow her to highlight not only the psychological aspects of the war but also the sociological aspects at the same time.

To get the social issues across, Barker must feature a number of characters where we can experience issues surrounding the war through their points of view. Free indirect style will often be used to present the thoughts of a character unannounced and their personality will sometimes invade the narrative space. YOU NEED TO GIVE SOME EXAMPLES OF THIS OTHERWISE YOU ARE ASSERTING WITH EVIDENCE, A SURE SIGN THAT YOU ARE REGURGITATING CLASS NOTES WITHOUT REALLY UNDERSTANDING THEM. Free indirect style is affected by the style of the characters and we can experience the action in their own language, for example Rivers’ medical speak and stammer. USE A QUOTATION, DAMMIT!

As well as wanting to express the views of a range of characters, at the same time Barker also wants intimacy with her characters to show the physiological YOU MEAN ‘PSYCHOLOGICAL’ aspects of the war. EXPAND THIS A BIT- SHOW HOW F.I.S ALLOWS FOR GREATER PSYCHOLOGICAL TRANSPARANCY.
Regeneration has a historical perspective on the war, as it was written in 1992. This contrasts to the poetry of Sassoon, which was written contemporaneously with the war. Sassoon’s poetry is not only written to show personal experiences through the war but also as a “political protest.” As well as this, unintentionally, writing poetry helped Sassoon. It was described by Captain WHR Rivers CAREFUL- RIVERS HIMSELF, THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE THOUGH THIS. BARKER’S VERSION OF RIVERS CERTAINLY DID- THAT ISN’T THE SAME THING as being “therapeutic” for him as it helped him get through the trauma of the war. The poems of Sassoon are obviously a great deal briefer than the novel and this allows for a more emotionally powerful text, with more direct, less exploratory narrative voice. The novel, in contrast has more scope, and multiple characters have to be developed and this novel in particular is nuanced, as it expresses many viewpoints in many voices. GOOD PASAGE
Perhaps we can look at the idea of the multiplicity of voices in Regeneration on three different levels: the varieties of narrative voices themselves, of characters as an index to their social position and the voice of the characters as revealing of them psychologically.
There are multiple narrative voices within the novel as it is important for Barker to let her characters speak for themselves, rather than to mediate them to the reader through a more personal or less neutral third person narrative. These are the narrative voice, the voices of characters socially and the voice of the characters psychologically. NOT SURE WHAT THIS SENTENCE IS DOING HERE- DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. There are multiple narrative voices within the novel as it is important for Barker not to include her own voice because of the male characters. EXPAND THIS- WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY ‘BECAUSE OF THE MALE CHARACTERS’. However, Barker’s voice is not completely absent from the text. The character of Prior has many similarities to Barker in the fact that they are both from a working class background. Prior is also an invented character in the novel so Barker is clearly not trying to make her voice absent from the text. Also, Barker tends to give the characters who she is more in sympathy with space in the narrative, while characters like Langdon, who considers neurasthenic patients as “…cowards, shirkers, scrimshankers and degenerates..” are not allowed to present their own viewpoints at all as they are not given passages of free indirect style.

This is in contrast such poem by Sassoon as “The General”, which does give us the viewpoints of the generals but these views are not explained to us. EXPAND THIS AND USE QUOTATIONS- NOT SURE WHAT YOUR POINT IS.

Barker has chosen the technique of free indirect style as it allows her to present her characters in many different ways. She wants the reader to understand both the social and psychological consequences of the war and free indirect style allows her to do this. YOU HAVE SAID MUCH OF THIS ALREADY. This technique is used especially with the character of Rivers: for example, it is clearly Rivers’ perspective that notes in Sassoon’s speech a stammer, but “…not the recent, self conscious stammer of a neurasthenic”. Without free indirect style it would become difficult for Barker to show Rivers’ real feelings. However it is not just personal feelings that Barker can illustrate using free indirect style. Rivers’ subconscious life is also shown. “Rivers became aware that he was gripping the edge of the parapet and consciously relaxed his hands.” This is also the first time it is made clear to the reader that Rivers may be suffering from war neurosis, as he himself has been traumatised by all the horrific stories he has heard. Rivers also has a stammer but we are told that he has had that since he was young, however another example that Rivers is suffering from mild symptoms of war neurosis is when his stammer gets progressively worse during a conversation with Prior. Here, Rivers has been affected by Prior’s graphically detailed story leading to his stammer to get worse.

