War Poetry / Dulce et Decorum est / The Soldier

Good morning members and welcome to The Movement’s 17^th meeting. My name is Renee, founder and president of this association, and it is my pleasure to introduce our topic and two guest speakers. For those of you live streaming, welcome and we’d love to get your opinion on our presentation today – send us your very own poem if you like! You will be able to tweet us during the meeting using #TheMovementWar. Tag us in your post @TheMovementPoetry and we can favourite and retweet the best of your comments. Hopefully we can get some of the tweets coming through behind me on the screen here.

In light of the current unrest in Syria and Iraq dominating news coverage, today’s topic will explore the contrasting opinions of war throughout the 20^th century as voiced by notable war poets. War poets from the 20^th century were the first to write from experience and with uncompromising truth about the nature of modern warfare. What poetry can do, ladies and gentlemen, is encapsulate experiences, feelings and ideas with a depth, force and brevity that prose cannot equal. Today, our guest speakers and I will be carefully examining the opinions of respected war poets and drawing parallels between their words and our own ideologies. I ask that each member here today take part in an opinion poll so that we can know how this particular group of people view a number of issues.

Now, I’d like to introduce and formally welcome our speakers this morning, Dr. Sarah Prentice and Dr. James Williams, both lecturers at the university, experts in their respective fields and new members to our poetry society. I have asked each of them to present and analyse the many voices represented in war poetry.

James speaks.

Sarah speaks.

Thank you Dr. Prentice and Dr. Williams for you scholarly and in-depth analysis of those especially thought-provoking poems. Members, the survey will now be collected and I would encourage you to consider the poets that have been discussed already, their views on war and your own knowledge of the recent events in Iraq.

War seems to be the most destructive and horrific type of human interaction. No other setting allows people to kill each other in such massive numbers or to cause such incredible and widespread suffering. More than any other conflict, the Great War  inspired writers of all generations and classes, most notably among soldiers. Famous war poets Wilfred Owen and Rupert Brooke, whose poems I will be discussing this morning, wrote about their individual experiences of war, expressing their voices and representing the attitudes and values of their social context. Juxtaposing the poems of these two poets will provide insight into the concepts, identities and circumstance these poems were written to embody. Rupert Brooke, an English poet during the First World War, was known for his idealistic war sonnets, especially “The Soldier”. Brooke’s importance as a poet is partly due to the extraordinary success he enjoyed through representing the popular attitudes and beliefs in the opening months of the First World War. “The Soldier” was written during 1914 and was the conclusion to Brooke’s war sonnet series dealing with the death and accomplishments of a soldier. Interestingly, the inscription on Rupert Brooke’s headstone was written by fellow English poet and soldier, Wilfred Owen. Wilfred Owen, one of the leading poets of the First Wold War, provided a stark contrast to both the public perception of war at the time and to the patriotic verse written by earlier war poets including Brooke. His shocking, realistic war poetry, including “Dulce et Decorum est”, on the horrors of trenches and gas warfare is now studied extensively and has shaped our vision of the Western Front. Written in 1917, “Dulce et Decorum est” is known for its horrific imagery and condemnation of war. These poets and their poems portray vastly dissimilar ideologies considering their similarities in context, time and place.

In the very first line of the sonnet, “The Soldier”, there is an overwhelming feeling of self sacrifice – “If I should die, think only this of me”. Immediately, Brooke’s foreshadow of death encourages the reader to sympathise with the voice of the poem, imagining that this thought exists in every soldiers mind as he serves. Rupert Brooke manipulates and effectively applies poetic techniques to passively influence an audience to accept the idealised selflessness that Brooke encourages in his poem “The Soldier”. Using compelling imagery, symbols and figurative language, Brooke successfully portrays the themes of death, warfare, patriotism, love and the natural world. In the first stanza, Brooke creates an image full of pathos and patriotism through the line “There is some corner of a foreign field that is forever England”. The soft alliteration lends this line a subdued tone, disguising the reality of death. Further reinforcing this theme of death and sacrifice in the poem, in the subsequent lines “In that rich earth a richer dust concealed / A dust whom England bore, shaped, made aware”, Brooke exploits a religious discourse. ‘Dust’ is a common literary metaphor for the body coming from “Ashes to ashes, dust to dust,” a phrase from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer burial service. Incorporating this religious discourse here, and in the lines “Washed by the rivers, blest by suns of home” and “In hearts at peace, under an English heaven”, assures the reader that Brooke’s stance on war was honourable and moral.  The lines “Gave, once, her flowers to love, her ways to roam” and “Her sights and sounds; dreams happy as her day; / And laughter, learnt of friends” demonstrate to a reader the patriotic intensity of the poem through the overly upbeat and positive language used despite the dire circumstances. England’s abundance and pastoral beauty is emphasised as a gift in these lines. This is an important and recurrent metaphor in Brooke’s writing as it provides a way of giving meaning to death by placing it in the context of a normal, social exchange. “And gentleness, in hearts at peace / Under an English heaven”: the poem ends with a startling proposition: that Heaven is now “an English heaven” and the connection with England will remain forever unbroken. The sonnet’s turn from an idyllic vision of England to the idea of a transcendent and literally heavenly England is reminiscent of the entire poem and encompasses Brooke’s attitudes and ideologies concerning war. Brooke’s poem, “The Soldier”, is a highly persuasive poem that aimed to provide a guiding principle for the conduct of life in relation to warfare and enlistment during the First World War. “The Soldier” invites the audience to accept the act of war as honourable, righteous and necessary.  

