[ اللغة الانجليزية ] : last year......old plan group

[لاتغرك ضحكتي]

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة ليان محمد

ماحصلتها بالتفريغ الي عندي انتوا من وين ذاكرتوها ؟

تلقينها حبيبتي بتفريغ العام
اضغطي على ايقونة المرفقات تبع الموضوع و بتلقين التفريغ

[شتاء عمري]

امين وياك
لاتغرك ممكن تنزلين تفريغ جنرال؟؟

[شتاء عمري]

بنااااااااااات بسالكم احد عنده اميل دكتوره ليلى باطوق؟؟

[طيرالحب]

Poetry (3)

Siegfried Sassoon: 'They'

The Bishop tells us: 'When the boys come back
'They will not be the same; for they'll have fought
'In a just cause: they lead the last attack
'On Anti-Christ; their comrades' blood has bought
'New right to breed (give life) an honourable race,
'They have challenged Death and dared him face to face.'

'We're none of us the same!' the boys reply.
'For George lost both his legs; and Bill's stone blind;
'Poor Jim's shot through the lungs and like to die;
'And Bert's gone syphilitic (contracted a sexual disease): you'll not find
'A chap who's served that hasn't found some change.
' And the Bishop said: 'The ways of God are strange!'

· In this poem, Sassoon moves away from the rigid, traditional and conventional way of approaching the issue of war.

Ø In what way is Sassoon’s approach different from the traditional approach towards war?
- His approach is an anti-approach (he is against the old approach towards war). He is not teaching or encouraging young people to go to war; he is speaking of war as being the cause of death and casualties.

Ø How to see the approach towards the issue of war?
- One is with and the other is against. The poem is a step away from the conventional and the traditional. When we say that his approach moves away from the conventional and traditional, we are hinting that his style is different. We’re suggesting going back to the modern trend. So, because the poet is not with war, he is less conventional, less traditional, and less enthusiastic for the idea of joining war, which denotes a turn towards Modernism more or less.

Ø What proves this point of view?
- First: even the form of the poem, the division of attention, the rhyme, the punctuation, how the sentences are cut, the division of the poem itself into two stanzas (as if he’s dividing it into two parties, having a conversational style). All of this gives us a hint that he is moving or turning a little bit forward to this new heritage that started to evolve by the modernists. We may think of this poem as being an anti-war poem. If we are to examine it again from the perspective of modern poetry, we will find that it meets some of the demands of modern poetry. In order to give our justification, or to concentrate on this, we want to see how far the issue of war or the subject matter he creates is different from the subject matter of someone like Rupert Brooke who was conventional and traditional in his point of view regarding war.

- Second: Sassoon himself is writing on a subject matter opposite to all the others and he is capable of turning or going back to the other side to show their attitude towards the meaning of life.