In both episodes, Barker uses Rivers’ psychological awareness to present ideas about his own developing psychological trauma to the reader: a very subtle way of getting difficult ideas across to the reader that would otherwise be awkward to express without disrupting the flow of the narrative.
Barker uses phonetic misspelling and dialect words to draw her characters through the way they talk, for example Rivers’ medical speak and Prior’s strong Manchester accent, which Rivers shows a certain snobbery to. QUOTATION IN SUPPORT OF THIS PLEASE Barker also uses many examples of silence to indicate traumatised patients. This is evident in the character of Prior who is suffering from mutism. Prior writes down everything on paper in block capitals which when read give the impression that he is shouting. There are also many occasions in which there are either ‘pauses’ or ‘silences’. This is in contrast to “Great Men”, a poem by Siegfried Sassoon. This particular poem is short and very easy to read. When read, this poem also comes across as very pacey and punchy. QUOTATIONS AND ANALYSIS IN SUPPORT, PLEASE. One of Sassoon’s friends who at Craiglockhart was fellow poet Wilfred Owen who once described much of Sassoon’s poetry AS like “Trench Rockets”. EXPAND THIS- WHAT DIS OWEN MEAN BY THIS DESCRIPTION? “Great Men” is an ironic poem as he likens the Generals in charge of the war as being the “great ones of the earth”. This poem also has an angry voice throughout. In the final few lines of the poem it ends very abruptly with the view that the Generals should tell the dead of their great sacrifice for a good cause in the cemeteries where they are buried.
Free indirect style is the central narrative technique used in the novel Regeneration, however this method is also present in some of the poetry by Siegfried Sassoon. “The Death Bed” for example features free indirect style. The poem features the thoughts of a war veteran and his dreams where things in the present moment trigger war memories; these however are pleasant memories unlike those of Prior in the novel Regeneration. In the third stanza of the poem there is the line, “Blowing the curtain to a glimmering curve”. This very same line is used in the novel Regeneration on page 11 to describe the net curtain behind Rivers. “The Death Bed” features someone gradually dying and although the dreams of the war veteran started of pleasantly, in the fifth stanza the pain arrives “like a prowling beast”. Death here is also personified, as it is at this point the veteran is close to it. The overall tone of this poem is a sympathetic one to the soldiers involved with the war. Sassoon’s anger of the war comes through in the sixth stanza. “…how should he die / When cruel old campaigners win safe through?” The ending of the poem is a sombre and depressing conclusion. Here Sassoon comments that whilst this particular war veteran may have died, there are still more soldiers dying this very minute. Another example of multiple voices and free indirect style in Sassoon’ s poetry is in the “General”. It is a very short poem, only seven lines, but it features three different voices. These are Sassoon’s voice, the general’s voice and Harry’s voice. Despite it being a very short poem a lot can be discovered from it. Sassoon’s viewpoint comes across in the line, “Now the soldiers he smiled at are most of ‘em dead”. This is a typical viewpoint by Sassoon as he was opposed to fighting in the war; he also has said similar trivial lines in other poems, including the “Death Bed” and “Does it Matter?” The fictional characters of Harry and Jack are fooled by the General’s cheeriness, as we then learn that they are now both dead. Once again, it is a very abrupt ending to a Sassoon poem, and this poem in particular features a lot of colloquial language. This poem overall, is contrasted between the generals cheerfulness and him then sending men to fight and die.
The poem “Does it Matter?” also features colloquial language, used ironically to present a serious subject. The opening line of the poem is a rhetorical question, “Does it matter? – Losing your legs?” This is a very trivial way to open a poem, especially as it is about the serious issue of losing your legs. There is a very jolly and happy tone coming across in this poem but also a patronising tone as well. The second stanza begins with another rhetorical question similar to the opening line, “Does it matter? – Losing your sight?” This can be read as a patronising question as the following line is “There’s such splendid work for the blind”. In this poem similar ideas come across in “Disabled”, a poem by Sassoon’s fellow patient and poet at Craiglockhart, Wilfred Owen. The poem is rhythmical and each line is separate and makes sense on its own. There is a very simple rhyming scheme as well, that simply goes A, B, B, C, and A in the opening stanza. The poem is heavy with punctuation also; something that lacks in some of Sassoon’s other work. WHAT’S THE EFFECT OF THIS HEAVY PUNCTUATION SCHEME? The overall style of this poem is ironic, because the question is asked by Sassoon, “Does it matter?” Sassoon makes out in this poem that it doesn’t matter, as he ridicules serious situations, however the irony is that it does matter. THIS IS POORLY EXPRESSED AND NEEDS RE-WRITING. This poem was written in 1917 at the war hospital of Craiglockhart and this too is written in free indirect style because not only does it feature Sassoon’s voice but also the voices and opinions of other people. WHY DOES THAT MEAN IT HAS TO BE WRITTEN IN FREE VERSE? IT DOESN’T, BUT YOUR SENTENCE HERE IMPLIES THAT IT DOES.“Glory of Women”, by Siegfried Sassoon is in contrast to the previous poems I looked at. This is a very angry poem, and is not just about war as it shows anger towards women as well. The style of the poem is monologic.COMPARE THIS WITH THE DIALOGIC OR POLYPHONIC STRUCTURE OF THE NOVEL, OR OF SOME OF SASSOON’S OTHER POEMS. The opening two lines of the poem are very patronising, prejudiceD and angry. “You love us when we’re heroes, home on leave, / or wounded in a mentionable place”. There is only one reference to the novel, Regeneration.NOT SURE OF WHAT YU MEAN- REFERENCE TO THE NOVEL BY WHOM? NOT BY SASSOON- HE DIED THIRTY YEARS BEFORE IT WAS WRITTEN! This is when Sassoon describes the women making shells to help the war effort. In the novel, the character of Sarah Lumb also does this. SO WHAT? IS BARKER USING HER NOVEL TO GIVE A VOICE TO THE WOMEN SASSOON DOES NOT GIVE VOICE TO? PART OF HER MULTIPLE-NARRATOR, POLYPHIONIC STRUCTURE In the final few lines of the poem Sassoon describes how it is not only the English that are suffering, it is the Germans as well, despite them being our opposition. During the Great War, this would have been a controversial thing to have said, but Sassoon does have links to Germany as his mother was German, NO SHE WASN’T- SHE JUST LIKE GERMAN OPERA! hence his foreign sounding name. NO SUGGESTION OF SASSOON HAVING GERMAN SYMPATHIES- IN FACT, HE ADMITTED (BARKER WRITES A SCENE BASED ON HIS ADMISSION) TO HATING GERMANS AND GOING OUT ON NIGHT PATROL SPECIFICALLY TO KILL AS MANY AS HE COULD, ALTHOUGH SUCH ACTION HAD NO STRATEGIC VALUE, IN REVENGE FOR THE DEATH OF HIS BELOVED BROTHER The overall idea of this poem is all about women turning away from mutilation and the real horrors of the war. This can be compared to the part in the novel in which Sarah Lumb visits Craiglockhart hospital. She is uncomfortable to be in the hospital, but this was because she felt disgusted that all this men were put into a secret and ‘hidden’ ward. AGAIN, USE QUOTATIONS AND CONCENTRATE ON THE WAY BARKER GIVES A VOICE TO THE FEMALE CHARCTERS OR FEMALE PERSPECTIVE SASSON’S POETRY LEAVES VOICELESS.
“Counter Attack” is more of an epic poem by Sassoon. It features some very graphic details of death, and parts of the poem are in free indirect style whilst some are not. The second stanza is not in free indirect style, but the following stanza is. EFFECT OF THIS? There are several voices in this part, Sassoon’s, a soldier and another soldier who ‘remembers his rifle’. The next 6 – 8 lines are written in the 3rd person, but the last line of the poem is a neutral line and is back to the voice of the poet again. The last line simply reads, “The counter – attack had failed”, a sombre ending to the poem. Overall this is a very detailed account of a failed counter attack which includes some graphic images of death and fear that can be compared to the detail of Prior’s hypnosis experience, however the only difference is that Barker used Prior’s hypnosis scene from research whereas Sassoon used his from memory.The two poems by Sassoon, “Repression of War Experience” and “Letter to Robert Graves” are both very similar in how they can be compared and contrasted to parts of the novel Regeneration. “Letter to Robert Graves” is a particular lengthy poem, it has a political stance which are normally easy to understand but this is difficult and complicated as it features invented words. The poem is in the form of a letter to make it more authentic and personal. NOT REALLY TO MAKE IT MORE PERSONAL- SASSOON NEVER WANTED IT PUBLISHED, IT IS GENUINE LYRIC POEM EXPRESSING PRIVATE THOUGHTS TO A TRUSTED FRIEND RATHER THAN BEING A POEM FOR ‘PUBLIC CONSUMPTION’ In the third stanza of the poem, it is almost in a stream of consciousness and toward the end of the poem Sassoon explains how he can’t write or appreciate happy poetry any more, “All crammed with village verses about Daffodils and Geese - …O Jesu make it cease…” This is a particular important poem as Robert Graves is a character from the novel. THIS SENTENCE MAKES NO SENSE- GRAVES WAS A REAL FRIEND OF SASSOON’S, AND BARKER FICTIONALIZES HIM JUST AS SHE FICTIONALIZES SASSOON This was a very personal poem, as Sassoon never wanted it to be published whilst he was still alive, most of his poetry is public but this is private. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THIS MAKE TO THE NARRATIVE VOICE OF THE POEM?

