“Dulce et Decorum Est” Short assignment

John Stann

ERH 205WX

4/1/19

HR: Spell Check, Grammar Check, “Dulce et Decorum Est”

Changes:

One important change that was made in Owen’s poem “Dulce et Decorum Est” was in the second stanza.  In an earlier version, there is a line where the poem mentions gulping and wondering if the shells that landed were gas shells or duds and loosening masks in case the shells were gas.  In the final version he removes this and this was a good change. The poem runs smoother without the added lines.

Another change that he made that is small but important is in the first stanza.  He originally put “Clawing” for the line “Till on the haunting flares” and haunting just feels and seems more relevant then Clawing. How do you claw a flare?

John Stann

ERH 205WX

3/6/19

HR: Spell Check, Grammar Check, works cited.

Word Count:  1,184

The real meaning behind “The Man Who Would Be King”

“The Man Who Would Be King,” is a tale of adventure and exploration, of two conmen going off to conquer a kingdom for themselves.  Many people who have read “The Man Who Would Be King,” assume that this short story is a work either for or against imperialism, due to other works written by Kipling, such asThe White Man’s Burden.  Authors such as Jeffry Myers or Paul Fussell argue, and counter argue that the story does a good job depicting anti-imperialism or say that the work fails because some of the qualities that the main characters, Peachy Carnahan and Dan Dravot, show are too redeeming.  What if Kipling didn’t have a deeper meaning to the story and purely meant it to be a tale of adventure.  While some of the evidence leads readers to believe that it is an anti-imperialist, much of the story doesn’t feel like it is either intentionally supporting or anti-imperialism.  This includes the way the characters act, how the plot develops and how the story ends. “The Man Who Would Be King”is purely a story of adventure and while there are signs of anti-imperialism and pro imperialism that was just the feelings of the time and had nothing to do with why the story was written.

Like many novels and stories, “The Man Who Would be King”,is read and interpreted differently by critics who both praise and attack it. Since the author is dead, we do not know what he meant by writing it.  Assumptions occur even when the story is known to be fictional and have no second meaning.  One example of this is The Lord of the Rings.  Many people, who both love and hate the books, have claimed that they are allegories, comparing characters like Gandalf to Jesus.  Tolkien himself, however, disagrees and said that “I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence.”  Kipling may have just meant “The Man Who Would Be King,” to be a story, like his book, The Jungle Book.

One of the reasons that make it hard to believe that “The Man Who Would Be King” is supposed to mean something is the way the two main characters act and the tone of the story.   The main characters are two conmen named Peachy Carnahan and Danny “Dan” Dravot, these two men lived a life of adventure but were also from the bottoms of civilization. They were criminals who bribed others to keep their stories out of newspapers. “We might threaten a Station-master, and make him send a wire on tick, said my friend, but that’d mean inquiries for you and me.” (Kipling 2) Despite these unredeemable qualities there are some traits that these characters have that Kipling believes in, and thinks are important for men to have. These include self-reliance, loyalty, courage and a spirit of adventure. “Then, the camels passed away along the dusty road, and I was left alone to wonder.  My eye could detect no failure in the disguises. The scene in the Serai proved that they were complete to the native mind.” (Kipling 11) Characters are an important part to any story, and if Kipling wanted “The Man Who Would Be King” to be anti-imperialist he should have chosen more effective characters.  Instead of characters who could be relatable because of their courage and loyalty, Kipling should have chosen purely evil and corrupt men without any “good” qualities at all.  A businessman, industrialist or a banker would have been a perfect choice to fill this role.  Kipling, however, chose Peachy and Dan.  Instead of meaning his work to be anti-imperialist, the story was just about two men and the spirit of adventure, the courage and loyalty they shared.

