War. An atrocity present through the ages. A terrorizing force of destruction and devastation. A man’s fear when he signs his name to the draft. We face wars today, just as our ancestors faced the wars of their day. Some agree with the politics or beliefs behind the wars; some adamantly condemn the seemingly selfish and unnecessary combat. Just as we disagree about war today, people disagreed about the wars of the past, and, like they did with gender roles and marriage, writers turned to their work to share their opinions on war. This blog focuses on World War One (WWI), but writers expressed support or disagreement with virtually all the wars they faced.
Isaac Rosenberg, a poet who used scraps of paper in the trenches fighting the Germans, shares his opinions on WWI in his famous poem “Break of Day in the Trenches” (Greenblatt, 2019, p. 155). Throughout the poem, Rosenberg talks about a rat with “cosmopolitan sympathies” moving from one trench to the other—as if it were supporting both sides (Greenblatt, 2018, p.156). He points out that the soldiers the rat runs past are “less chanced than [it] for life,” as the bullets rain down around them (Greenblatt, 2018, p. 156). This line clearly shows the danger of being a soldier—a rat having more of a chance to live than you, even as it scurries from trench to trench through a battlefield being bombarded by shooting bullets. Rosenberg then questions the rat, asking, “What do you see in our eyes at the shrieking iron and flame hurled through still heavens? What quaver—what heart aghast?” (Greenblatt, 2018, p. 156). To humans, war seems, perhaps, necessary, to get what we want or to help those suffering at the hands of our enemies. We aim and shoot at other humans as punishment for doing something we view as wrong or for simply standing in our way of our desires. But to rats, what does war seem? Rosenberg asking the rat what it sees as it is surrounded by gunfire and fighting is a very powerful way to convey his own ideas about war—that it causes unnecessary deaths and atrocities. To a rat, war is just humans killing each other for no reason known by the rat. Rosenberg’s question to the rat poses the question for us—why fight a war? Could we accomplish the goals of war without putting soldiers through the trauma and danger of war? Is war even necessary? As a soldier in the trenches, Rosenberg has a moving personal experience of the horrors of war, which he uses to write profound poetry before dying in battle in 1918 (Greenblatt, 2018, p. 155). Wilfred Owen shares similar views of the war in his poem “Strange Meeting” after being sent to a hospital for being shell shocked from his time in action (Greenblatt, 2018, p. 161). Through “Strange Meeting,” Owen makes readers question the use of war as he tells the story of a soldier killing an enemy that is not portrayed as vile and repulsive in the poem as propaganda of the time would proclaim. “Strange Meeting” shows that war is more than the big picture of two countries fighting each other; it is also the smaller picture of individual, innocent soldiers facing death and imposing death for months. Owen shows “the pity of war” as he depicts a man forced to kill another innocent man simply for his country and allegiance (Greenblatt, 2018, p. 166). This poem poses the same question as Rosenberg’s—if war slaughters innocent people for the gain of a country, what is the point? Again, could we accomplish the goals of our wars without fighting? Is war worth the casualties, on both sides, or the injuries and trauma? After reflecting on works from men directly involved in the risk of death, the trauma, and the horrendous sights of war, I urge you to think about their questions and their tragic stories. Should we continue using war to get what we want or to fight for those being harmed? Or should we agree with Rosenberg and Owen? Should we agree that war is senseless and pitiful? Should we agree that war is unnecessary and we could reach our goals without gunfire? Work Cited Greenblatt et. al., (Eds). (2018). The Norton Anthology of English Literature The Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
1 Comment
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde left me with several theories after I turned the last page. First, I thought maybe Dr. Jekyll was affected by some kind of mental disorder that gave him multiple personalities. This would explain Mr. Hyde sometimes taking over his body and doing what he wanted, regardless of what Jekyll wanted. I have researched mental disorders a lot, and there is a disorder where people have other personalities that take over during certain situations as a defense mechanism. While under the other personalities’ control, the person cannot control their own actions and may or may not be able to see and hear what is happening. So, I thought maybe Dr. Jekyll had one of these disorders.