“Repression of War Experience”, too features a part of the novel Regeneration. DOESN’T- YOU JUST MEANIT CAN BE COMPARED TO AN ASPECT OF THE NOVEL This poem enacts the thoughts of Sassoon using free verse. There are parts of this poem that are very similar to Burns’ scene in the woods in the novel. It is possibly likely that Barker took her idea for Burn’s session in the woods from the poetry of Sassoon. GOOD- EXEMPLIFY, USE QUOTATIONS!
Overall, a lot of Barkers influence from writing her novel may have came from the poetry of Sassoon. Some of the ideas in the poems, “Disabled”, “Repression of war experience” and “Glory of women” can be linked to certain parts of the novel. It is also clear that Barker shares Sassoon’s approach to include free indirect style as a narrative technique. Several of Sassoon’s poetry includes passages of free indirect style, although in this case it is likely that Barker chose to use free indirect style for Regeneration as her narrative technique as she thought that it would work best, its just coincidental that Sassoon uses the same technique in some of his poetry.

ED- YOU NEED TO MAKE THE CHANGES INDICATED AND ADD A MORE SATISFYING CONCLUSION. MOST IMPORTANTLY, YOU MUST SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTIONS WITH QUOTATIONS AND ANALYSIS- A GOOD ESSAY SHOULD BE ABOUT ONE THIRD SAYING CLEVER THINGS ABOUT THE TEXTS, TWO THIRDS SUPPORTING THESE CLEVER THINGS BY USING QUOTATIONS AND ANALYSIS. LOTS TO LIKE HERE THOUGH AND DEFINITELY ON THE RIGHT LINES.

2006-04-24T11:52:00.000-07:00

Y13: A copy of that essay that I went through the other day- a great model of how you integrate AO4 and AO5 type comments.

