A War Poem

I've noticed that often, songs/poems about war work better than books about war. Often, the Vietnam War becomes a hackneyed topic in literature. So much of modern literature seems to have been dedicated to the Vietnam War. At one point, we stop and wonder, "what's the point of it all?" We're never going to know how war veterans feel because the simple fact of the matter is, we have never been to war. The writer is either begging for sympathy (a wasted/wasteful emotion) or trying to get his story and his feelings out. Why are songs/poems a better medium? Well for one thing, usually, poems are short (unless you're talking about the Odyssey) and poems will focus on one emotion which is transmitted to the reader through the poem's artistic nature. Sadly enough, what we're ultimately concerned with is entertainment. Even when we think we want to gain insight and be enlightened, it seems as though our ulterior motive is entertainment. We want to have other-worldly experiences. We want to sit in the comfort of our homes and get a glimpse into what the warfront looks like. What a good text makes us realize is that the idea of war is drastically different from the actual reality of war. But this message won't get to us, we won't realize how bad and horrible war is until the writer appeals to our interest.

Though I am completely annoyed with Shay's book, I love the fact that it has spurred so much class discussion. All of a sudden, we have so much to say because many of us don't like this book. I like the fact that we read a poem and heard a song, while reading this because the song and the poem gets to us while Shay's book doesn't. Perhaps the most valuable thing I've gotten out of this class is an appreciation for poetry, especially after I found myself completely immersed in Sylvia Plath's poem.

Here's a poem written about the Vietnam War by Bruce Weigl:

Song of Napalm

for my wife

After the storm, after the rain stopped pounding,
We stood in the doorway watching horses
Walk off lazily across the pasture’s hill.
We stared through the black screen,
Our vision altered by the distance
So I thought I saw a mist
Kicked up around their hooves when they faded
Like cut-out horses
Away from us.
The grass was never more blue in that light, more
Scarlet; beyond the pasture
Trees scraped their voices into the wind, branches
Crisscrossed the sky like barbed wire
But you said they were only branches.

Okay. The storm stopped pounding.
I am trying to say this straight: for once
I was sane enough to pause and breathe
Outside my wild plans and after the hard rain
I turned my back on the old curses. I believed
They swung finally away from me ...

But still the branches are wire
And thunder is the pounding mortar,
Still I close my eyes and see the girl
Running from her village, napalm
Stuck to her dress like jelly,
Her hands reaching for the no one
Who waits in waves of heat before her.

So I can keep on living,
So I can stay here beside you,
I try to imagine she runs down the road and wings
Beat inside her until she rises
Above the stinking jungle and her pain
Eases, and your pain, and mine.

But the lie swings back again.
The lie works only as long as it takes to speak
And the girl runs only as far
As the napalm allows
Until her burning tendons and crackling
Muscles draw her up
into that final position

Burning bodies so perfectly assume. Nothing
Can change that; she is burned behind my eyes
And not your good love and not the rain-swept air
And not the jungle green
Pasture unfolding before us can deny it.
(Poetryfoundation.org)

I wrote a poetic analysis paper on this poem for my AP English class during my senior year of high school. I remember flipping through the pages of a huge anthology book and being thoroughly disappointed by the selection of poetry it had to offer until i came across this one. I was moved by Weigl's ability to take one image and create such a powerful effect through it. It pertains to the subject at hand because it is captures post traumatic stress disorder so well. While at war, the soldier becomes overwhelmed to the extent that everything reminds him of the image of the warfront. The narrator of this poem looks at trees and he sees barbed wire. He hears thunder and he thinks of "pounding mortar." He writes, "she is burned behind my eyes." He creates the image of a burning girl which we see through his eyes and then he uses the word "burned" to describe the irreversible effect it had on his mind.

This poem grabs our interest before breaking the harsh reality to us. Once we are engaged, we can be unsettled into getting the author's point. The title of the poem is rather ironic. A song would be melodious and perhaps pleasant but napalm is a toxic substance that burns on contact with skin. He describes a tranquil melancholy setting in which he is disturbed by his own thoughts. The tranquility is then disturbed by the image of a girl described almost majestically--"I try to imagine she runs down the road and wings / Beat inside her until she rises." He transforms this image in his mind into one that is more beautiful than deathly. Then he realizes he can't fool himself into believing that she flew away from her pain gracefully. He writes, "And the girl runs only as far / As the napalm allows / Until her burning tendons and crackling / Muscles draw her up / into that final position / Burning bodies so perfectly assume." This is a horrific image. It allows the reader to see for himself what a war veteran has seen which leads to the understanding that war is a terrible thing. Most importantly, it allows the reader to understand why these war veterans are suffering from PTSD.

