“Aftermath”

The speaker of the poem is a retired officer from the war.  He is recalling all the horrific days that he endured in his time during the war.  He talks about how he has flash backs of the war as he crossed city-ways and how these flashes haunt his mind.  He asks says to another retired soldier that war is a bloody game and that you will never forget because of the slain of the war.  The speaker talks about the horrible conditions of the trenches and how the dead that surrounded him, wondering if a war like this would ever happen again.  He goes on to talk about the attack and how the fear that struck him and the doom he saw for his soldiers.  Death was surrounding him as he looked around during the attack.

There is a constant occurrence of the word “you.”  I believe that the speaker of the poem is talking to another soldier, asking him if the memories of war are still with him as well.  When the speaker of the poem said, “as you peered at the doomed and haggared faces of your men?” saying that he is seeing the faces of dead men before they even die.  The speaker also tells the soldier he is talking to “Look down, and swear by the slain of the war that you’ll never forget.”  This to me seemed like the speaker and the person he is talking to went back to being there in the war, looking around at the dead bodies at their feet.  The speaker making sure that the person he is talking to will never forget those images.

“Counter-Attack”

The speaker of the poem is a soldier who is on the front lines of the war.  He first describes the after effects of the battles by describing his surroundings.  He talks about completing the first objective, while also describing the amount of loss that they experienced.  The soldier talks about the digging of the trenches to better prepare for an upcoming fight.  All of a sudden, the fight starts.  When the fight breaks out he is observing a fellow soldier next to him, stuck with fear, unmoving.  An officer, races over to the soldier commanding him to move to take his position. The soldier then describes seeing the soldier die, writhing with pain, without anything to help the soldier, watching him bleed out.  The soldier described the dead by saying “sprawled and groveled along the saps; and trunks face downward in the sucking mud, wallowed like trodden sand-bags, loosely filled; and naked, sodden buttocks, mats of hair bulged, clotted heads, slept in plastering slime.”  This is very descriptive because he isn’t talking about resting soldiers, he is literally describing the soldiers motionless rest as death.  This excerpt from the text really sticks out to me because of the words the author used to describe the dead.  “Green clumsy legs,” stood out to me because clumsy describes the dead and how their bodies are contorted in the mud. “Mats of hair bulged, clotted heads,” describes the destruction of the new weapons that were introduced in World War 1.

“Attack”

This poem is seen through an outsider, someone who is not in the war.  This person is observing the war and its brutality.  This poem is describing the suspense of battle as soldiers wait for their enemies to emerge.  They see the tanks coming at them and go out to meet the tanks head on.  “Lines of gray, muttering faces, masked with fear,” stands out to me as an image that sticks out to me.  Seeing fear and sensing fear is easy to see, everyone shows fear in their lives.  In a situation such as war, seeing fear in the soldier’s faces is very easy to see.  This is something that stuck out to me, because I couldn’t imagine being in that situation.  I guess I am saying that I can feel the fear of the soldiers that the poem is explaining.

“Rear-Guard”

This poem is coming from a shadowing soldier following another soldier, explaining the route the soldier took to find headquarters.  The soldier is on a voyage through the trenches to find the headquarters.  On his trek, the poem describes the items that the man comes across as he goes deep under the battle in search of his destination.  He came across critically injured men, as well as deceased soldiers.  Describing “a sleeper’s arm” and “fists of fingers clutched a blackening wound” as to what the man saw on his trip to headquarters.  What stuck out to me was the death that was apparent in the room he walked into.  “Terribly glaring up, whose eyes yet wore agony dying hard ten days before,” talking about the apparent pain that the dead soldier went through before he finally passed.  I could see the gruesomeness of the death that the poem shows the wording an imagery.

The finished poem by Owen is filled with imagery.  Before reading the poem, I thought that maybe I should do some research into the poem to get some back ground knowledge.  I then remembered that we are covering World War 1 and that I should try to figure out what the poet is explaining on my own.  As I went through the poem, I quickly came to the realization about how the poem was about gas bombs.  As I kept reading, I felt like I was there witnessing the soldier crumble in agony.  I felt that I could see “the blood come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,” and feel his pain as there was nothing anyone could do but watch.  The poem shows the realization of the horrers that the soldiers encountered and how they became immune to gun shots and even mortar strikes (five-nines) that fell behind them.