Compare and contrast the different narrative voices in Pat Barker’s Regeneration and the war poetry of Siegfried Sassoon

The most obvious and important differences between the novel and the poetry, as far as narrative voice is concerned, are the density of viewpoints and the conflicting opinions and psychologies that can be displayed through the literary types. The wider architecture of the novel allows a detailed evaluation of psychology and character while the poetry is more focused into one specific idea and only presents characters as symbols or stereotypes rather than realistic interpretations. The specific elements of literary construction in both of the separate types, such as expansive dialogue in the novel and verse in the poetry, contribute to the overall narrative technique.
The lack of a consistent or clearly defined narrator leaves the plot of Regeneration to be developed by the characters themselves. The plot is not driven by unfolding events in a storyline or a changing world, but rather by the developing psychology and viewpoint of the characters in already established situations. The narrative duties are swapped between several characters during Regeneration. The author narrates in a neutral style that makes the narrator difficult to identify as a character in itself. The directly influence role of the author is to move the characters into focus when their viewpoint is relevant to the current situation and in this respect Barker takes the role of a coordinator rather than a storyteller. This technique leaves the dominant characters, particularly Dr Rivers, to appear, in the novel, to have a greater voice in the style of narration than the author.
The central development in the plot is the transformation of both Rivers and Siegfried Sassoon, who is a patient at Craiglockhart. The nature of this plot would seem to specifically require a narrative technique that allows a transparency of every character’s thoughts and viewpoint that is unmediated by associated statements from an assertive narrator. It is here that Barker employs a free indirect style that removes any narrative elements that would hinder the transparency of the character’s viewpoint. Peter Kemp takes this further by suggesting that her style allows Barker to present so much trauma ‘without a tremor of sensationalism or sentimentality.’ It is the lack of a reaction from the narrative voice to the situation at Craiglockhart that allows Regeneration to focus on the development of its characters.
A first person narrator would have less clarity and would not allow for the diverse range of perspective that Regeneration has. The free indirect style allows, for example, Sarah Lumb’s personal concerns regarding the effects of the war and Billy Prior’s observation on the changing gender roles to both be represented. Every view is, of course, created by the author but the complex range of perspectives on the situation would not have the same validity in the mind of the reader if they were expressed by only one character or narrative voice. The feeling of physical inadequacy that the injured soldiers have is best translated via a woman while psychology requires the viewpoint of a psychiatrist. So while it is true that several characters speak as individuals, they are doing so as vehicles for a wide-ranging perspective created by a single author.
Rivers has the largest influence on the narrative and, by giving a character that is psychiatrically trained this influence, Barker both demands the reader’s own Freudian interpretation of events and further illuminates the psychology of those interacting with Rivers. The protagonist, by his presence, makes the situations in Regeneration psychologically themed but does not do the same to the narrative itself because he is not the narrator.

Light from the window behind River’s desk fell directly on to Sassoon’s face. Pale skin, purple shadows under the eyes. Apart from that no obvious signs of nervous disorder. No twitches, jerks, blinks, no repeated ducking to avoid a long-exploded shell.

Here, Rivers is indirectly providing the narration for the scene by being the chosen vehicle for the free indirect narration. This viewpoint consists also of Rivers’ clinical thoughts that results in a description of Sassoon in the form of medical notations that change the linguistic style of the narrative to suit his character.

Sassoon had started pulling at a loose thread on the breast of his tunic. Rivers watched him for a while. ‘You must’ve been in agony when you did that?’

This shows the indirect influence of Rivers’ perspective on the story that is told to the reader. Here, Rivers, with his psychologically trained mind, directs the focus of the narrative to the Freudian signal that Sassoon is giving about his lost medal and then Rivers himself comments on the scene. As well as directing the focus of Barker’s free indirect narration, Rivers has a more explicit influence on the narrative. The character’s conventional voice comes from dialogue that Rivers speaks and thoughts that are directly attributed to him. Rivers’ personal opinion of Sassoon is given in the pair’s first meeting where the doctor is said to interpret his patient’s posture as ‘shyness rather than arrogance.’ This is directly stated as being the character’s thoughts as opposed to it being an implication made through the free indirect narration. The contrasting technique is employed during a similar meeting between Sassoon and Wilfred Owen.

Everything about Sassoon intimidated him…the way he had of not looking at you when he spoke – shyness perhaps but it seemed like arrogance.

The reader becomes more involved with the narrative when this indirect style is used, as the connection between the character’s thoughts and the absolute authority of an omniscient narrator becomes more blurred.
While the author’s thoughts are never obviously on display, they do exist within the novel. Barker’s decision to focus on issues like the use of progressive therapy, an accepting attitude to homosexuality and a positive focus on the working class reflects her own thoughts as much as any of her characters. The characters that are of the opposite persuasion are given no time and are often as ‘comically symbolic’ as Sassoon’s ‘General’. That is not to say that the character of Rivers, for example, is created with Pat Barker’s own views in mind. Rivers’ lack of awareness of Prior’s class difference is evident when he admits that ‘hearing Prior’s voice for the first time had the curious effect of making Prior look different.’ Rivers eventually begins to call Sassoon by his first name, but Billy Prior always remains ‘Mr Prior’ which exposes Rivers apparent unease when trying to associate with a different class. Rivers’ individual voice is important enough for him to become distinguished from the author’s own views.

The silence deepened like a fall of snow, accumulating second by second, flake by flake, each flake by itself inconsiderable, until everything is transformed.