Does Odysseus in America work?

Authors who write books about war have to be very careful. The first thing to consider is, why a writer would choose to write about war. Clearly there is some message he is trying to convey. With regards to a book about war, this message is usually amplified by the content of the novel; the gruesome, harsh, bitter reality of war has to move us and unsettle us into wanting to read the rest of the book. In Shay's case, he wants us to have some respect for our veterans. His repeated use of the term "mind-fuck" really keeps his argument alive because it really sums up how the veteran returning from a traumatic experience is going to feel. The message is powerful. Shay poses the following question: how can you remove a civilian from his civilized society, dehumanize, mechanize, and harden him in every way possible, and then expect him to integrate himself, once again, into that civilized society?

This is all very well. We, as people, do need to wonder why war veterans who were sent to war as a result of being drafted are treated like shit by the political and social systems. However, as readers, we're hard to get to. Authors write that something is disturbing, something is surprising, something is unappealing but until they show us how it's disturbing, surprising, or unappealing, we won't care--that's why we have banned adjectives in English classes. It's best to let the reader infer based on telling details. Shay's novel is full of telling details, but he gives us the inferences too. This leaves no room for pondering, or coming to any particular realization about anything. I am currently enrolled in EGL 206, The Survey of British Literature, and often I am unable to engage in the discussion because it's a 100 people lecture hall and I end up having to listen to the same ten people talking. Oftentimes, I feel a little self-conscious when it comes to contributing and having 100 people looking at me, and at other times, I lack incentive. Anyway, the point is, there are some people who would prefer to sit through an 80 minute lecture and not say a word, and there are others, such as myself, who cannot sit in one spot for 80 minutes listening to a few people talk about their interpretations. It can lead to new insight, but usually it's boring. Similarly, Shay's book is full of insight, but it's boring because it's a 250 page essay which makes the inferences for us.

I picked up this book and expected to be dazzled by an authentic, unconventional discourse paralleling Odysseus and war veterans. I was thoroughly disappointed. As a reader, I want to read something I haven't read before. Style matters. I'm not against books about war. It just so happens to be that The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien, one of my favorite books, is also about warfare. I would read this book over and over again. O'Brien says his book is fiction, but then again, it's not. The experience is real though the people are not. And he really captures the essence of the human sentiments running through a soldier's mind. His diction is eloquent and compelling. He sort of blends fiction and non-fiction in his novel.

I found that Shay's novel ultimately does not work and genre has nothing to do with it. Non-fiction can be terrific. Unfortunately this book is not terrific. For one thing, I thought the Odysseus allusion was really cool at first. I was stricken by Shay's take on Odysseus's interaction with the Phaecians. I hadn't thought about the fact that Odysseus could have been offended by the atmosphere and the Demodocus's singing. Another thing I hadn't thought about was how Odysseus's introduction of himself to the King is rather ridiculous and strange. He introduces himself as a wily man. Shay asks why someone who seeks shelter and help from strangers would introduce himself as a conman to imply that perhaps, Odysseus isn't as calm, collected and in control as we thought he was. As I read on, I began to feel as though the repeated parallels between Odysseus and the veterans become annoying and tedious. For one thing, I realized that this parallel stopped working. The Odyssey is about coming home and how hard it is to come home, but Odysseus is not a warrior. If there was a way around the fight that will lead to the same end, he'd be the one to contrive it. The troops however, are taught to reason less, and act more. Alas, Odysseus's experience is not exactly the same as the army veterans. And knowing Odysseus, his decision to introduce himself as a wily man seems to be well thought out rather than an instance in which he loses control. After all, the Phaecians seek to be entertained and entertainment is what they get. Maybe, Odysseus's way of introducing himself is his way of intriguing them. Yes, he does seek thrills in his episode with the Cyclops, but this does not have any physical implications. The war veterans have gone through physical torture primarily and seen physical torture which has left them emotionally scarred. It all boils down to how effective Shay's Odyssey theme is.

This is the problem with referring to a classic. One has to really consider the counterarguments which reveal the ways in which drawing such parallels doesn't work. If they outweigh the reasons why they do work, then it's best to leave the classic alone. Shay makes his point very clear. It just doesn't move the reader into buying it.

Also, not to sound as though I've been desensetized to the atrocities of war, I feel as though Shay's use of language is bland and uninteresting. As a person who loves words and believes in the potential of word choice and syntax to have an enormous impact on the quality of a written work, I am not moved at all by Shay's novel. From the perspective of someone who has a Chemistry and Calculus final to be tortured by, the tediousness of this book really begins to irritate. I'd rather be reading something that lets me think rather than doing all the thinking for me. I guess ultimately, Shay's book does get us to think, but not about what the content of his book is. Instead, we find ourselves wondering whether his argument and method works or doesn't work which is also a useful thing for it's own reasons, I guess. We have to read things which we find to be not so great or we wouldn't appreciate things that are great. In the end it's all about perspective.

