“A Sonnet: To Wilfred Owen” (and “The Front”)

I wanted to share this little poem that was written to be from the perspective of a WWI soldier visiting what used to be a battle site. In the fall, UMW’s Chamber Choir (that includes me) performed this piece, and I fell in love with the text. The text is titled “A Sonnet: to Wilfred Owen”. Given that we’re meant to read Owen for next class, I figured it was at least a little appropriate. It appears it was written only for the piece, which is titled “The Front”, so I could only find it on the sheet music’s home page. The piece itself, along with the poem, was written and released in January 2020. I think it’s interesting to look at this poem, knowing that Matthew Taylor King, as far as I could find, was quite young, and thus was not a part of WWI in any way. The music piece itself is also incredibly moving. I’ll include a link to a video of it if you want to check that out. Anyways, I’ve been rambling. I just wanted to share šŸ™‚

A Sonnet to Wilfred Owen:
Have you seen the Front? It is not as it
Used to be. Larks sing. Shells rust. Fevers cool.
The Winter of the world is in tacit
Armistice with Spring. Living waters pool
In tired foxholes. Proud young forests shelter
No man’s land. Moss gilds sandbags, else they spill.
Mine-sunk craters yield to ponds where elder
Turtles sun themselves, warm amid Aisne’s chill.
Only the mud is as it was—partout.
It clings to every sole. But certain fields
Block the charging sludge. In them, marble shields
—Or are they dragon’s teeth?—mark you, guard you
From the mire. You rest. Your dagger’s sheathed. And yet:
How swiftly Nature heals; how slowly men forget.
-Matthew Taylor King

“I Have Thoughts”

This is what I briefly said to Dr. Scanlon yesterday. And, even after listening to today’s discussion, those thoughts remain relatively the same.

I’m having a hard time liking any one character, even smaller ones like the different nurses around the hospital where Frederick is staying. There seems to always be something that they say or do that bothers me, or makes me stop and think ā€œhuh, that’s kind of weird.ā€ Granted, each character has their moments where I’ll like them for what they said, or maybe something they did, but it never lasts.

I love that, though. I’d rather read a book that frustrates me to no end, that makes me feel at least something, rather than read a book where I feel nothing at all and I am just chugging my way through it. Don’t let my above thoughts fool you: I actually really like this book. I like not knowing who I side with in conversation; I like constantly flip-flopping back and forth on character support. It keeps my reading experience interesting.

I think it’s actually a great tie-in to the other stories we’ve read, and All Quiet in particular. War forces a person to play on a line of morality that someone like me really hasn’t had to even think about. I don’t believe that anything in life is completely black and white, but especially in a war, the different shades of grey are endless. You become who you have to, and do what you feel you have to in order to get by. This applies to Frederick and Catherine as well. While I think there are some genuine emotions toward each other, as someone mentioned, it’s more like the idea of playing house with someone than anything else. They’re playing a part that they need to in order to stay some semblance of sane.

I don’t dislike Catherine for her as a character, necessarily, but more for the way Hemmingway wrote her, if that makes sense. I’m more upset with the author than I am the character.

These narratives we’ve read all play with morality in interesting ways, and I’m curious to see what happens with the rest of the narrative.

Sonia Joshi’s Review of The African Queen

[1]

Released in 1951, The African Queen stars Humphrey Bogart and Katharine Hepburn. Before the story was brought to life on the big screen, it started out as a novel of the same name by C.S. Forester. His novels were centered around stories of naval warfare, most notably during the Napoleonic Wars and both World Wars (one of his other famous novels, The Good Shepherd, was adapted into a 2020 film called Greyhound starring Tom Hanks). However, Forester was arguably most famous for his 12-part Hornblower series, all of whose stories were based on real events during the Napoleonic Wars [2].

The film revolves around Rose Sayer (Hepburn), a British Missionary who has gone to Africa with her brother, Sam (Robert Morely) to bring Christianity to a village. However, deep into their residency, World War I begins, and a group of German soldiers raids the village and takes every local person prisoner. All this leads to the death of Rose’s brother, motivating her to try and go to safety with the help of boatman Charlie Allnut (Bogart). The majority of the conflict comes from the pair’s attempts to navigate the rough and wildlife-filled Ulanga River on the titular boat, so although there is a backdrop of war in the movie, it would not technically be considered a war film.