It is unclear who is responsible, in narrative terms, for this poetic image. The idea of a slow process of change is something Rivers notes about his patient’s conditions, particularly Anderson’s, and his own mental state after working for so long as an army psychiatrist. The poetic style here may well be one of the few occasions where the author intervenes directly in the narrative to offer a more expansive and meaningful view of the situation than Rivers. This highlights Barker’s role as the author of Regeneration as more of a translator than a storyteller.
Barker never gives a detailed description of the Craiglockhart war hospital. Graves can only utter an overwhelmed ‘my God’ upon seeing the building and intended tone is given more clarity when Sassoon wakes ‘to the sound of screams and running footsteps.’ This distinctly horrific setting, because of the lack of a physical description of the building, has the effect of adding an element of gothic psychodrama to the novel rather than giving and specific details on the place in which the plot takes place. The setting is, therefore, another voice through which to translate the fear being felt by the neurasthenic patients. Jackie Wullschlager feels that Regeneration is weakened by being ‘caged in a distinct time and place’ and having the inevitable lack of authenticity that plagues most period fiction. Barker’s imagination does have self-imposed boundaries that are required to maintain a realistic authorial voice. This creates a conflict between imagination and realism that is not present for Sassoon, whose experiences allow him to speak with self-evident authenticity at all times.
Psychology is the dominant theme in Regeneration and Sassoon does not ignore it in his poetry. ‘Repression of War Experience’ discusses the idea that ‘soldiers don’t’ go mad/Unless they lose control of ugly thoughts’ and shows Sassoon unable to do just that. The sight of a moth ‘[scorching its] wings with glory’ reminds him of the futility of war and shows how deep inside of his thoughts the war is buried. This idea of repression in psychology tells the reader about the setting in which both Regeneration and Sassoon’s poems take place.

The whistle blew. Immediately, he saw lines of men with grey muttering faces clambering up the ladders to face the guns. He blinked them away.

