Blind:
1)Throughout this first reading, the speaker persistently states that she is living and walking through some kind of dream. There are only two moments where she claims to be broken from the dream or to be “waking up.” One is early on at the voice of a young boy, and the second time is at the very end, when the blind man reveals he thought she had abandoned her. Why is it that these two individuals are able to wake her from this dream-like trans among the hundreds of men in the room with her?
Her definition of a dream in this story is quite different from the one she describes in “Moonlight.” In “The Blind,” the world she is currently living through is described as a “curious dream-place” (Borden, 92), However, in “Moonlight,” the speaker claims the world before the war to be that of a dream, something that can only be remembered in pieces. What is it that this reoccurring mention of dreams is suppose to represent? Are they indented to represent what is impossible to be accepted as a past/present version or reality? What causes these dreams to change?
The Priest and the Rabbi
2)There are several adjectives used to describe the man who has been terribly burned that paint him in a child-like manner. When he smiles up at them the word “grinned” is chosen, and he looks at them with his “bright laughing eyes,” despite the severity of his situation (Borden, 106). In contrast, the General is depicted in a more serious tone, as if he is strictly there to go in, do his business, and then leave. How might the characterization of these two individuals impact the way that they each interpret the soldier’s story about the Priest and the Rabbi? If the soldier describes it as this eye-opening experience, what does the General’s reaction say about his interpretation of the story?
The Two Gunners
3)What is it about these two men that sticks out to the nurse? She ponders writing to the family of the dying man. Why does she seem to have such a strange, intimate relationship to them in comparison to the other soldiers that she has treated?
This line greatly stuck out to me: “For a moment he stared into my eyes, then he turned his head away again, shutting me out. I was dismissed, he has nothing to say to me” (Borden, 111). What are the implications behind this statement, particularly based on the usage of the phrases “turned away” and “shutting out?” Is it possible that the strangeness of their actions causes her to feel disrespected, or is she simply so shocked at the feeling of being unwanted by the dying man that lays before her?
3. I believe these men stood out to the nurse because they do not fit the typical description of her patients. She writes “I realised that there are two types of courage, the British and the French, as there are two types of men”(110), which I found to be proof of why they stood out to her. She cannot view them as the little child or even the animals she views the Frenchman as. There are cultural differences so her interactions with them were different than her typical interactions. According to the nurse, the French have beautiful manners even in the face of terrible tragedy. Because they act differently, they do not fit the model for men she takes care of and she therefore cannot move on as easily. They are the only pair of British soldiers she cared for, so rather than being one of thousands they are only one of two. However, I find it very interesting that despite how much they stand out to her, she does not remember the man’s name. The nurse remembers them in tremendoues detail, including the two phrases “stick it” and “A1 at Llyod’s Madam,” which is more than most care to do, but she still does not remember his name and that is symbolic of one of the worst tragedies in the Great War.
2. You make a really excellent point regarding the viewpoint of the soldier representing a child. That viewpoint contributes well to the overarching theme of a “lost generation” of men due to physical or spiritual death in World War I. These men were essentially children with no foothold in the door on life who were being sent out to die for their country. This is something that we have discussed greatly in class and is certainly brought to light here. The contrasting reactions of the two men also contribute to the idea of a lost generation because they highlight that the older generation was used to seeing and hearing about their young men dying. The worst part is that the young men were not even dying for themselves. They were dying for the politicians and leaders of their respective countries and the citizens who were brainwashed by their own leaders or in other words the older generation. That is what I think Borden is highlighting by making the general’s reaction one of ignorance which is also great word to describe the older generation with.
2. I think the difference in descriptors highlights the different experiences in war based on station. The burn victim has seen everything and lost everything, so he is able to see the sliver of beauty with the Priest and the Rabbi when on a field of so much death. The General, presumably, has seen less of the violence and was not thrown in harm’s way as much as his lower-class troops. In WWI higher-ranking officers were known to be disconnected from the real fighting of the war, opting for asinine plans and strategy that would not work in such a new style of war. His perspective is bleak and shaken when seeing the reality of the war on this burn victim. The story of the Priest and the Rabbi is depressing to him rather than an act of kindness as the soldier sees.