Another reason why the story does not seem to be anti-imperialist, is the way it unfolds and how it is presented to the reader.  A safer, and clearer way to show that “The Man Who Would Be King” was be anti-imperialist would have been to have the story follow the characters along their journey so the readers could be observers of the actual events happening and make a judgement for themselves as to why the protagonists did what they did.  Even the narrator is confused as to what is happening during the story. While Peachy is telling his story, he tells contradictory messages and convolutes the facts. The narrator must interrupt the storytelling and make guesses at times as to what really happened or ask Peachy questions to clarify something he said.  This leaves the reader uncertain about what happened on Peachy’s adventures.  The narrator himself doesn’t believe Peachy and sends him off to an asylum.  The narrator finally believes in the story when Peachy shows him Dan’s head with the crown on it.  The head, however, disappears and this makes it impossible for others to believe the story and thus the reader of Kipling’s tale shares a special relationship with the narrator because they are the only people who know what happened.  Instead of using fiction as a way of conveying an important message Kipling should have used another genre if he really wanted people to know that imperialism was wrong.  He wrote The White Man’s Burden as a poem, and there is no debateor questions asked about the meaning of that. Fiction is such a convoluted way of conveying a message, if Kipling was desperate to show how much imperialism was bad, he should have chosen a different form of writing. While fiction can carry a meaning, it usually is used to tell a story, or the meaning is the motivation of the characters and their growth in the story.

Motives are an important reason for writing a story and it not only drives the author to write, but it also drives the characters, the plot and everything about the story.  Every piece and part of a story has a motive and instead of writing about anti-imperialism Kipling just wanted to write a good story about the qualities of a person. What makes someone good, or what makes them bad.  This makes more sense with the way that “The Man Who Would Be King” played out. The story was convoluted, with a confusing narrative and interesting characters that flipped between being greedy and self-centered to being loyal to each other and their code.  This makes the story about the personality of the protagonists and what they did in different situations instead of anti-imperialist.  Character growth is a better meaning for writing a story. Peachy and Danny grow over the course of the story from naive adventurous young men to men who are more mature and changed from their experiences in a foreign and hostile country. While their motives stay the same, instead of wanting to rush in and leave they stay and plan and are more cautious. While their motives may have stayed the same the way they go about accomplishing their goals has changed and this shows a different level of maturity, even if Peachy and Dan are the same devious characters.

The plot the characters and settings make an exciting adventure story about two men, their personalities and how they grow and develop.  This does not mean that “The Man Who Would Be King” is about anti-imperialism or pro-imperialism, it could have just been a story like any other and literature should not be critiqued without knowing the author’s intent.

Works Cited:

Jeffery Myers’s: The Idea of Moral Authority in “The Man who Would be King”

Kipling, Rudyard, 1865-1936 Montefiore, Jan (1948~).  “The Man Who Would Be King” Penguin

Classics, 2011.

John Stann 

2/15/19 

Words: 1,419 

Help Received: Spell check, works cited.   

The Hallow Crown Part 2: Henry V.  

The Hollow Crown takes on a new approach to the Shakespearian play, instead of focusing on the outward, physical conflicts of the play, it instead focuses on the internal struggle of Henry as he wrestles with himself and his legitimacy to the throne of England and if his war with the French will be successful.  This unique twist to the play differs from the other two great adaptations not only because of the focus of the series but also in the way it was filmed.  Tom Hiddleston does a great performance of King Henry and shows the inner soul of the king. 

The Hallow Crown is a miniseries that focuses on the plays of Shakespeare including Richard II and Henry V. Despite this shows smaller production size, it should be ranked among the other two great film adaptions of Henry V because it focuses on the emotional aspect of Henry V.  There are many major scenes where this is obvious, the “Into the breach” scene is one, the famous “Band of Brothers” speech is another and finally the ceremony speech which shows Henry wrestling with himself over what he should do and if the battle of Agincourt will be successful. This movie, like the 1989 version does not shy away from showing the cruelty of war.  For example, the movie shows the brutal killing of the boys in the wagon train by the French at Agincourt. Another example of this brutality is at the Siege of Harfluer and the “Into the Breech” speech.  In this speech, in the film, the camera zooms in on Henry’s face and solely on his face. His soldier’s faces are in the background at times but most of the time the camera is focused on Henry. You can see his face in visible pain and you can imagine Henry’s mind racing in a way to attempt to motivate his troops.   In Hiddleston’s version the camera is focused on Henry for ninety percent of the time.  You can see the emotions running in him, it almost looks like the king was crying, with his bloodshot eyes. The exhaustion from the battle is also clearly visible.  His simple chest plate is brown from dirt and beat in and Henry’s hair is wild and dirty as well.  This is different from the Branagh version which pans out on the entire battlefield during Henry’s speech.  With the Branagh version, Henry is barely visible in the first part of his speech. It is only towards the end when Henry comes into focus. The camera moves around from the people of the town, to the governor, to Henry’s weary soldiers and back to the town, it is dark, you see the explosions and the burning town and that and the denizens of Harfluer are the focus.  Like the 1989 version, The Hollow Crown is not scared to show the horrors of war, and during the siege you see men being burnt by oil, killed in the darkness and alone.  Once the siege is over, Henry V gives a speech to the citizens and the governor of the town. This speech that Henry gives tells of horrible atrocities that would be committed if the town did not submit.  