However, tying to the idea of doubles and monsters, I think Robert Louis Stevenson may have been trying to show that we all have good and bad sides through Jekyll and Hyde’s story—we all have doubles. Jekyll represents the “good” side of people—working toward the “furtherance of knowledge [and] the relief of sorrow and suffering”—while Hyde represents the “bad” side of people—pure evil, working for the fulfillment of his own desires without caring about others (Greenblatt, 2019, p. 799). Dr. Jekyll says himself in his letter to Mr. Utterson that when he first looked at his reflection as Mr. Hyde, he “was conscious of no repugnance, rather a leap of welcome. This, too, was [him]self. It seemed natural and human” (Greenblatt, 2019, p. 801). Jekyll acknowledges that this form of himself, deformed and evil, was natural and human. If Jekyll sees the naturality and humanity in this part of himself, we all have this part too, whether we acknowledge it or not. He also goes on to state that “all human beings…are commingled out of good and evil,” which again reiterates this idea (Greenblatt, 2019, p. 801). We all have selfish desires that we push away because of morals; we just may not ever fulfill them like Hyde did for Jekyll. So, keeping with this idea, one can argue that Stevenson was trying to show us that selfish desires and even arguably “bad” thoughts are part of human nature and we all have them. We all have a Jekyll and Hyde, though we may not switch between forms. Hyde also gives us an idea of what society viewed as monstrous during the Victorian age. Hyde is “pure evil”—committing murder and giving all people he came into contact with a feeling of uneasiness (Greenblatt, 2019, p. 801). Jekyll describes Hyde as the embodiment of his selfishness and desires. So, in looking at Mr. Hyde, we can deduce that Victorian society identified selfishness and self-indulgence as monstrous, since Hyde’s only goal was to do what he wanted, when he wanted. We can also see that societal norms were to push away “bad” desires because of morals and focus on helping others. We know this from Jekyll choosing to stay Jekyll and try to not be Hyde, consequently focusing on relieving suffering and avoiding self-indulgence. Society really seemed to focus on working for others and not for the self since fulfilling self-desires was villainized. Clearly, as he speaks often about relieving suffering, Jekyll was the embodiment of “good,” non-monstrous society members while, in contrast, Hyde, committing a murder out of anger, represented the “bad,” monstrous members of society trying to only please themselves. I think this work can force us to truly look into ourselves as we try to identify our own Jekylls and Hydes and push us to think about which of our doubles we want to be. I think we must admit that we have selfish, perhaps unhealthy desires so that we can grow and succeed, even if we are uncomfortable, and Stevenson can push us to this through The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Work Cited Greenblatt et. al., (Eds). (2019). The Norton Anthology of English Literature. New York, NY: Norton & Company. Marriage was a very important part of Victorian society—much like the role of women. Again, like gender roles, writers turned to their pens to express their views and explore the topic of marriage. From William Morris’s The Defence of Guenevere, we know marriage was valued by society. The poem explains the trial of Queen Guenevere for committing adultery with her husband’s chief knight Launcelot. Clearly, if Guenevere had to undergo a trial, adultery was a serious offence in the Victorian era. While Guenevere holds to her innocence throughout the poem, she often explains her loveless marriage to her husband Arthur. She talks about the clock ticking “to her unhappy pulse, that beat right through [her] eager body” as she began to be less careful about hiding her affair (Greenblatt, 2019, p. 562). The “unhappy pulse” refers to her feelings in her marriage to Arthur, while her “eager body” refers to her feelings about Launcelot during their affair. Her loveless, unhappy marriage is contrasted with her exciting, new, and happy affair. So, if her marriage was so awful, why didn’t Guenevere simply file for a divorce and start a public relationship with Launcelot? Look at the trial for her adultery. Her affair caused massive uproar, enough to put her on trial. Therefore, the response to divorce during this time was likely similar, perhaps even more than for adultery. Tying back to gender roles, a woman asking for a divorce would have been extremely unacceptable, even aside from the divorce itself. Women were expected to be morally right and submissive to men, so asking for a divorce would have gone directly against their social role and the norms of the time. This left Guenevere and women like her trapped in fruitless marriages, burdened by unhappiness and longing for love and happiness.
