Writing world war 1 summative assessment PDF

Preview

Summary

How texts from the module attempt to remember World War One ...

Description

Student ID: 1802257

7. Discuss how at least two texts from the module attempt to remember world war one.

When remembering world war one we are often confronted with imagery of the trenches, gas, shells and iconography such as poppies that tribute to our remembrance and appreciation for the soldier who fought for our freedom. In this essay, I will argue that we can be enlightened on the realities of war through new perspectives (opposed to the typical account of the British soldier) and how these accounts offer a new and unbiased point of view. Harry Mount argues that ‘we have two contrary views of the first world war- one of triumph and pride, the other tragedy and sorrow. But we must be aware that the truth is never that simple.’ (Mount, 2013, [online]) In this essay, I will attempt to explore the forgotten accounts of the war and how this may add to a better understanding of the ‘tragedy’ that occurred within and removed from nomans-land. Mary Borden’s The Forbidden Zone (1929) and Erich Remarque’s All Quiet On The Western Front (1929) are written in perspectives of those often dismissed in remembrance and yet they are key when reminiscing the realities of The Great War. I will also explore the use of propaganda and how this contributed to a tainted, idealised version of war that did not confront the actuality and severity of the period.

Erich Remarque was a German novelist and author of All Quiet On The Western Front (1929), his most notable work. The novel inspired a new genre of literature with soldiers writing their personal experience of war. All Quiet On The Western Front was published in 1929 and was considered unpatriotic and was therefore banned by Nazi Germany in 1933 before the outbreak of the second world war. The novel in question follows a German soldiers experience through the Great War as he encounters the realities of trench warfare in contrast to what he was promised in German propaganda.

1

Remarque’s use of first-person narrative allows the readers to feel submerged in the text, as though we are there with him. This is an effective approach on the author's behalf as it allows readers to feel more sympathy for the protagonist, especially for readers worldwide at the time who are likely to struggle with any empathy for a character who is fighting alongside the enemy. This approach allows readers to consider what life was like for soldiers fighting on the other side of no-mans-land and sparks conversation on how we might remember the war in relation to the enemy.

Even in modern-day we are still confronted with imagery of the enemy being inhuman. We do not typically seem to consider the enemy as individuals but rather a destructive front that must be stopped. Paul Fussell expands on this argument with his theories on the ‘versus’ habit and ‘gross dichotomy’ which he describes through imagining that ‘we are all here of this side: “the enemy” is over there. “We” are individuals with names and personal identities; “he” is a mere collective entity […] we are normal: he is grotesque’ (Fussell, 1975, p.75) and therefore the enemy must be destroyed. Fussell emphasizes the use of pronouns purposefully here to highlight the divide between us and them. The enemy is presented as nothing other than an ‘entity’ of evil whilst ‘we’ are real people with names and lives fighting for good. Remarque challenges Fussell's theories in his novel when the protagonist notices the trappings of the enemy on a French soldier and instinctively shoots him dead. Although the protagonist acts on impulse he is quick to consider the severity of his actions and confronts Fussell’s ideas by stating that ‘earlier you were just an idea to me […] it is only now I can see you are a human being like me.’ (p.152) Although Remarque proves Fussell’s argument to be true in this case, he also challenges the theory through the character’s realisation that the enemy is no different to him and questions ‘why do they never tell us that you are poor devils like us […] forgive me, comrade: How could you be my enemy?’ (p. 153) As in Fussell’s statement, you can recognise the pronouns used in Remarque’s novel. ‘You’ and ‘us’ is used here and immediately portrays imagery of two opposing forces

2

and how the protagonist sees the enemy as an ‘entity’, however, these pronouns are soon replaced with ‘Comrade.’ Remarque replaces the opposing pronouns with a title that places nobility on the enemy and presents a level of respect from his killer. This immediately breaks down the divide between the opposing forces and for the first time we see the character recognise the enemy as a ‘human being just like me’ and this removes the veil of evil ‘they’ placed upon the enemy through the use of propaganda. After the murder of the French soldier, Paul struggles to come to terms with his actions and suffers greatly, even going mad at points as he talks to the corpse out of guilt. This confirms once more that the humanity in war is often forgotten, these were normal men taking lives out of instinct and left to pick up the pieces of what they had become. Moreover, I believe it was a conscious decision by Remarque to depict a French soldier as the enemy here from a German soldiers perspective, it makes readers question if the protagonist was really an enemy but just a man like the rest of them, fighting for his country and therefore the author’s narrative calls to question our remembrance of the soldiers we considered enemies and their realities and tragedies of war.