The link between this episode from Regeneration and poems like ‘Counter Attack’ is that similar events are being experienced at different times. Both Sassoon and Barker set their works during the Great War and that means Sassoon writes directly from the trenches more often than Barker, who writes about a place much removed from the fighting in physical terms, but not in the minds of the soldiers. It could be suggested that Sassoon’s poetry itself shares the basic principles of flashbacks and recalling memory. If it is assumed that Sassoon did experience the events in some of his poems then the process of writing about them is very much akin to the process of dreaming or hallucinating, in that a past event is being brought into the present. Rivers says that patients who write poetry recover more quickly for the very reason that they are experiencing and expressing their fear. From this perspective, Sassoon’s poetry does not seem different from Prior being hypnotised so that he can deal with his fear. The poetry’s potential significance to its author, therefore, marks a difference between it and the novel, which is deliberately removed from its author’s own experience.
There seems to be a similarity in literary intention in Siegfried Sassoon’s poetry and Pat Barker’s Regeneration. Printed at the beginning of Regeneration is Sassoon’s ‘Declaration’ in which he complains about the public not having ‘sufficient imagination to realize’ the reality of life in the trenches and both his poetry and Barker’s novel are attempts to give their audiences just that. Instead of a more definitely factual history involving events in the conflict, both authors deliver an account of the conflict from a personal and emotional perspective, which is just as relevant to the war as more legitimate history.
Sassoon’s real experiences of the war manifest themselves in poems of intense realism. The vivid details of battle that appear in ‘Counter Attack’, when coupled with the knowledge of Sassoon’s life, create confusion between fiction and reality to an extent that does not happen in Regeneration. That is not to say that Barker does not manage believable situations, but it is the possibility for the reader to view Sassoon’s work as a historical account of trench life that gives his poetry an added realism. There are definite similarities, however, between Barker’s technique and those used by Sassoon in ‘The Hero’; it was not based on any specific case but rather a general truth. In this way, Sassoon’s knowledge of the war allows him to create a realistic fiction in exactly the same way Barker does with her novel. This is shown further by an almost uncharacteristically ordered rhyme scheme that seems to distance Sassoon’s own emotions from the situation. In fact, it is highly likely that Barker retrieves the detail of Sassoon’s fictionalisation from his poems and constructing a novel with these is no different from Sassoon writing a poem based on stories that others have told him.
The idea of imaginative voice holding the therapeutic key to war trauma is also presented in the subject matter of both the poetry and the novel. In Regeneration, the imagination of the soldiers is both a torment and a healing influence as they are persuaded to relive their experiences by Rivers. The most obvious example is Prior’s hypnosis, during which his imagination gives past events a voice in the present and helps him accept what has happened. In ‘Attack’, there is the suggestion that the final line, ‘O Jesus make it stop!’, makes the previous images of war more likely to be a dream or hallucination that Sassoon does not want to be having. It is also possible that Sassoon is setting himself in the battle and is pleading for an end from there. The poem was written while Sassoon was at Craiglockhart but apparently based on notes he had made while witnessing a battle, which leaves the placement of the narrator entirely ambiguous.
The versification of Sassoon’s experiences is a highly significant aspect of the narrative that he uses. Poetry tends to be more abstract than prose and this encourages, often forces, the reader to places their own interpretation onto the images. The rhythm in ‘A Working Party’, for example, adds to the realism as it allows the reader to experience the poem on a level beyond the actual words. The mix of regular rhythm, when the soldier is walking, and broken rhythm, when he stumbles, creates a reading experience that itself is more associated with the events of the poem. The lack of rhyme and, at times, obvious metrical structure shows this as less of a poem, more of an account written in prose such as a diary entry. However, the inclusion of an instance of dialogue begins to associate the poem with more typical types of prose that include characters and those types of interchange between them. There are no characters of name in ‘A Working Party’ but rather a symbolic figure that all readers can relate to. There is no need for specific names, as Sassoon is attempting to create a single situation in the reader’s imagination, rather than a complex and extended narrative that requires the viewpoint of this soldier that requires more than just his presence.
Perhaps wanting to distinguish himself from the more patriotically traditional poems of the time, Sassoon often breaks from established forms. ‘Does it Matter’, for example, uses a rhyme structure that is similar to that of a limerick but is inverted with a sharp final rhyme that gives the poem a cynical tone. ‘Repression of War Experience’ shows Sassoon struggling with the unpatriotic side of the war and he expresses this with his jumbled and his deliberately unsatisfying structure. His dismissive, ironic and even child-like voice conveys to the reader the impossibility of speaking normally amid the pressure of trauma. This is represented in the voices of Regeneration through the patients’ stammers and mutism.
Other poems have a different emphasis because of the way the poet’s ideas are versified. The actual events in ‘Stand-to: Good Friday Morning’ seem more like a diary entry than ‘A Working Party’, a first-person narrative that recalls a past event from a personal perspective, but its more traditional rhyme scheme adds a tone of fiction and makes it seem more like art than history. The two styles are combined in ‘The Death Bed’. The rhythm is slowed by the frequent ends of sentences and sped up where the solider feels a burst of pain by an episode of enjambment. As well as being narrative art, these techniques also have the effect of portraying a very realistic account of a death by including the soldier’s broken memories and fading senses.
Sassoon’s own voice within his poems is much more obvious that Barker’s presence in Regeneration. ‘To the Warmongers’ presents Sassoon’s personal enthusiasm for hating those responsible for the continuation of the war. Short, quick lines with strong rhymes give the poem a vitality and energy that the subject matter, thoughts of the ‘tormented slain’, would not usually warrant. It is likely that it is Sassoon’s enthusiasm for attacking the ‘warmongers’ that forces the pace of the poem. Perhaps more direct is ‘The General’, in which Sassoon creates a dramatic scene with a highly effective final, solitary line, ‘But he did for them both with his plan of attack’, that exposes the incompetence of the war tactics.
Much of Sassoon’s personal perspective is hidden, although not well hidden, in irony. The most striking example is ‘Does it Matter?’ in which Sassoon tells the reader that this is ‘such splendid work for the blind’ and so war injuries are almost meaningless. Clearly, if the narrator is interpreted as being Sassoon himself, the propositions of the poem are bitterly sarcastic. However, it is also possible to view the poem as Sassoon evoking a character, almost certainly an ignorant civilian, to better translate his message. In either case the poet does intend the reader to interpret the poem as irony. ‘The Hero’ is more ambiguous in its intent, but still uses the same technique. It is not clear whether the title is supposed to be ironic or not and the reality is probably that it is both simultaneously. The boy is not a real hero to those who know how he died but he is a ‘brave and glorious boy’ to his Mother, who has been lied to. It is unlikely that Sassoon’s title is sardonically mocking the situation as the even and regular rhythm only suggests a calm acceptance.
Sassoon also hides his personal perspective behind symbolic characters, which are often intended to be viewed ironically. Sassoon assumes the voice of an ignorant civilian that can only refer to the mass of wounded and dead as ‘They’ in the poem of the same name. Even when presented with the specific horrors, the Bishop continues his denial. This is similar to the fashion in which Barker evokes the voice of a psychiatrist to better discuss psychology.
There is irony in Barker’s presentation of the ‘duty’ debate in Regeneration, where it is a doctor’s job to cure soldiers so that they are well enough to go to France and die. This sort of situational irony in represented by Sassoon most obviously in ‘Decorated’ where the irony of people’s attitudes to war and murder are exposed as complete double standards. There is no directly spoken irony in the text, but the dramatic effect achieved by leading the reader to understand the incongruity between the situation and the differing attitudes to it is certainly a poetic example of dramatic irony.
Both Pat Barker and Siegfried Sassoon base their work at similar times and on similar themes but the similarity of the setting is not the only literary aspect that the two have in common. Both authors seek to represent the story of the Great War in a more personal and emotional way than typical history. Both evoke their imaginative voice during their work, but it is the basis of real experience that Sassoon has which separates his narrative voice from Barker’s. Sassoon has the opportunity to speak directly to the audience about the subject matter while Barker has a fictionalised voice with realistic characters. Sassoon does use elements of fiction in his work. Irony plays a significant role in Sassoon’s voice and he often distances himself from the situations in a manner that mimics Barker’s free indirect style. The strongest link is the theme of war trauma. It affects the characters present in both the novel and the poetry and there are parallels between Sassoon’s personalised poetic reaction and Regeneration’s psychological perspective on this aspect of The Great War.

Word count: 3290

Bibliography
War Poems Siegfried Sassoon ed. Rupert Hart Davies Faber and Faber London
Regeneration Pat Barker Penguin London 1993

2006-04-03T08:08:00.000-07:00

Y13: See my note at the end- applies to all of you!

Sarah May - my overall essay, so far at about 1,300 words. I have done the alterations to the first 500 so now hopefully its better. How is the rest?

