Friday, February 18, 2011
The Poetry and the Novel
What connections can you see between the poetry of World War I--written during or shortly after the war--and the novel, published in 1993. How does the description of the battles, or wounded, or trench life, or nature, in the poetry compare to the descriptions of those things in the novel? Does one seem more authentic than the other? Does the style of poetry itself change how you respond to the images and themes?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I noticed several references to different poets such as Thomas Hardy in the novel. Specifically, Faluks mentions that Gray actually has books on his shelf by Thomas Hardy on page 158 of the novel. The book actually does a more detail job of describing the battles, the wounded, trench life and nature. Faulks takes his time and gives such vivid details that I felt as though I was there actually witnessing these things. I was going across the field with Stephen as he made it to the barbed-wire fence, and I felt as though I wanted to help him dig Jack out with my own hands. I got this feeling more when I read the novel than I did when I read the poetry. For me, the poetry we read for WWI has a distinct style that does manage to get the messages of the poets across. However, I think that the poetry required me to study so hard to understand the meaning of a lot of the words that I was not able to get as engrossed in it as I did the novel.
Well there is the birds that are throughout many poems and everywhere in the novel. Also Stephen's attitude about the war is seen through many poems as well. The fact that nobody would understand what those men went through and the fact that when they went back to society they would literally have to pretend like the war had never happened because nobody would want to talk about it or want to even acknowledge it. I think both are very authentic. Obviously the poets are quite authentic since they experienced it first hand. But I think Faulks does a wonderful job with the authenticity. You feel like you are actually there and he resonates the poets feelings. For me not really, at least not until they were explained in class. Then once I reread it did.
The novel is very detailed about the war, the emotions the soldiers present, and what they are going through. As for the poems, they were very discreet and hard to understand even though the poems point of vieew were clear. Both the poems and the novel had lots of reference to birds meaning "nature". Both the poems and the novel are authentic because they are told first hand by people that experienced these events.
There is a big connection between the poetry and the book. Both of the sources shows us that the life in the trenches were terrible, and that the war was a bad thing for the soldiers. I think that the poetry is more reliable source when it comes to life at war experiences. Still i think that the author of this novel made very good connections when it comes to trench life,bombings etc. ,and the author clearly describes experiences of the other soldiers other than Stephen.
The descriptions in the poetry and Faulks’ own contributions to his novel had a deep connection in all aspects of the war. Whether the reader decides to compare the soldiers, trench life, death, battles, etc. within the poetries and the novel, it feels very real from both ends. Since most of the poets have gone through the whole war experience such as Graves and Sassoon, they absolutely know what is like to be a part of that grim and horrible time. The experience shows in their poems especially when they talk about death. Birdsong addresses the different parts of war-life and the idea of what goes on in the novel will seem very authentic to the reader. Even some of the more explicit, gruesome, and appalling parts of the novel that are exaggerated by Faulks will seem real and true.
The description in novel is more descriptive with the wounds and trench life. For example Faulk mentions the how the wound soldiers whom are not expected to live are left to die with little to no medical treatment. The poems give a more vague feeling of what is happening during the war. I think the novel seems more authentic, I guess it is because as a reader you feel closer to the characters and relate to their pain and suffering than you can with the descriptions the poets give. The theme the poems and of the novel remains the same war.
Poets who wrote about the war shared a lot of their feelings in their work towards the brutality taking place. It is looking through a soldier’s eyes and how that writer perceives the war. The book was very literal and made the images of the fighting very vivid. The poetry didn’t really goes as in depth. I feel the poetry is more authentic because it is poetry from the actual people who lived in that time, and participated in the war in some form or fashion. The book is not actuality, but just a love story during the war. The poetry style is very different from the book and it makes me realize that there are a lot of different emotions that befall a person under those circumstances than just what the book gives. Sure the book talks about hatred and fear. But the poetry talks about certain aspects that they will never get over. You can see the poetry about the things that haunt a soldier.