I could not read the first rough draft by owen, so I moved on to the second.  I first noticed the changes Owen made to the second paragraph.  In this draft, he used “fup…fop…fup” as imagery to show the shells falling close to the soldiers.  He took this out of his final and replaced the opening to the second paragraph with the ending of the second paragraph in his draft.  I think this was a smart change because it gives a sense of urgency to the reader of the situation at hand.  I gave pace to how I was reading the poem because with the announment of “Gas! Gas! Quick boys!” made me feel like I needed to keep the pace of the men in the poem.

The third draft, owen uses imagery again to show the hurt soldiers agony and how you reader could see it through the other soldiers eyes.  Owen showed the horror of the injured soldier in the third draft by using imagery such as “someone still was yelling out and stumbling, and floundering like a man in fire or lime.”  This was very powerful, but the change he made to his final draft better capture the feeling of the reader being there themselves.  Owen said, “he plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.”  When reading this, I felt that I was there watching the situation occur.  Although the draft captured the imagery, the changes Owen made made me feel as I was there.  I believe that the changes he made to the final draft further enhanced the imagery of the third draft.

Austin Coulling

ERH 205WX

Col Miller

16 March 2018

The Man Who Would Be King

Word Count: 1,323

Help Received:

Signature:

Peachey and Danny are characters that are considered to be outliers in today’s society.  They are con artists that are attempting to rule their own country.  In the story, they set out to a country by the name of Kafiristan.  According to Fussel, Kipling created the characters in a way to poke fun at the ideas of Imperialistic actions that Danny and Peachey use to take the crown in Kafiristan.  I agree with Fussell’s view of Kipling’s use of an ironic tone towards Imperialism in the creation of Peachey and Danny’s characters.  There is evidence throughout the text that support the arguments that Fussell is conveying, such as the irony to the ending of the story.  After reading Fussell’s article, I believe that the ironic tone of the story makes sense due to the ending Kipling created by using the irony to poke fun at the Imperialistic aims Peachey and Dan used throughout the story.

The first example from the story that shows the use of Kipling’s ironic tone towards Imperialism is the contract that Peachey and Danny signed.  The contract has three parts: “1) that me and you will settle this matter together, 2) That you and me will not, while this matter is being settled, look at any Liquor, nor any Woman black, white, or brown, so as to get mixed up with one or the other harmful, 3) That we conduct ourselves with Dignity and Discretion, and if one of us gets into trouble the other will stay by him (9).”  After reading the story and watching the movie, we see that the last rule in the contract is ironic to the character change of Peachey and Danny throughout the story.  We are introduced to the characters as having a rough past being ex-military and being con artists.  Other than these facts you don’t see the flaws in their characters.  After the completion of the story you can see how they developed into more materialistic characters out to get what they believe they deserve.  Kipling carefully chose his words to show the ironic sense towards Imperialism in the third contract agreement. Peachey and Danny agreed to hold themselves with dignity and to be discrete, which was not upheld.  This example would have altered the story in another direction if in fact Peachey and Danny abided by these rules.  Peachey and Danny were ironically loyal at the end of the contract because neither one of them could leave.  If it weren’t for the realization of the people of Kafiristan, Peachey and Danny would have gone their separate ways, breaking their contract.

The contract also has ironic flaws as the story continues.  Peachey and Danny run into an argument about Daniel’s decision to marry.  We have seen these two characters already agree to the contract that they would not get involved with women.  Peachey tries to convince Dan and says, “It’ll only bring us harm.  The Bible says that Kings ain’t to waste their strength on women, specifically when they’ve got a raw new Kingdom to work over (20).” The irony of this situation is that Peachey is using the Bible to his defense in his argument with Danny.  The whole story is based on the fact that these two characters are playing off their strong sense of religion, which we know they aren’t religious men.  Danny believes says, “the contract only lasted till such time as we was Kings; and kings we have been these months past (19).  This statement by Dan is also ironic because he is saying that the contract is nullified at this time because they have completed their quest for kingship.  They created the contract to avoid problems such as women, but this doesn’t matter because Danny is using the wording of the contract in his favor.  Danny is also allowing the Imperialist actions got in the way of his judgement, for he thinks he can do whatever he wants because he has the crown.