"The Literary Imagination"

In my last entry, I mentioned that there were similarities between Charles Dicken's Hard Times, which I coincidentally happened to be reading for my British Literature class, and Rushdie's novel. Then I read the essay, "The Literary Imagination," by Martha C. Nussbaum and was surprised to find that her entire essay focused on Hard Times.

Nussbaum does a great job in talking about the value of literature and what the literary imagination does for us. She points out that if Mr. Gradgrind finds that literature must be suppressed, then clearly literature has great power over us. In Rushdie's book, the politician Snooty Buttoo hires Rashid to help him gain popularity by telling stories. Although he tries to utilize Rashid's storytelling for a political cause, it's the storytelling that intrigues people. In the end, storytelling has greater power. In fact, we are so intrigued by literature and the literary imagination that the more it is suppressed, the more we are drawn to it; when speech and storytelling are in danger of suppression, the Land of Gup finally goes to war with the Land of Chup. As the Cultmaster says, and as Mr. Grandgrind says, Fact is to be given the greatest importance and fanciful thoughts are to be shunned. Nussbaum adresses this question--"why novels and not histories or biographies?" She answers this question by writing, "Literary art, [Aristotle] said, is more 'philosophical' than history, because history simply shows us 'what happened,' whereas works of literary art show us 'things such as might happen' in human life."

But what happens in Rushdie's novel can't happen in real life. While reading the book, I was quite sure that Haroun's adventure would turn out to be a dream and was surprised when it wasn't. This is where literary imagination plays its biggest role. In presenting things that are absurd and unrealistic, it urges us to imagine a world of absurdity and surrealism. Through the surrealism, we are able to discern "what could happen." Though it's impossible for the Earth to have a second moon inhabited by creatures who are at war with one another about free speech, this fanciful story brings us to the realization that the suppression of free speech and the "public imagination" is all too real. This brings me back to what I wrote in my paper on Sylvia Plath's poem. Literary works shock us into realizing things. Nussbaum writes, "Because it summons powerful emotions, it disconcerts and puzzles. It inspires distrust of conventional pieties and exacts a frenquently painful confrontation with one's own thoughts and intentions...Literary works that promote identification and emotional reaction cut through those self-protective stratagems, requiring us to see and to respond to many things that may be difficult to confront." In his essay "Circles," Emerson says the same thing when he talks about the effect of being unsettled: "People wish to be settled; only as far as they are unsettled is there any hope for them." Literature "disconcerts and puzzles" us, or in Emerson's words, unsettles us. Emerson says that being unsettled is a desirable condition and Nussbaum explains that this is so because "[literary works] make this process palatable by giving us pleasure in the very act of confrontation."

Haroun and the Sea of Stories

Spring break may have involved a great deal of procrastination but somehow, I managed to finish reading Salman Rushdie's Haroun and the Sea of Stories. Even more shocking is the fact that I was able to finish reading it in one sitting, perhaps because I found it to be a lighthearted and enjoyable.

I've been meaning to read other books by Rushdie, only that I never got around to doing it. So I looked up Rushdie on Wikipedia and found that he wrote this book right after his highly controversial publication, The Satanic Verses. I wonder if this had anything to do with the blatantly emphasized themes in Haroun and the Sea of Stories. The most obvious of these themes is the suppression of free speech and more importantly, the pollution of people's imaginations. As a children's book, it encourages children to imagine. Reality is more often than not imposed upon us; it's enough that it's always with us. When the Cultmaster says, "You'd have done better to stick with Facts, but you were stuffed with stories," I was reminded of Charles Dicken's Hard Times which I finished reading only a few hours before picking up Rushdie's book. This is something Mr. Grandgrind might have said to Sissy Jupe. Dickens and Rushdie both write the word "fact" with a capital F. The first letter of various other words is capitalizes. This gives the word more emphasis and importance.

I also feel as though this book transcended its lighthearted tone in terms of its content. Rushdie presents a world in which all speech is barred being at war with a world that loves speech. This land of silence attempts to spread its influence over the land of speech. This entire scenario is very grave and serious if we take it outside the context of a children's book. What I found particularly interesting was the part where Rushdie talks about the burning of the Pages. It reminded me of excerpts I've read on censorship and the burning of books. Being strongly opposed to censorship, I appreciated Rushdie's book a lot. As the Hoopoe said, "Is not the Power of Speech the greatest Power of all? Then surely it must be exercised to the full?" (Power with a capital P. Speech with a capital S.)