Moreover, propaganda played a pivotal role in the representation of war and became infamous for it’s misleading and inspiring imagery. A particular piece of propaganda that stood out to me reads: ‘Enlist today. He’s happy and satisfied. Are you?’ (O.R, 1915, [Art]) And features a drawing of a soldier smiling in his uniform. This imagery and content mislead soldiers into enlisting because it is noble, if you enlist you will be ‘happy and satisfied’ just like the man in the picture. What the propaganda fails to do is show the realities of war and what it means to enlist in the army and risk your life for your country. Propaganda was one of the main causes of the myth that surrounded The Great War and Fussell points out that ‘every war constitutes an irony of situation because its means are so melodramatically disproportionate to its presumed ends [but the] Great War was more ironic than any before or since.’ (Fussell, 1975, p. 32) What Fussell means here is that enlisting was considered, noble, chivalrous and patriotic and

3

soon after the myth shifted to the realities of conflict and trench warfare. The myth that had inspired so many men to enlist for their country was soon shattered and the traditional ideas of heroism were replaced with broken men, many of whom died or suffered life-changing injuries sustained through warfare. Paul Bäumer soon comes to terms with the myth he was subjected to, he ‘had joined up with enthusiasm and goodwill, but they did everything to knock that out’ (p. 38) of him. For Paul the myth surrounding the war is very quickly ‘knocked out’ of him as the honour of war is replaced with inhuman conditions and tragedy instead of ‘happy and satisfied’ soldiers. Remarque goes on to describe ‘trench warfare with its collective isolation, its “defensiveness” and its nervous obsession with what the other side is up to.’ (p. 76) What Remarque depicts here is a realistic vision of the conflict. The ‘isolation’ of sitting in trenches waiting to fight an invisible force. The long days and nights in cold, gruesome conditions and going sometimes days without seeing the enemy. This again backs up the concept of fighting an ‘entity’ (Fussell, 1975, p75) as it was rare to actually see what you were fighting for and therefore the irony of the war is that it was, in fact, demoralising, suffering for something you cannot always see.

In the preface of All Quiet On The Western Front (1929), Remarque states his intentions for his novel in that ‘it will try simply to tell of a generation of men who, even though they may have escaped the shells, were destroyed by war.’ (Remarque, 1929, p. preface) It is evident here that Remarque aimed to challenge the representation of war and highlights the mental side effects that warfare had on people. Whatever position you took in the war, everyone suffered great losses and the illusion that once was had been replaced with the reality and no one escaped untouched from the actuality of The Great War. Remarque’s ‘“important, preferred, and appropriate” story of the world war one soldier’ (Bailey, 2019, p. 7) became iconic in its remembrance of the reality of war and was ‘appropriate’ in its true depiction.

4

Remarque stated in his novel that ‘a hospital alone shows what war is’ (Remarque, 1929, p. 191) and we see this perspective in Mary Borden’s The Forbidden Zone (1929). Borden’s biography is a modernist text written in the form of her chain of consciousness, deliberately implicating the disorientation of war itself. In the preface she addresses her readers and critics:

‘To those who find these impressions confused, I would say that they are fragments of great confusion. Any attempt to reduce them to order would require artifice of my part and would falsify them. To those who find them unbearably plain, I would say that I have blurred the bare horror of facts and softened the reality in spite of myself, not because I wished to do so, but because I was incapable of a nearer approach to the truth.’ (Borden, 1929, p. Preface)

Here Borden explains she has no claim to order because war itself is such a confusing and fragmented time. It simply cannot be put into a structured narrative because it would not make sense. I think Borden’s statement here is a reflection of her mindset at the time, she herself cannot make sense of anything and yet anything else would not be a true portrayal of her experiences and mindset throughout her writing. I find that this alone makes Borden’s account much more realistic than many other war memoirs; her narrative does not follow one protagonist’s story as Remarque attempts, but rather a collection of memorable and traumatic events that capture the horror of the war in all of its glory. Moreover, the preface in itself speaks volumes as to the effect of war, and Borden’s quiet admission of post-traumatic stress. She explains that she has ‘blurred the bare horror of facts’ due to being incapable of getting any closer to the front lines. Freedman explains that ‘she cannot claim the eyewitness status of the soldier, nor does she remove herself from the field of action. Her experimental and fragmented vision of the war dramatises the limitations inherent in the noncombatant’s representation of trauma.’ (Freedman, 2002, p.110) Freedman recognises here that de-

5

spite Borden’s inability to experience first-hand trauma as a soldier, she does get as close as one could get to doing so. What Freedman fails to mention, is the similarities Borden shares with the soldiers during the aftermath. Although the soldiers experience war on the front lines much closer, Borden has a better account of the things that followed, the broken men and the conditions of care they received. For all the men still fighting in no-mans-land, Borden accounts for those left behind.