As you previously saw Peachey make a biblical reference, Fussell believes the story of “The Man Who Would Be King” is ironic based on the biblical references.  He believes that the ending of the story where the men are punished is based off biblical parody through the narrative of Peachey, is a parody of the bible.  Fussell believes that the way Danny sacrificed his life for his servant, Peachey, and the way that Peachey was crucified are both ironic acts of heroic deaths from the Hebriac and Christian bible.  The story portrays both Peachey and Danny as heroes of the story meeting their death in a horrible fashion.  I am in agreement with Fussel with how Kipling decided to end the story.  He used the sympathetic feelings of the two characters towards one another at the end of the story to show how ironic the deaths of the characters actually were.

Kipling uses the explanation from Peachey’s point of view to show the ironic tone of the story.  Peachey explains how Danny goes out onto the bridge like a king would, with his head held high, almost a confidence that he did the right thing.  The death itself was explained by Fussel as a biblical reference that I have said previously.  Peachey says that, “they prodded him like an ox.”  It seems to me that Peachey is also not understanding the situation or understanding the fact that the two were wrong.  He then explains how Danny died when the village people cut the rope to the bridge and how Danny seemed to fall for miles, which seemed like thirty minutes.  The quotation is evidence that supports the ironic tone of Imperialism and biblical references that Kipling is trying to show in his story.  The deaths could have been short and sweet, but Kipling draws them out and uses similar deaths from biblical references to bring that irony to the table.  Kipling uses Peachey’s words to also show the irony because Peachey explains how he was crucified and saying that, “poor old Peachey hadn’t done them any harm (24).”  In fact, Peachey is wrong is his self-assessment of his wrong doings to the people of Kafiristan.  Peachey was going along with Danny and creating a fear that would lead to the mistreatment of the people and also create bloodshed.  It is ironic that Peachey can say that he took no part in what was happening when he was in commander of Danny’s army and led them through battles.

Imperialism is the fight for power and the desire to spread your rule to govern a place that you claim as yours, which is how Peachey and Danny claimed their rule over Kafiristan.  Another ironic example in this story is the way that the actions of Peachey and Danny that had a direct influence on their downfall.  At the end of the story Danny is telling Peachey that it is Peachey’s fault for way the army turned on them at the end of the story.  I think that this is ironic because when Peachey and Danny showed the destruction of their Imperialistic tactics when entering Kafiristan, their destruction between the two and their downfall is from those Imperialistic faults, which is recognized by Peachey when he blames himself for the destruction of the army.

Fussell is correct in his assessment of this story.  I do agree that the film’s ending does make sense for the fact that Kipling uses the irony throughout the story in explaining Imperialistic views and how that irony transitioned later in the death of Danny, and near-death experience of Peachey.  The irony of the whole story is how those Imperialistic views of Peachey and Danny caused the downfall of the two characters.  Kipling ends to story through Peachey’s voice to show the ironic tone of the story.  Peachey tells the story to give Danny a better image, knowing Danny is not as innocent when he told the story to Kipling.

What do you think are the strengths of your essay?

I believe that the strengths of my essay are my arguments and points I made to defend my thesis.  They were solid evidence to support my claims and also gives good insight into why I thought so.  The reader of my essay can easily see that the arguments go along with my thesis and be able to know my thesis without even reading it.

If you were going to write another draft, what changes would you make?

I would find more textual evidence.  My paper was about Branagh and the way he portrayed war and Henry in the film, so the text wasn’t necessary.

What are some cultural beliefs, practices, or concerns that you observed as you studied Henry V?

Reading this book, you pick up on different things about this time period.  Religion was a huge focus point at this time period.  In the book, you can see prayer used and to signify the importance of religion.  The way people went about serving their kings was also interesting to me.  Also, war in this time period were fought because of the common belief in being the best country.  In Henry V, we gained access into knowing Henry’s father obtained the crown in a fashion Henry wasn’t proud of.  In class, we talked of how his father took the thrown and the people accepted him as the new king.  This is interesting because in this day and age there is no accepting.  People in today’s world wouldn’t let that happen or accept the leader because of their position of power.

Which of the above do you find most interesting? Why?