Aside from talking about the suppression of speech and imagination, Rushdie seems to be making a big statement about what a good story is made of. General Kitab, who's name literally translates to mean book, "was on many occasions actually provoking such disputes, and then joining in with enthusiastic glee, sometimes taking one side, and at other times (just for fun) expressing the opposite point of view." This happens to be what good books do: present all aspects of a topic (though they eventually must take a stand.) Another instance in which Rushdie talks about good stories is when Blabbermouth says, "I always thought storytelling was like juggling. You keep a lot of different tales in the air, and juggle then up and down, and if you're good you don't drop any." To me, this also meant that in order to keep the appeal of literature in general, alive, one has to be good at keeping a balance in terms of the elements which the work is comprised of. For some reason, this reminded me of the differences between the Homeric Odyssey and Walcott's Odyssey which were created entirely as a result of a difference in language and setting. By juggling the olden tale with the contemporary language and the surreal settings, Walcott, too, presents something that is authentic and entertaining.

Authenticity is another thing that Rushdie talks about. If people rely on their imaginations, they can come up with innovative stories. Along with the need to be creative, Rushdie stresses the need for individuals to articulate their ideas as well. Silence pollutes and destroys great stories.

Walcott's Odyssey

From the beginning, Walcott's Odyssey is a complete departure from the Homeric Odyssey. Starting with the narrator, blind Billy Blue who represents the blind bard Homer, we see that this play is a parody. Homer invokes the muse in the beginning. Billy Blue says he is telling us the story because we like to hear such stories. This says a lot. For one thing, entertainment value is the primary reason why people watch plays. The contemporary speech makes the play altogether more interesting to watch. Our familiarity with the plot as a classic makes it humorous.

It seemed as though Walcott made it a point to present everything as the opposite of how Homer presents it. Homer starts with the story of Telemachus. Walcott starts with Troy. He gives us a glimpse of the hero, Odysseus, first. Odysseus is not the valiant and amazing hero we see in the Homeric Odyssey. He is rather warlike and we see his internal conflict right away through the use of Thersites as a foil.

Moving on, we see Walcott's characterization of women; Penelope is more assertive, Circe's sexuality is played up to an extreme and Nausika's character is put in an entirely new perspective. In the Odyssey, we don't see much of Nausika. She is the pure and completely restrained daughter of King Alcinous. Walcott shows us a lot more of her character. She's a typical teenager caught in between childhood and adulthood. She is extremely flirtacious and constantly wants to talk about sex. Clearly, she's not getting any. This brings us back to the Homeric theme of growing up which was only seen in Telemachus. Here, Nausika parallels Telemachus's story of growing up. He is desperately trying to make the transition into manhood while she is desperately trying to make the transition into womanhood. Here, Arete is not present. In Telemachus's life, Odysseus is not present. This has a tremendous impact on how these two characters mature into adults.

What I found to be most intriguing about Walcott's play is his rendition of the underworld scene. Walcott's surreal choice of setting is most important in this scene. Earlier, the Cyclops scene was set on a "long, grey, empty wharf" and Odysseus and his men randomly encountered a philosopher who said some very strange things to them. Now, the underworld is set in the underground and there is a random machine with a mirror. His mother, Anticlea, is dressed in a coat, hat, and scarf. This is all very strange. Also, Odysseus does not encounter all of the other characters such as Agamemnon and Achilles.

But why the underground? Yes, it is under, but it is also a place of transportation. Anticlea says, "You never get off. The train goes on forever." This is a different perspective on death. In Homer's Odyssey, death is presented as static condition. The dead are in one place, oblivious of their surrounding and suffering. Here, they are oblivious, but moving constantly on a train going nowhere. This nonetheless comes back to Homer, but from a different direction, as it all amounts to not going anywhere in the end. Anticlea cannot see her reflection in the mirror. She is gone from the real world and is underneath. We can envision a train, going on endlessly in a dark tunnel.

In Walcott's Odyssey, we clearly see the emotion better. We don't have to search for it in metaphors. This differentiates drama from poetry. Drama can be altogether more enjoyable and entertaining, as the characteristics and emotions are expressed entirely in dialogue. We also note that Walcott is, in many ways, poking fun at the Odyssey. It's like taking a classic down from its pedestal and placing it within the sphere of our tangible world. Parodies thrive on humor. This reminded me of one of my favorite parodies: the movie, 10 Things I Hate About You, which is a parody of Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew. Parodies just go to show how a drastic change in setting and language can entirely change the the interpretation and the tone of a literary work.