[IMG]file:///C:/Users/BDD0~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG] About Siegfried Sassoon:-
- He is a young man from a wealthy family. He is an author soldier and he has his own artistic touches in putting his own words; the images of the war are very clear in his poetry. Because he comes from an aristocratic wealthy family, he has an interest in hunting. He is different from Rupert Brooke because he had been face to face with the experience of war and the actual battle field. He taken action in the battlefield and had received more than one injury and had been hospitalized. So, when he comes to speak about war, we may find him closer to the real experience. Because he rejected the whole idea of war, he refused to receive a prize or a reward for his achievement in war because it would be a reward for killing and being killed.
[IMG]file:///C:/Users/BDD0~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG] Remember that Rupert Brooke mentioned the word (evil) in his poem “The Soldier”. What kind of evil was it? Was it the evil war? Or that war is the only means to dismiss evil from their lives? Brooke speaks about war as the only means to dismiss evil from their lives. Here Sassoon is describing war itself as being evil. In order to understand the whole matter you have to read Brooke’s poem then re-read this poem to find the points of comparison between the two.
[IMG]file:///C:/Users/BDD0~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG] The poet has the right to speak against war because he had immediate face to face experience with war; he had been a victim of it. He is one of the justified people to speak against war. As for Rupert Brooke, war was a means or a tool to dismiss evil from the world and to achieve a kind of settlement; so he is speaking of war in a romantic way. Sassoon is exposing to the readers the ugly face of war. The poem “The General” was written after the death of a close friend of his; he had also lost a number of his friends and colleagues. He is speaking of war as the only evil that is demolishing their lives.
[IMG]file:///C:/Users/BDD0~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG] Because of his religious leanings, and because some of these anti-war poets were criticizing the religious system of war and certain practices of the church, even in his marriage, Sassoon was ready to break any relation with things that he believes are demolishing, collapsing or leading to the deterioration of his own society; He broke away from the Bishop and the church and turned away to another sector, he dismissed his wife, and broke away from the whole system by rejecting, criticizing and satirizing war and people behind it. As if he is saying that these people sit in their homes preaching war not practicing it or knowing the real price of going to war. This is a trend that you may trace in all the poetry under the label of anti-war.
Analysis of the poem:-
- (They) refers to the soldiers; the main characters, the Bishop, speaks of all the as one entity. So, we have the soldiers on one side and the Bishop on the other. When we say the word (they) rather than (these two for example), this indicates ignoring, abolishing, obliterating, not belonging, neglecting and giving less evaluation to their real identities in a kind of generalization. This is the main point that draws our attention when we read (they).
- In 1st stanza: we are invited to believe in the (they) of the Bishop because he is the bishop, and when we turn to the second stanza, there are names and people with certain identities with titles, emotions attached to them and actions practiced by or against them; so they are not (they) anymore, though the word (they) is the first word used by the Bishop in the first stanza.
- The bishop is speaking of all the soldiers as being one group or the same thing; feeling and suffering the same. He is referring to them with detachment, creating this distance between himself and the group of these young soldiers, the children of England.
- This is the daily preaching of the bishop; Sassoon is saying that they have been told everyday by the Bishop about the things that they will achieve. The Bishop is giving a justification for the war saying that the cause will be (just) and right. He is also saying that they will have fought the (anti-Christ), so it’s not only out of devotion to their land, but also out of devotion to God; according to the Bishop, they are serving God as well as they are serving their country. He says that because they are carrying out or fulfilling a mission, when they come back they will not be the same, because they will have put an end to the anti-Christ world, or the world of the unbelievers, the world that is against Christ. He is saying that they are spilling their blood to allow a new race to grow up on their land; their blood will be the price for buying or keeping the race of the royals, since the Bishop is referring to England. Later on, when the soldiers speak for themselves, they will speak of this race as only the race of the blue-blooded. So, the Bishop says that when they give their lives and their blood is spelt on the ground, they will keep on the greatness of their race.
- The Bishop is glorifying the idea of going to war; he is stressing on the importance of sending these young children of England to war. He is trying to convince the listeners, and the soldiers themselves, day by day that when they join the war they will come more mature, more experienced and they will gain honor for themselves and their country; they are glorifying their own land by giving it their own lives.
- The Bishop mentions the word (they) four times: he is generalizing and obliterating any identity the soldiers have, forgetting about their individuality and different personalities. So, people of power and decision makers refuse to refer to the soldiers as individuals.
- When these soldiers come back from war they come back changed, physically, emotionally and mentally. However, the Bishop is concentrating that they will not be the same because of their achievement.
- The Bishop is speaking of the enemy of their country as the anti-Christ because he is speaking on behalf of the Church. The Church is waging a war against another country by referring to it as the enemy of Christ. This stanza was written in an ironic style in order to attack and satirize the Bishop who stands for all the bishops of the Church of England at that time who practiced kind of propaganda for the sake of decision makers and the political system; they are practicing this activity of advertising and emphasizing the idea of war in their society. The poet is adopting the voice of the Bishop in order to speak ironically and satirize the attitude and the point of view of the Church regarding sending these children to war. Notice that he refers to one Bishop, while the Bishop is speaking of them as (they); the poet is referring to the entire system of the Church.
- Also, in the 1st stanza, though the Bishop is using the word (they) to refer to the soldiers, he is speaking of all the soldiers, while the Bishop is used as one bishop to refer to all the men of the Church.
- In the 2nd stanza: the soldiers are describing how they had changed. When the poet says (some change), he is indicating that the soldiers in the stanza have been changed physically, but there are also soldiers who have been changed emotionally and mentally; they have become morally deteriorated because they had seen a lot in the war; some of those soldiers would commit suicide because they become emotionally alienated.
ü Sassoon’s anti-war poetry is a kind of modern poetry; his poem is less conventional, less traditional, and it’s more modern


v The general characteristics of modern poetry in the poem are:
§ Irony - Pessimism
§ Regarding the form: the poem is in two stanzas. In the lines of the first stanza we see the choice of words that are direct, exact and strict, which means the demands of modern poetry.
§ Regarding the punctuation: the colons, semi-colons and the comma are used differently in the two stanzas. The cutting of the sentences indicates the feelings of the speaker. We notice this in the words of the Bishop, which indicates that he is not hundred percent certain or that he doesn’t believe in what he’s saying, so his sentences are not coming smoothly; he is not firm in what he’s saying.
§ Regarding the style: the poet used some colloquial words as often happens in modern poetry in an attempt to break with the past of the Victorian rigid language.
§ The repetition of the word (they) is to enhance or emphasize the detachment between the two (the bishop on one side and the soldiers on the other); Sassoon is creating an image of the relation between the two through the Bishop’s language. He is referring to the sense of detachment and the lack of any emotional communication between the two; however, in other situations they are called the Children of England because some of them have joined the war in their teens. No touch of emotion is felt in the language of the Bishop when he is speaking of these children; he is too rigid and strict and not interested in the destiny of these children. On the other hand, the soldiers have more things in common; they have been unified and have been touched by their own experiences. They are joining in the same experience and dying for the same cause, and they do sympathize with each other. The speaker in the second stanza is giving names of soldiers and listing the suffering of each one of them, adding a human touch or emotion that is absent completely from the speech of the Bishop. In the second stanza there is kind of stability and the lines run naturally because they reflect the actual experience of the soldiers.
§ Regarding the rhythm, the language presents the character of these young children. Balancing the language in the two stanzas: the language of the Bishop is strict, emotionless and general, and the balance in the rhythm is an attempt to obliterate their characters. The language of the soldiers clarifies their suffering and emphasizes their characters; therefore the rhythm in their language is clear cut in order to show the ugly truth of war. The punctuation in the second stanza shows the soldiers’ attitude towards their experience; there is more punctuation marks, more pauses and less emotion which is a clear indication of the uncertainty of the speaker, while in the second stanza, there is little punctuation, less uncertainty and showing of the demands of the soldiers.
§ The conclusion of these differences between the 1st and the 2nd stanzas and how they add to the meaning:
- We find that the Bishop in the 1st stanza is justifying the loss of life, speaking in a rigid language because he is not participating in the war. On the other hand, the language of the speakers in the second stanza, shows stanza stability, the lines run naturally, the language is more confident, because the speaker reflects the actual experience of the soldiers who go to war.
- Away from the meaning, through the language, the use of punctuation and the use of certain vocab we come to see the attitude of the two speakers looking at life.