Supporting this idea of unhappy marriages trapping couples during this time is George Meredith’s Modern Love. In Sonnet One, he paints the picture of a failing, miserable marriage, punctuated by “strange low sobs that shook their common bed,” “dead black years,” and “wishing for the sword that severs all” (Meredith, 1862). The sobs show the despair of the couple. The “dead black years” show both the length of their marriage and their feelings during the union. The “wishing for the sword” shows their huge desire for the marriage to end, even wishing for death as an alternative to being trapped in the marriage. These again tie to the view of divorce during the Victorian age. If divorce were accepted, the marriage would have ended much before the couple had stayed together long enough to look back on “dead black years” and unhappy couples would have ended their marriage before wishing for death because they could not. Sonnet Seventeen also illustrates a couple stuck in their dismal marriage, as Meredith explains the two of them “hiding the skeleton” of their true feelings during a dinner party (Meredith, 1862). Couples had to act happy, even if their marriage was failing, as they longed for true love and happy marriages. Again, the social norms of the time prohibited divorce, forcing many couples to become actors playing happy spouses to avoid creating waves in their community. It must have been horribly difficult and defeating to have to put on a happy face for every encounter with others, only to strip away the mask and reveal sadness and despair behind closed doors. Like the roles of men and women in Victorian society, we can pull information about Victorian marriages and social norms from the works of authors lamenting about loveless unions, fear of the social reaction of getting a divorce, and the stifling trap of unhappy marriages for each spouse. Works Cited Greenblatt et. al., (Eds). (2019). The Norton Anthology of English Literature. New York, NY: Norton & Company. Meredith, G. (1862). Modern Love. Retrieved from ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/meredith/george/modern-love. Several Victorian age writers explored the concept of women—what role in society they play, their obligations, and their nature. A common idea from this period is that women are not valued for being intelligent, inventive, or individual. Rather, they are valued for being morally good. Men believed women should be complimented on beauty and kindness over passion, creativity, or skill. Sarah Stickney Ellis explained, and supported, this idea in The Women of England: Their Social Duties and Domestic Habits. In this book, Ellis says that women keep men in check morally, trying to keep men from falling to temptation. She goes on to explain that a woman’s role in society is to “[protect] the minor morals of life” (Greenblatt, 2019, p. 657). She explains that a woman’s role is not to be innovative or intelligent, but to have “disinterested kindness” (Greenblatt, 2019, p. 658). Ellis mentions heroines of romance and reality to support this claim, saying that these women were not those that could solve problems or come up with new philosophies but those that were morally great. Her entire book taught women of the time how to behave in socially acceptable ways and what their duty was—to be morally great.
Coventry Patmore’s The Angel in the House also supported the view that women were not valued for creative thought and skill. The poem explores marriage within the time period and was written about his first wife, Emily Augusta Andrews, and their own marriage. Throughout the poem, Patmore states that women “wish to be desired”—tying back to the idea that beauty was valued more than skill (Greenblatt, 2019, p. 660). The whole poem gushes over the beauty and good nature of Patmore’s wife. He mentions that “she’s simply, subtly sweet,” gentle, has a “fair heart,” and is meek—all attributes admired during the Victorian age (Greenblatt, 2019, p. 660). Again, Patmore never mentions that his wife was talented, smart, or decisive—only that she was good natured and pretty. Florence Nightingale challenged this view of women and their societal role in Cassandra, aligning with her own life going against social norms by remaining unmarried and forming a group of nurses to care for wounded and ill soldiers. In Cassandra, Nightingale argues that women are more than just kind and pretty—like having “the imagination, the poetry of a Murillo” that goes ignored—and calls for the recognition of other qualities (Greenblatt, 2019, p. 673). She also states that women lead boring, unfulfilled lives. In addition, she mentions that women cannot hold jobs of intellectual importance; they are only allowed to be homemakers, wives, and mothers. Nightingale says that having to be only homemakers prevents women from pursuing their passions and talents as there is not enough time to fulfill all homemaking requirements and focus on a passion. This is such an accepted and familiar norm that Nightingale states that women view the thought of holding other jobs as “selfish amusement” they should give up (Greenblatt, 2019, p. 674). She also touches on the fact that during this time women were raised to be complacent and obedient to men rather than to be individual, free, and intelligent. She states that because of this belief, allowing women to take roles outside of being homemakers would cause men to feel slighted, as if women did not have enough time to do the same quality of housework and cooking—allowing this social role to remain. Gender roles has always been a topic that writers explore—from Victorian writers explaining how to behave as a woman, to feminist writers taking arms against oppressive norms to civil rights writers fighting for essential rights. Reading these works can give a glimpse into the lives, communities, and societies of different time periods and allow exploration and discovery of differing views and experiences during the times of these pieces. Work Cited Greenblatt et. al., (Eds). (2019). The Norton Anthology of English Literature. New York, NY: Norton & Company. |