Pat Barker’s Regeneration is a war novel set in 1917 at Craiglockhart hospital, where those who were directly involved in the war and suffered from neurasthenia were sent for pioneering psychological therapy and treatment. W.H.R Rivers, an army psychiatrist, and Siegfried Sassoon, a soldier sent to Craiglockhart for political as much as for medical reasons, are the main characters. Sassoon was sent to Craiglockhart by the government because his ‘Soldier’s Declaration’ was a considerable embarrassment for them, and it was politically more useful to discredit him as writing it while suffering from neurasthenia rather than allow him the publicity that a court-martial would give him.

Regeneration was written in the 1990s, giving Barker an historical perspective on the events she portrays and this allows her to reflect on the times and the attitudes of her characters with some detachment, allowing her to present the reader with a variety of different viewpoints on the war and its consequences. Barker’s main purpose for writing her novel was to give a fresh approach to writing about the war as she takes her readers through the psychological and social consequences of the trenches, rather than describing the action on the battlefields themselves. The novel presents us with three dimensional, developed characters, fictional and fictionalised, and shows the effects of the war on a variety of people with a variety of civilian and military experiences.
The historical Siegfried Sassoon was an educated, aristocratic trench officer in the war, compared to Barker who is a working class, female novelist with no war experience. Sassoon’s poetry makes a very strong point of protest and as he had first hand experience of the war, it is easier to do this. Much of his poetry was actually written whilst in trenches or in hospitals; in fact, some of his poems were written during his stay at Craiglockhart in 1917, the setting for Barker’s novel. Sassoon had a number of purposes for his work: he used it as a method to voice his protest, to create sympathy for the soldiers and, perhaps unintentionally, because it was therapeutic; as Rivers notes in Regeneration of the fictionalised Sassoon and his relatively speedy recovery, ‘writing the poems had obviously been therapeutic’ (page 26). His poetry is short, dense, direct, powerful and makes his point very clearly.
In Regeneration, the governing narrative technique is varieties of free indirect style. Free indirect style is a technique of third person narration, which allows the narrator to drop into the character’s consciousness unannounced, for example in lines like, ‘the net curtain behind River’s head billowed out in a glimmering arc’ (page 11). This tells us we are in Sassoon’s head because, as he is a poet, no other character would think with that amount of imagery and descriptive vocabulary.

Fair enough, but try to find another example- Kyle uses the same one and goes into more detail about it. Any bit of f.i.s that shows the personality of the character would do just as well.

By using the third person narrative perspective, but populating it with a variety of her characters’ own voices by using free indirect style, Barker achieves a great deal. Firstly, she reflects a number of her characters’ personalities and opinions; secondly, she allows the reader to the experience events of the narrative from a character’s perspective and finally it allows her to have more than one main character and gives the reader an intimate knowledge of a number of characters. The critic Mikhail Bakhtin, writing on Dostoevsky, states that, ‘language is constitutively intersubjective (therefore social) and logically precedes subjectivity’, this shows that free indirect style is a narrative trick as the dialogue is actually between the author and the reader. We are being told the story, by the author, rather than being shown it by the characters, as it appears to be.

As Regeneration is a psychological and sociological novel, it looks at the consequences of the war on society and on the people in it. Barker examines and analyses the psychological effects of the war by using free indirect style and constantly dropping into a character’s consciousness. By this we can see how the war has affected them.

‘he woke to a dugout smell of wet sandbags and stale farts’ (page 101). This is when prior has been hypnotised to help him recall what incident struck him dumb, Barker drops into his head so the reader can see what he is recalling too.

You need to work on this, Sarah- you make a big claim about how free indirect style shows us how the characters were affected psychologically by the war and then your only ‘proof’ or analysis of technique in support of this is 12 words from the novel with no comment. You need to analyse in far greater detail- this is what examiners look for- candidates who go ‘Here’s a big claim about the text, and here’s a quote, there you go,’ are obviously just working from class-notes without much understanding. It should be ‘here’s a big claim about the text, and here’s how I came to work it out by analyzing these quotations in detail and using my own ideas and analytical ability).’

Timothy Marshall states that ‘the technical resources of narrative in prose (the varieties of indirect discourse in particular) do have an inherent capacity to represent languages other than the author’s’. This comment is more relevant to Barker’s work over Sassoon’s because Barker at least presents herself as a neutral narrator. Although we don’t get Barker’s voice directly in the novel it is easy to see she isn’t completely invisible, by the way she presents her characters. For example, Barker believes that neurasthenia was an actual effect of the war, so her characters that also believe this are given more time and credibility in the novel. Prior’s view on this subject is the same as Barker’s, whereas Langdon’s aren’t. We can tell by the representation of these characters that Barker favours Prior. Some characters are given more speech than others and Barker tries to create sympathy for others, from the readers, ‘it was the closest Prior could come to asking for physical contact’ (page 104). This is after Prior’s hypnotism when he is upset and he ‘seized Rivers by the arms and began butting him in the chest, hard enough to hurt’ (page 104). This appears to be Prior’s way of wanting comfort because during the war it was unaccepted for men to express their emotions. Prior seems to be the character who Barker creates the most sympathy for, this could be because they are both from a working class background.
As Barker uses free indirect style the readers can tell whose viewpoint we are sharing by the way they think and what they think, even if these thoughts themselves aren’t introduced as such. ‘Pipes lined the wall, twisting with the turning of the stair, gurgling from time to time like lengths of human intestine’ (page 17), we know this is Rivers’ perspective because he is a doctor so he is likely to think that objects are body parts. Rivers’ and Sassoon’s vocabulary and the way they talk show their educated discourse, unlike Prior, Sarah and Ada, where what they say and how they say it shows their working class background. ‘Noting that the grove between radius and ulna was even deeper than it had been a week ago’ (page 18), this shows Rivers’ education and also tells the reader we are in Rivers’ head, as no other character would think this way. In contrast, the line, ‘Sarah began to feel green and hairy’ (page 159), shows Sarah’s working class environment through Barker’s voice and language as she compares herself to a gooseberry, which is typical of her colloquial discourse.
Barker also uses silence as a psychologically-revealing voice, particularly with Prior. Rivers believed that the ‘talking cure’ as Sigmund Freud called it, was the only way to express repressed memories of battlefield expereince, when the patient had, ‘usually been devoting considerable energy to the task of forgetting whatever traumatic events had precipitated his neurosis’ (page 26). However, it was socially unacceptable for a man to express their emotions, ‘they’d been trained to identify emotional repression as the essence of manliness’ (page 48), because if they did they would be labelled ‘sissies, weaklings, failures’ (page 48). This left the men bottling up their emotions and feelings and, in the case of Prior, struck dumb. When Prior is hypnotised he, Rivers and the readers finally learn what traumatic event had caused his muteness, ‘a numbness had spread all over the lower half of his face’ (page 103). We also know that it took a while for it to be cured, because he never discussed his emotions.