I think that the acceptance of the king is the most interesting.  In Henry V, we gained access into knowing Henry’s father obtained the crown in a fashion Henry wasn’t proud of.  In class, we talked of how his father took the thrown and the people accepted him as the new king.  This is interesting because in this day and age there is no accepting.  People in today’s world wouldn’t let that happen or accept the leader because of their position of power.

Look back at your reflection on the Canterbury Tales.  List below any beliefs, practices, or concerns that seem similar.  Note with an asterisk any you find particularly interesting.

*Religion is the biggest and best practice that I can think of that has practice in both of these.

1. Explain what points by the author you read were particularly interesting to you and why.

I thought it was interesting about what Helmbold discussed about Branagh’s expression of Henry.  He focused on showing both sides of Henry.  He wanted the audience to pick a side on what kind of character Henry was.  But, he did want the audience to pick Henry as a hero, with the way he created his film.

2. Explain what scenes in either Branagh’s or Olivier’s adaptation you find particularly interesting and why.

The first scene where Henry was introduced.  Henry is portrayed as a dark character, almost mysterious.  Then Branagh changed that thought when you see Henry sitting on the chair.  Also, the scene where he is taking over the city n the war and Henry yall out horrific threats that the audience doesn’t know to be fake at that moment.  Then the scene shows how weak Henry and his troops are.  Then he tells his men to show mercy.

Austin Coulling

ERH 205WX

Col. Miller

10 February 2018

Talking Shakespeare

Help Received:

Signature:

In Anita Helmbold’s article, she talks about how Henry is recognized and interpreted in different ways in two different films.  Her article mainly focuses on the perception of the Branagh film.  She said that in his film he focused on portraying Henry and developing his character more than Oliver’s version.  In the version that Oliver created, Henry’s characteristics and humanity where not captured but mainly focused on the act of war in the film (Helmbold 281).  The main focus that Helmbold embodies is that Henry is a two-sided character.  She describes the film done by Branagh as a duck- rabbit.  Meaning that there are two sides of Henry’s character being seen simultaneously and that people’s views shift back and forth from one perspective to the other.  She says it is the interpretation of Henry that makes him one of the most complex protagonist (Helmbold 280).

Helmbold brings up a couple of scenes from Branagh’s film to show the dual character type that brings up so much controversy.  In the opening scene of the movie, it is a dark and quite mysterious entrance that Henry makes.  It is a long, dragged out entrance that focuses on Henry’s shadow as he is entering the chamber.  Helmbold discusses how the film makers created the entrance to show the dark and villainous character that Henry is.  Just after the introduction of Henry coming into the scene, the movie portrays Henry as a light-hearted frolic at the expense of the churchmen (Helmbold 282).  Hemlbold says that this scene is designed to make Henry’s character ambiguous, the question of who is manipulating who.  In Branagh’s film, Henry’s questioning of the clerics with utter sincerity and with genuine emotional weight gen the thought of war (Helmbold 282).

Throughout the film, Branagh has Henry go back and forth between a compassionate and loving character and a brutal, violent king.  He makes the audience decide which kind of character Henry is.  There is a scene in the movie where Henry is at war, and he is trying to take over the town.  He has a monologue where he threatens the governor of the town the horrific acts that the Englishmen will do to the people of the French town if the town doesn’t surrender.  This scene makes the audience taker sides on what Henry’s character truly is.  Branagh shows that Henry is in sheer desperation.  Henry nor his men are in any condition to follow through with the vicious threat that Henry gave out (Helmbold 283).  This assessment is backed up with the collapse of Henry and how the English troops have a hard time getting up to the gate of the town (Helmbold 283).  This scene gives the audience two sides of Henry that can influence the overall view to Henry’s character.  Branagh believed it was up to the audience to determine which side of Henry’s character you supported or believed he was (Helmbold 283).

Branagh’s interpretation of Henry V, wants the audience to see both sides of Henry as I stated before.  But, the way he does his film, he gives Henry the benefit of the doubt.  He wants the audience to like Henry, even though the terrible things he does.  In Henry soliloquy, he believed that Henry felt guilty for his action expressed the anguish of his fear, which he tried to portray to the audience of his movie (Helmbold 285).  Many people see Branagh’s film as a king who learns who he is by trial though combat (Helmbold 285).  To myself and many of the viewers of Branagh’s film, many people want to see Henry as a heroic character (Helmbold 287).