 The day or so before Agincourt when Henry declares “No surrender,” to the French Herald is another visible sign of Henry’s humanity. He is exhausted and sick, his hair is dirty, he looks tired and is breathing heavily and he puts his hand on his side like he is trying to recover. The king chokes up when he mentions that his men are sick as well.  Fesh from the murderous speech and battle at Harfluer to connect with Henry the audience must see Henry as human and this scene does that perfectly.  The king himself is feeling the pain and exhaustion of the forced march and sickness that follows in any military during that time period. He is not high and lofty like the French, whom you see feasting and riding their splendid mounts and it shows how he cares and that makes the audience care.  Another famous speech that Tom Hiddleston acts exceptionally well in is the ceremonies monologue that he gives before the night before Agincourt.  It is almost reminiscent of the Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, with Henry tearing up and praying to God to allow him to win his battle. It is an emotional scene and done very well.  In Hiddleston’s version the camera, once again, is brought up close to the king you see his weary face and the emotion he puts into the speech is intense. The audience feels for Henry, and the speech captures the severity and desperation of the situation.  This scene in the Branagh version comes the closest to focusing on the king and his emotions as a human being.  However, the camera is still focused on the background more than Henry and this draws away from the moment.   

BBC’s version still focuses on the background, side characters and the setting, but it is not the central point, Henry, the man is. I think you become more attached to Henry in the BBC version then in the 1989 film. You see a person who enjoys life when he can but who can also be serious when he needs to be. He embodies the simple lifestyle, even though he is a king. The confidence Henry shows when he places his crown on his head like it doesn’t matter in the first scene with his councilmen makes you want to be that confident and to believe in Henry.  It is not just with Henry that you see this major difference between shows.  You become closer with Pistol and Bardolph and Nym as well, despite them being side characters.  When Bardolph is sentenced to be hung for stealing church items you suffer for Nym and Pistol when they try to save their friend. You suffer with Henry when he passes by the body of Bardolph on the road to Agincourt.  The Hollow Crown does an excellent job of portraying emotions and the psychological effects of war because you care more about the people in the show. 

The reasons and goals for filming such an infamous play in different ways are numerous.  In Branagh’s version he is focusing more on the people and locations around King Henry, trying to show their emotions and the devastation of war. This was due to the anti-war sentiment following the Vietnam War. In Branagh’s version the settings are mostly dark and dreary and either muddy or raining.  While the major characters are still important, the ordinary citizens and followers of both the French and the English are the ones affected the most.  You see them struggling, fighting, dying and being beat down by the devastation of war. In this struggle though, a bond is formed, a brotherhood of the warring class and those who suffer in such conditions.  While Branagh originally wanted to show the horrors of war he still shows the bonds of war.  The speeches of the Branagh film are focused on the secondary characters showing their reactions to the speeches. At Agincourt, for instance, during the “Band of Brothers” speech, the camera does follow Henry, and you see the soldiers and knights of his army and their reactions to Henry’s words.  For example, you see Exetor grin when his name is called, and you see the brotherhood being formed during that speech. (Henry V) The BBC version, has other motivations for being filmed, and takes a more natural and approach to the story. Henry directs his speeches at the audience.  While you see the side characters some, they are not as important. the crew focused more on Henry and on the audience and to focus on the emotional aspect of conflict and life instead of on the physical aspect.  The film also gave a more heroic view of the play compared to Branagh, this was due to the Olympics being hosted in London during the year it was released, and BBC took this opportunity, to showcase British culture.  (BBC Drama publicity) 

The Hollow Crown is a remarkable version of Shakespeare’s Henry V.  It draws you into the story, helps you get attached to the characters and makes you feel what they are feeling in a way that other versions do not. In many scenes you can see and feel Henry’s emotion in him, and this is what makes this version stand among the great adaptations of the play.   