Furthermore, one particular fragment of Borden’s account that stands out to me is noted in ‘Moonlight.’ Despite Borden’s earlier statement that she could not get any closer to the truth we see her get ever closer to the front lines as she goes scouting for injured soldiers at nightfall. Her impression is particularly shocking as she describes in great detail what she finds:

There are no men here, so why should I be a woman? There are heads and knees and mangled testicles. There are chests with holes as big as your fist, and pulpy thighs, shapeless; and stumps where legs once were fastened. There are eyes— eyes of sick dogs, sick cats, blind eyes, eyes of delirium; and mouths that cannot articulate; and parts of faces— the nose gone, or the jaw. There are these things, but no men […] certainly they were men once. But now they are no longer men. (Borden, 1929, p. 1:5)

Borden’s depiction of war here is extremely shocking and thought-provoking, her long drawn-out sentences can be considered as her state of mind at the time as well as typical form of modernist writing. When reading aloud you can hear the panic and confusion in her tone as she begins to list the devastating injuries inflicted upon these men, taking little but no time to pause and reflect. Borden makes sure to include every gruesome injury she encounters and as a result, you begin to realise that nothing is safe. When you step into no-mans-land you are risking every limb, every feature, and everything that makes you. Borden’s graphic detailing of ‘mangled testicles’ is strik-

6

ing, not even a soldier’s manhood is safe. As previously discussed, the war was perceived as chivalrous and heroic, the epitome of masculinity, but as Fussell stated, the ‘Great War was more ironic than any before or since’ (Fussell, 1975, p. 32) and we can see this through Borden’s account. The war was not as the myth had people believe, but it stripped every man of who they were, of what made them men. It is true at this point that Borden’s experiences of the reality of war would be enough to hinder any man enlisting. She depicts these fallen men as weak and unrecognisable, however heroic they may have been had been forgotten and all that is left is a ‘shapeless’ shell of a human. Moreover, Borden’s fast-paced and erratic form begins to halter as she turns to focus on the one thing she knows for certain: ‘They are no longer men.’ (p.1:5) This short sentence is one that stays with you and echoes in your mind. I am unsure even now if Borden was consciously attempting to prove her point here, that the war had stripped away humanity and the inhuman evil it encouraged, or simply if Borden removed herself from any emotion war evoked in an attempt to save herself. It is fair to say that Borden’s tone, although panicked, is very matter of fact here. She lists the trauma and yet gives no indication of her own feelings, the only indication we get is through her tone and sentence structure. I find this passage to be a perfect memoir to the reality of war, not just in the content of Borden’s experience, but in her evident confusion and detached state of mind. I also find that Borden unknowingly alters our perception of women during the war here. She herself is heroic in her attempts to save the men who were perceived as such. Borden, in this extract, is the last man standing, God-like almost and battles on when these men cannot. Borden unconsciously acknowledges her strength and questions why ‘there are no men here, so why should I be a woman?’ And her question alone reflects on the forgotten women of the war, and her writing acknowledges their bravery among the confusion.

The overruling problem 'according to Margaret Higonnet, is defined by the authenticity of the gaze: “authentic speech, it has often been repeated, could only come from the

7

trenches in the disabused words of a man who had ‘seen’ combat.” The question she asks therefore “Can authentic words be found by a woman?”’ (Acton, 2004, p. 55) And in Borden’s case, I would argue yes. Borden’s preface immediately confronts any hesitation one might have of her fragmented account of the war and discloses any doubts about her writing being so removed from no-man’s-land. It is clear that history favours a soldier's first-hand account of war and yet Borden’s writing is so much closer to reality. Although Borden cannot truly imagine life on the front lines, it is not fair to say her writing is not ‘authentic’. Her portrayal of war is authentic to her own experiences and trauma alongside her fragmented narrative that embodies the tone of war in all of its disappointment and delusion. The question, therefore, would rest on Remarque’s novel All Quiet On The Western Front (1929) and its remembrance of the war. Although Remarque’s novel imagines the experience of the enemy and the protagonist's inner struggle with the violence the war encouraged, it can only account for one character’s experience as opposed to Borden’s experience that highlights the mass destruction of war. Whilst Remarque concentrates closely on one soldier’s state of mind, Borden paints a picture of thousands. It is difficult to say which is more authentic, and yet both works of literature expose readers to the reality of war, much more closely than any I have encountered before. Both texts identify the tragedy of war like no other with the loss of body and mind explored in such detail whilst both authors share similarities in their unique position in the war, with their accounts spanning from the other side of no-mans-land to being removed from it entirely. I find both perceptions of war to be equally daunting as they open doors to new considerations of the war through forgotten or dismissed accounts that can better our understanding of the reality of The Great War.

8

Bibliography:

Acton, C., 2004. Diverting the gaze: The unseen text is women’s war writing. College Literature. 31(2) p. 55 Bailey, J. H., 2019. Remembering World War 1: An Unauthorised Authorised Account Of ‘All Quiet On The Western Front’. Media History, p. 7. Borden, M., 1929. The Forbidden Zone. S.l: William Heinemann ltd [online]. Freedman. A., 2002. Mary Borden’s ‘Forbidden zone’: Women’s writing from no-man’sland. Modernism/modernity. 9 (1). p. 110. Fussell, P., 1975. The Great War And Modern Memory. 2013 ed. s.l: Oxford University Press. p. 32- 75 Mount, H., 2013. How should we remember the first world war?. The Telegraph, 09 06. O.R, 1915, He’s happy and satisfied- are you?. [art] (Imperial war museum). Remarque, E. M., 1929. All Quiet On The Western Front. 1996 ed. s.l: Vintage Random House

9

10...