Wed., Feb. 7       Reflective Exercise

1. Read a classmate’s summary of the article that you wrote about, and write below any points that you found particularly noteworthy and/or any questions that you have about the article.

Murphy talks about the Chorus and how they influence the crowd.  He says the chorus provides inputs and reactions.  He says they set the tone of the play.

2. Read a classmate’s summary of the article that you did not read, and write below any points that you found particularly noteworthy and/or any questions that you have about the article.

Joseph was talking about how there are two ways to look at King Henry V.  The two views where he was representing the ideal Christian king fighting for a just cause, and advancing in his own interests.  And then compares Henry to a hero or antihero.  Joe also says that Henry V is an extension character from Henry IV and says that Henry V is just another manipulative ruler.

3. Having reviewed these two articles, and having read the play, what do you think the play suggests about early modern English views of this famous king?

I think there are two ways to look at Henry.  I think you can look at him as a bad ruler who makes unjustified decisions or you can dive deeper and make exceptions to those decisions and paint a nicer picture of Henry.  You could point out the emotion in the play and how he relates to the viewers and how Shakespeare broke down his character to make him seem more relatable.

4. What are some of the scenes in the play that you think provide the most interesting insights into views of kings during this time—and why?

There are a couple scenes that come to mind that bring insight to kings during this time.  When King Henry V shows mercy and does not kill the men, who went behind his back and schemed with France. The battle scene where he executes the prisoners at a moment’s notice.  The parts where Henry was acting as a commoner and soldier by the campfire to hide his identity to talk to the men.  These are interesting to me because they each show different ways a king would act at this time.  There are different ways Henry acts in this play that covers many ways kings have ruled.

Post in the Reflections category of your ePortfolio.

Austin Coulling

ERH 205WX

Col. Miller

06 January 2018

King Henry V Summary

Help Received:

Signature:

Reading Shakespeare has always been a struggle for me growing up.  I always found myself getting frustrated trying to comprehend the old English and understanding the text.  Teachers would discuss the meaning Shakespeare would bring to characters and word choices and I would be perplexed.  To this day I still think to myself, maybe Shakespeare just wrote plays and scholars look too far into it and give him too much credit.  It wasn’t until this assignment and reading Lawrence Danson’s article about King Henry V that I realized I was extremely wrong in my assessment of Shakespeare.  The article breaks down key points in Henry V and portrays his character and how he was portrayed in the play.  The king is portrayed as a regular human being, despite being king, and is shown as so in this article.

Reading Henry V, I didn’t pick up on some of the details of Shakespeare.  Danson focused on the king and how he related to the people that would watch this play.  In the article, Danson talks about the Kings decision to go to war with France and the conflict between the church.  Henry had a decision to make between turmoil with the church, or invade France and have the church back the crown (Danson 37).  The way the king acts in the play is what brings the feeling of a normal human being to the crowd watching.  They can sense the discomfort in making the decision, they can see the anguish and respond and understand what the king is feeling (Danson 37).  Henry had to choose the decision to invade France because the influence of the church was so crucial at this period in time.  It may not have been the best decision for the crown, and Henry wanted to be liked.  At the end of the day, it came down to the influence of the church.

Later in the play, Henry is shown in isolation.  Danson says that this shows Henry’s mortal frailty and is in the effort to unburden himself from the duties that he has as king (Danson 41).  This is showing to audience who is watching the play of how the king is dealing with the situation.  He isn’t boasting around, being arrogant or greedy.  Henry is nervous, isolating himself from his soldiers to think for himself and to get himself in check.  Henry is viewed as vulnerable and given the perception of none royalty (Danson 41).  In war, you expect a fearless leader to always be around the men and giving advice and commands to carry out.  Henry is being portrayed in just the opposite fashion.  He has been given the reactions of a normal man, one with fear.  Henry goes on to pray and shows emotion of guilt for how he got to sit on the thrown and apologizing for his father’s sins (Danson 41).  This prayer does not portray an image of authority to the viewers.  Shakespeare gives a king that the people can relate to, one that they can share feelings with.  Danson also said that during this prayer, Henry is addressing the crowd as he is God.  This also suggests the relation to the people with Henry.  The people can view him as a common man.