The General by Siegfried Sassoon

‘Good-morning; good-morning!’ the General said
When we met him last week on our way to the line.
Now the soldiers he smiled at are most of ’em dead,
And we’re cursing his staff for incompetent (not able to plan well)swine.
‘He’s a cheery old card,’ grunted Harry to Jack
As they slogged up to Arras with rifle and pack.

But he did for them both by his plan of attack. (he is clearly blaming him)

[IMG]file:///C:/Users/BDD0~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]The general is in the backyard of the battlefield listing the soldiers, arranging them and giving them instructions before sending them to war. Here we have the General and the soldiers and they are in the battlefield. The poem is seven lines. The poet wants to say that the General (the decision maker) had planned the attack and he should be responsible for what had happened to the soldiers.
[IMG]file:///C:/Users/BDD0~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG] When the General said “good morning”, he was completely unaware of the consequences of this battle to which he is sending those children. The General has no emotional relation with these soldiers; he cannot remember them or their faces, even though some of them are absent, because he developed no emotions for them, and because they are just numbers on his list. The number of soldiers will be substituted by another, and the fire will keep on burning the souls of these children; whenever one is absent, another one will be a substitute so that the list is complete. So, this General is seeing these soldiers from a distance; when these soldiers are injured they are killed or hospitalized then taken care of by their families, and they no longer become of the group.
[IMG]file:///C:/Users/BDD0~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG] So, the General is not in direct contact with the deaths and injuries; he has developed no relationship with these people. His “good morning” is merely a habit; it’s actually not a good, bright or happy morning, it’s the beginning of suffering or loss of life; he actually means “good bye”. The soldiers who come back alive curse the General and his whole stuff because they are responsible for the deaths and casualties. The soldier is saying that the General is old and has nothing in common with them.
[IMG]file:///C:/Users/BDD0~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG] If we compare the two poems by Sassoon, the Bishop and the General were responsible for the death and injuries of the soldiers; both are decision makers and are criticized. If we are to mix the two poems, the Bishop will come first in criticism because they have led to the collapse of the society with their idea of patriotism, encouraging people to go to war; this idea is received in the family, and when boys go to school in their early years, and it is being practiced in churches. So, these bishops are responsible for preparing, breeding and educating the whole society in which these children form an important part. The General comes next because he is the planner, the one making the decision, and the one sending these children to war.
[IMG]file:///C:/Users/BDD0~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG] Both the Bishop and the military General are observers; they are observing and knowing things from a distance. In both poems, the poet is criticizing the system that brought about the grievances; the Bishop and the General are less interested in the soldiers and more interested in their own privileges. They are abusing these children, pushing them to war, advertising their own benefits not even the country’s. The General uses the Bishop to enhance the idea of honor, nationalism and patriotism. When the General faces criticism, the Bishop goes to convince the people of the great honor and patriotism behind joining the army.
v Conclusion:-
- Sassoon is not only attacking the idea of war and the attitude of power people towards war, but also he is criticizing the whole system (the religious and the political); the religious system should be separate, practicing something that would benefit society, not be involved in the deterioration of society.
- He clarified the point of view of the soldiers because he himself had been one of them; he received injuries physical and emotional due to his experience with war.
- Regarding the idea of involvement, emotionally, both the Bishop and the General are not involved in war, or in the individual suffering of the soldiers. So, when the Bishop or the General speak to about the soldiers they speak with little or no ability to convince the listener; even the “good morning” giving by the General is a cold one and he was not even able to notice the absence of some of the soldiers.

Finished …

دعواتك

[لاتغرك ضحكتي]

سبقتني طير الحب جزاها الله خير

[شتاء عمري]

جايني احساس ان الاسئله بتكرار

[لاتغرك ضحكتي]

Me too

[طيرالحب]

طيب خلونا نحلها

[لاتغرك ضحكتي]

سؤال عن الحضاره
ايش جواب نتائج battle of hastings ?

[شموخي قهر عذالي]

اي اسئله