Impressively, about half of the film was shot on-location in Africa, with both Uganda and Congo serving as the backdrop. This covered most of the land scenes, as those were deemed the safest to film there, though several of the cast members fell ill, allegedly from drinking unsafe water. Anything on the river was shot at Isleworth Studios in Middlesex [3]. However, that does not in any way detract from the impressive set pieces and use of green-screen images. Of course, by today’s standards, the technology is quite outdated, but for 1951, the blending of added image and the actors in front of the green screen is quite smooth. All other effects appear to be practical, which is incredibly commendable considering there are shots that involve massive and wide-spread fires, explosions, and even a live leech.

Both Hepburn and Bogart give memorable performances, and help give their characters distinct personalities. Apparently, improvisation, particularly from Bogart, was encouraged during dialogue, which definitely helped contribute to Rose and Charlie’s entertaining cracks at each other and banter. Both actors also helped make their characters incredibly distinct. Everything about Rose, down to her posture and micro expressions, is buttoned-up, ladylike, and even judgmental at times. Meanwhile, Bogart swings his arms wildly, speaks loudly, and almost always wears an overly-enthusiastic smile, perfectly encapsulating Charlie’s carefree nature. While The African Queen‘s other actors are good as well, none of them are in the movie long enough to make a fully sound judgement on their abilities as actors.

However, all of this doesn’t mean the film isn’t a product of its time. Primarily, the issue of gender roles stands out. Although Rose sometimes demonstrates that she’s both smart and strong, she often falls into a damsel in distress role, screaming and begging for Charlie’s help to get her out of an unpleasant situation. Despite that, her character is fun and, as previously mentioned, proves quite useful throughout the movie.

Overall, The African Queen is an entertaining watch. It’s packed with action, with one thing happening after the other, witty dialogue, and even a bit of endearing romance. If you’ve got 100 minutes and want something exciting to watch, it’s definitely worth the time.

[1] Image from https://www.amazon.com/African-Queen-Katharine-Hepburn/dp/B002TOL4QO

[2] To see more about Forester’s works, https://www.britannica.com/biography/C-S-Forester

[3] For more information, see https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-African-Queen-film-1951

Sonia Joshi’s Reading Questions for February 8th

I know we had an extended deadline, but I couldn’t sleep, so here’s some extra time to answer the questions!

  1. The primary struggle of ā€œMiss Ogilvy Finds Herselfā€ revolves around the titular character’s struggle with their gender identity. Although this issue comes with different struggles, we have also discussed a sense of detachment from the physical self with soldiers returning from the home front. What other ways do you see Ogilvy’s struggles paralleling those of a soldier? Is there even a basis of comparison, or are these two issues too different to discuss them together? If that’s your stance, what about war could Ogilvy’s struggle possibly parallel, if there’s anything at all?
  2. The entirety of ā€œThe New Wordā€ is written like a play, with descriptions mirroring stage directions and a section of dialogue formatted the same way it would be in a script. We have also previously discussed how children entering the war effort were often coerced into it, and at times they simply played their part as they ā€œdid their bitā€. How does the formatting of the story reflect this idea? Or, do you think the formatting of the story represents something else. If so, what?
  3. Reportedly, people believed ā€œThe Bowmenā€ to actually be a non fiction account of a supernatural occurrence out in the trenches. There was even a (false) claim published in a 2001 article in The Sunday Times that claimed a diary of a soldier had been found that proved the existence of the Angels of Mons. Machen himself admitted that the story was based on several reports of rumors that came in from various battlefields. What do you think the real story is? Were the bowmen ever real, or merely fantastical stories and rumors? If you think they did exist, who might they have been?
  4. Did you prefer these short stories or the longer format of the novels we’ve read? What ways could a short story format allow for an impactful story about war versus a novel?Ā