I'd say that the similarities between the poetry and book was the gruesome description in both, how realistic both were in describing these men being blown to bits all over the battle field. I have to say that the poems would be more authentic because they were actually during the war, and the book was written in 1993. But, Birdsong seemed rather realistic itself. The style of poetry does change how I respond to images and themes because those poems are written in an old english dialect, that is hard to make heads or tails of anything, let alone their subliminal hidden meaning behind the whole thing.
WWI poetry, to me, gives a more authentic experience, but only because I know that the poets actually experienced the war. Had I not known Faulks's background, the novel may have seemed more realistic to me. Also, Faulks's story carries overdramatic scenes, where the reader goes "yeah right." The poetry, although more like music than a statement, can be envisioned as being told right on the battlefields.
The poetry of WWI relate to the poem in various ways. For one, they both talk about the trenches; however, the novel goes into specifics on what all disasters can happen and the specifics of wounds it can cause, where as the poems vaguely demonstrate this. Some poems relate to Stephen from the novel as well. For example, S.I.W which is of a soldier killing himself instead of just wounding himself because being wounded is just a "dishonour". There is one point in the novel where Stephen himself is tired and doesn't want to be a part of the war so he mentions for death to come upon him so he will no longer suffer. Yet, the novel seems to be more relative in that it is easier to connect or feel what certain characters may be emotionally feeling and seeing.
-Lisbeth
The poems that we had read and the novel seem to be very simular in the descirptive aspects. I seemed to really be able to connect and take in the feelings of Stephen in the novel and the same with the other soldiers that were mentioned in the poetry. Reading the poems first really helped me understand what the enviroment was like during the time period.
Comment to Elise:
I agree with you that reading the poems before reading the novel was a good source of background. I do think the novel was more graphic and detailed than the poems. The novel would go into detail about how the soldiers would die the wounds and diseases they faced. I felt the poems just gave brief background of what the war was really like. I felt more connect to Stephen in the novel than I did with the soldiers that were mentioned in the poems.
Comment to Lis
I agree with what you said about being able to relate to the characters in the book and what they are feeling and what they are going through. I really struggled with trying to identify a lot of things in the poems, but I didn't have that problem with the book. It really is a good thing that we were reading the poems before we read the book because it does bring it all together.
comment to Maegan Stewart
I agree that Faulks did a tremendous job of detailing the action that took place during the war. Every detail and the analogies made me see what was happening at the time. I remember in the story, the men were watching a battle from a distance and they saw men crossing No Man’s Land. Faulks talked about the ripples of men going down. I thought to myself and could see how a ripple extended, a waved out. I can then picture what was happening in the book. The poets though are really more authentic because they were there, but like you said people didn’t want to talk about the war and we can see that in the poems and the book.
I agree with Elise that having read the poetry was very helpful to get a sense of the novel. It did help develop the environment we see in both the poetry and the novel. I think that some of the poems and the novel were very descriptive about wounds, diseases, and deaths of the soldiers. However, it seems that the novel did in fact feel more emotional where the reader was able to connect to at least one of the characters and the poetry seemed more of a fast descriptive background of what was going on in the war; although, some poems were very emotional as well.
-Lisbeth
I agree with Jeremy,
If I didn't know that that poems were during the war and that the novel was written in 1993, I wouldn't be able to distinguish which would be more authentic. When you write a war history novel so long after the war, you have to find first hand sources and I'm betting Faulks did use this particular poetry and I'm betting that if he could find some WWI veterans still alive, he interviewed them as well.
To DeMetra: I didn't realize until you pointed it out that Faulks makes that reference. That is so interesting and kind of like him telling you to read Hardy also. I definitely agree about the descriptions in the book and how you felt like you were actually there. I experienced this also, it was so difficult to put the book down when we got to Jack and Stephen being stuck underground. I understand what you mean about the poetry because half the poems I was just entirely unsure of where they were going and what things meant. But after we went over them in class and Dr. Battles explained them I reread the poems and they make so much more sense. I also became a lot more invested in the poems the second time around because even though there is no vivid descriptions like Faulks there is so much feeling in everyone and you understand how upset these soldiers were.
To Elise
Yes i agree with you, reading the poems before the novel really helped to understand more about the the war. The poems that we read in class were kind of an intro to the book, it gave you a main idea of how the trenches, and warfare were during the WWI
Post a Comment