 Bibliography 

“The Hollow Crown – Media Centre.” BBC, BBC, www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/mediapacks/hollowcrown. 

Genzlinger, Neil. “Questions to Ask a King Before You Are Beheaded.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Oct. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/arts/television/hollow-crown-serves-up-shakespeare-and-royal-contrasts.html. 

Shakespere, William.  “Henry V” 1599. 

Power, Ben. “The Hollow Crown.” Season 1, episode 1, 2012. 

Henry V, Kenneth Branagh, 1989. 

ERH 205WX  

2/12/18 

Henry V paper 

John Stann 

HR: Spell Check 

Henry V: In Film 

Kenneth Branagh’s 1989 film adaptation of the famous Shakespearean play has been well praised by Critics who oftentimes compare this film version to another famous adaptation, that of the 1944 version. Instead of a comedic, moral boosting rendition like the 1944 version, Branagh’s film was produced during the Vietnam war and shows us the horrors of war.  Branagh’s film, tries to show the evil of war and appease an anti-war populace who are tired of war and violence.   Branagh shows a more violent and darker world, and this is certainly true in the film. The settings are dark, Henry’s hall in the first act is barley lit, nothing is colorful, the two battles are muddy, and either taking place in a rainstorm or at night and Henry’s violent, and darker side is also shown.  The traitors are highlighted and Henry’s “into the breech” speech has a particular affect on the audience with descriptions of babies being placed on spikes and other horrible visions of war.  Even Henry himself is portrayed in a darker, and as an anti-hero instead of a straight up hero.  He orders the French prisoners killed, and his into the breech speech is also brutal.  Even while wooing Princess Katherine he discusses, owning France and saying that he would love her as much as he loves France.  Despite all of these shortcomings, in the end Henry is still shown as a hero, which is why I believe he is an anti-hero.  At the end of the battle of Agincourt you see Henry carrying the body of a slain boy who was killed when the French broke through the lines.  He also gave a rousing speech to his men before the battle and refused ransom.  

The Branagh version of Henry V is a dark story of war and brutality which tries to show a darker version of Henry V and fuel the anti-war sentiment during a time when many people were against the war in Vietnam.  This anti-war culture influenced this film greatly and made for a great version of the film. 

Bibliography: 

Donaldson, Peter S.  “Taking on Shakespeare:  Kenneth Branagh’s Henry V. Shakespeare Quarterly 42.1 (1991): 60-71.   

John Stann 

1/22/19 

Help Received: Spell Check, The time traveler’s guide to medieval England.  

Chaucer’s England  

Chaucer, who wrote The Canterbury tales, lived in an interesting time and based his work off of these times.  We can learn a lot about Medieval England from the tales that he tells especially about Law, Justice and the judicial system.  

Law was a complex system during Medieval England, it was made especially complicated due to the “overlapping jurisdictions of church and secular authorities.” (Chaucer’s England 30)   The church was the highest authority in the land followed by the king. During the middle ages the church and state were one and it was only after the 30 years war that the modern state was formed and the church and state were separated.  Before then, however, the Church owned land in the different kingdoms and Bishops and other clergy had immense power, oftentimes taking the roll as judge and juror.  Sometimes bishops led armies and they always had retainers.  The government system was also very superstitious, they believed in such things as witches, and other fictional beliefs and saw the Jews as the cause of many problems including the black death.  Thus, in England most of the Jews were expelled from the country and there were many burnings of witches.  Due to this molding of church and state many of the punishments or deciding of the punishment were superstitious as well. One common decision to see if someone was guilty was to force the accused to walk over hot coals. If their feet were burned they were guilty if they escaped being bunt then they were innocent.  These customs and traditions may seem foreign and stupid to us, however, back then, Religion and superstation were almost one, this was due to the lack of literacy and understanding of common facts, thus astrologers, physists all held high places in society.  The law system was not as much law, even though the beginnings of modern law began to form in this time, as they were superstitions.   

Works Cited.  

Mortimer, Ian.  The time Traveler’s Guide to England.  Simon and Schuster, New York. 2011.