This warms up as it goes on and is very good towards the end- what it lacks at first as genuine analysis- don’t assert or claim or make any kind of judgement unless you can show how you used analysis to come to that judgement, otherwise the examiner will assume (probably rightly) that you are copying from class-notes with little or no understanding.

2006-04-03T07:24:00.000-07:00

Y13:

Ed’s next 500. This carries on from where I left it last. I haven’t posted the first 500 on here because I am yet to make the alterations you suggested, however I hope to do this during the weekend. Anyways here is the next 'installment'.

Perhaps we can look at the idea of the multiplicity of voices in Regeneration on three different levels: the varieties of narrative voices themselves, of characters as an index to their social position and the voice of the characters as revealing of them psychologically.

There are multiple narrative voices within the novel as it is important for Barker to let her characters speak for themselves, rather than to mediate them to the reader through a more personal or less neutral third person narrative. However, Barker’s own voice is not completely absent from the text: the character of Prior has many similarities to Barker in the fact that they are both from a working class background, and as an invented character in the novel Barker is clearly not trying to make her voice absent from the text. Also, barker tends to give the characters who she is more in sympathy with space in the narrative, while characters like Langdon, who considers neurasthenic patients as “…cowards, shirkers, scrimshankers and degenerates..’ (as Rivers says he does in the first chapter) are not allowed to present their own viewpoints at all as they are not given passages of free indirect style.

Ed- contrast this with Sassoon in the poetry, who gives us the ‘voices’ of officers in poems like ‘The General’ but does not explain their viewpois to us so we tend to judge them harshly as we do not ‘knkow’ them like we ‘know’ many of his soldier-voices, and his own voice.

Barker has chosen the technique of free indirect style as it allows her to present her characters in many different ways. She wants the reader to understand both the social and psychological consequences of the war and free indirect style allows her to do this. This technique is used especially with the character of Rivers: for example, it is clearly Rivers’ perspective that notes in Sassoon’s speech a stammer, but “….not the recent, self conscious stammer of a neurasthenic”. Without free indirect style it would become difficult for Barker to show Rivers’ real feelings.

Ed- you need more here- look at Rivers again or another character- Lumb, Sassoon, Prior- and show how the style of their voice differentiates them as characters- sentence length, vocabulary, slang use, colloquialism. This leads on to how the different voices individuate the characters in terms of psychology and social background.

However, it is not just personal feelings that Barker can illustrate using free indirect style. Rivers’ subconscious life is also shown, or at least it is when his conscious mind becomes aware of it: “Rivers became aware that he was gripping the edge of the parapet and consciously relaxed his hands.” Here, it is made clear to the reader that Rivers may be suffering from war neurosis, as he himself has been traumatised by all the horrific stories he has heard. Rivers also has a stammer but we are told that he has had that since he was young, however another example that Rivers is suffering from mild symptoms of war neurosis is when his stammer gets progressively worse during a conversation with Prior. As Rivers is affected by Prior’s graphically detailed story, he becomes aware of his own stammer getting worse. In both episodes, Barker uses River’s psychological awareness to present ideas about his own developing psychological trauma to the reader: a very subtle way of getting difficult ideas across to the reader that would otherwise be awkward to express without disrupting the flow of the narrative.

Barker uses phonetic misspelling and dialect words to draw her characters through the way they talk, for example Rivers’ medical speak and Prior’s strong Manchester accent, which Rivers shows a certain snobbery to.

(have a look on page 49)

Barker also uses many examples of silence to indicate traumatised patients. This is evident in the character of Prior who is suffering from mutism. Prior writes down everything on paper in block capitals which when read give the impression that he is shouting. There are also many occasions in which there are either ‘pauses’ or ‘silences’.

Ed- good so far. You need to make some mention of the poems though- although you should have the bulk of your discussion in the second part of your essay, you don need to start to make some relationships with Sassoon’s narrative style in the poetry, and also this lacks close analysis and quotation- that needs to be in there if you are going to get the marks for AO3.