There is one scene that comes to mind when showing the authoritative power that Henry possesses.  It is the scene where he gives the order to kill all the prisoners.  In the article Danson, couldn’t explain why Henry would do that or have any inclination as to why Shakespeare wrote it.  I believe that with all the “common” portrayal of Henry, Shakespeare was reminding the people of who Henry ultimately is.  It is showing he is the king and no matter what kind of wretched decision he makes, it is done.  This scene could also show Henry’s compassion in an odd way.  After the Frenchman had killed everyone at the camp, this is when Henry gave the order to execute the prisoners.  This shows his strong feelings for his people and that the French have to pay for what they did to his people.  Again, this relates to the common people watching this play in a positive way.

While reading this, I really got the impression that Danson wanted his readers to see this side of Henry.  He wanted to readers to see the compassion and the fact that he was just a normal person but in a significant role such as the king.  It is important to understand this side of Henry because it is the characteristic that gives this play its value and it success.  It was genius for Shakespeare to create a character such as Henry, because a king who could relate to the people was well liked and was uncommon.  The success of the play was based on the fact Henry could relate to the viewers and was perceived as a commoner.

Works Cited

Danson, Lawrence. “Henry V: King, Chorus, Critics.”  Shakespeare Quarterly 34.1 (1983):  27-43. www.jstor.org/stable/2870218.

Austin Coulling

ERH-205WX

Col. Miller

30 January 2018

The Canterbury Tales

Help Received: Writing Center- internal citation and works cited, Oxford Guide to Chaucer: The Canterbury Tales

Signature:_______________________________

In Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, there are many stories that talk about the people in that time period.  When I say this, I mean that each tale in the book talks about a lesson or narrows down on a group of people.  In this time period, there are huge gaps in people from being a minority and majority.  There are many groups and sub-groups of people that are characterized by status and wealth.  The one theme that remained constant was religion.   During the tales, religion was brought up and caught my attention.  This time period is much different in terms of the social structure of which we live in today.  Society in the medieval era was based around serving the kings, being loyal, and following religion

When reading the Canterbury tales, the way Chaucer identifies many of times the theme of religion.  Religion was a major factor in people’s lives as it was how the people based their lives off of.  It served as a reference and everyone who knew the Bible.  In the Clerk’s Tale, religion is brought up.  The thing that stood out the most to me would be how Walter used the idea of divorce to see how loyal his wife was to him.  I know from history classes that I have taken that remarrying is not allowed and the pope can only grant permission to re-marry.

Above is only one of the trials that Walter had put Grisilde through.  While researching the Clerk’s tale, I found how the tests were perceived in a religious point of view.  The text says that Walter was tempted by Satan and couldn’t resist from the trials that he had put Grisilde through (Cooper 194).  In Grisilde’s eyes, “his actions are self-justifying, as God’s are by definition good (Cooper 194).”  What this text implies is that she views herself as a servant to Walter because he is the king.  The king at this time was given his power through divine right.  This means that God has chosen a ruler such as the king to look over and rule the people.  So in the quote “as God’s are by definition,” it is implying that she sees the tests as okay because they are the words of a king, who is selected by god.

The only evidence of Walter being compared to God in the text is coming from Grisilde, for she says her will is his, he can do what he wishes with his own, and she is not worthy to be his servant (Cooper 194).  This evidence not only shows what her thoughts on the king were but as a society as a whole.  Grisilde was a poor girl, who wore raggedy clothes.  She was in a position to question the king and question the church and its authority because of what her life was like.  This is evidence that at the time and age religion was a way of life and almost no one questioned the king or the bible.

The book, and in The Clerk’s Tale, religion is a common theme.  This book was based on the medieval time period and portrays a variety of characters.  All the reading’s we have done in class have clashed with the theme of religion in some way.  Even the wife of Bath includes knowledge of the bible to portray her meanings.  Christianity was a major part of life and has influenced a lot of people.  The Catholic church had lots of power and contributed to that.

Works Cited

Cooper, Helen. Oxford Guide to Chaucer: The Canterbury Tales. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1987. Print.