Wilfred Owen’s poem “Dulce et Decorum Est”, also written during the First World War, presents a great contrast in discourse, intention and subject matter to “The Soldier” and this contrast shows a clear anti war propensity. The language, theme and imagery contribute to the influence that the poem has on an audience. Most noticeable to readers is the vividness of the imagery and Owen’s ability to bring the horrors of war to life. The first line, “Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,” shows us that the troops are so exhausted and lethargic they can be compared to old beggars. Reducing the foreign concept of soldiers at war to the familiar sight of beggars is effective in revealing the true horrors of war. Aiming to influence the ideologies of his readers and allow them an insight into the true horror of war, the images created by Owen’s words are graphic, disturbing but play an effective role in the development of the poem. Another tool in developing the effectiveness of the poem is the presence and use of diction. The use of words like “guttering”, “choking”, and “drowning”, when the troops are suffering exemplify the extreme pain and misery. These examples of cacophony, the harsh and discordant sounds these words produce, emulate the harsh nature of war and are effective in generating the tone of the poem. All these images are intended to contrast with the Latin maxim that appears in the poems title and the last line of the poem, “Dulce et Decorum Est” meaning it is “sweet and proper” to undergo die for one’s own country. The final line of the sonnet “The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est / Pro patria mori” summarises the entire purpose of Owen’s writing. Owen vehemently opposes this commonly used phrase and this resonates with readers who are familiar with it. Owen uses graphic imagery and exceptional diction to persuade the reader that war is terrible and horrific. This poem is extremely effective in showing the gruesome, heartless, and horrifying effects of war.

Though Brooke and Owen have used many of the same poetic techniques and themes in their poems, they are able to achieve conflicting arguments. “The Soldier” represents the perspectives of a pre-war society and is seen in the context of the early part of World War 1, a time when literature was characterised by a patriotic fervour and not eroded by the long years of trench warfare. Through the fact that “The Soldier” was accepted during 1914, you can make the connection that the public shared Brooke’s view of hope for a deeper meaning to the war and death. Though Brooke’s fiercely patriotic and light take on WWI in “The Soldier” strongly appealed to the public as they coped with loss during the commencement of WWI, its sentimentality is criticized for romanticizing the war and masking the true horrors England was experiencing. In striking contrast, “Dulce et Decorum Est” describes the gruesome effects of war and concludes that platitudes such as “it is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country” would not be repeated if the reality was understood. “The Soldier” and “Dulce et Decorum Est” both appeal to the emotions, values and morals of the audience and have engaged the thoughts of scholars for decades.  

The ever-present question, ladies and gentlemen: Are we going to have peace, even if we have to fight for it? Or is an unjust peace better than a just war?

Effect of Height and Mass of Ball on Crater Depth / Physics EEI

Discussion

This investigation involved observing the effect of changing the height a ball is dropped from and the mass of the ball on the depth of the crater formed in the sand both qualitatively and quantitatively. The experiment was designed to fairly and accurately test the formulated hypotheses.

Hypotheses investigated:

·         If the height in which the mass (ball) is dropped from is increased then the depth of the crater that is created in the sand will increase. Likewise, if the height is decreased then the depth of the crater will decrease.

·         If the mass of the ball is increased then the impact gravitational potential energy is increased, increasing the depth of the crater.  If the mass is decreased then the depth of the crater is also decreased.

Interpretation and Explanation of Results

The first hypothesis was tested by dropping a ball from varying heights. As there were seven balls, this experiment was repeated seven times allowing the results to be compared. In each test, the ball was a controlled variable, the depth of the crater was the dependent variable and was measured and the height the ball was dropped from was the independent variable (refer to research plan in log book on page 2).

The first test conducted involved the first ball (a small white ball). While most of the results obtained from the experiment were quantitative data in the depth of the crater created, some observations (qualitative data) were documented. It was seen that the ball was suspended in the air until released. When released, the ball fell in a reasonably vertical nature into the bucket of sand. On impact with the sand, the ball came to a stop. This impact created a crater in the sand (see image in appendix 1 for example).

The quantitative data that was collected, as seen in appendix 2, allowed a thorough analysis of the experiment. Ball #1 was dropped three times from each 1m, 2m, 3m, 4m and 5m. Each test, the depth of the crater was measured and recorded. An average of the three tests was then calculated so that it was easier to interpret and graph the results. Before an average was calculated it was noted that for each test, the average range of the three results was 0.1cm. As hypothesised, the results, when graphed (see log book page 50), show that the depth of the crater increased as ball #1 was dropped from a greater height up to 4 metres. Conversely, when dropped from 5 metres, the ball created a crater depth of 1.62cm, less than that created when dropped from 4 metres and only marginally more than when dropped from 3 metres. This result may have been due to a number of inaccuracies or errors that were involved in the experiment (as discussed in the next section – errors and improvements).

The graph of the results from ball #1 did support the hypothesis in that the depth of the crater tends to increased as the ball is dropped from greater heights when a line of best fit is plotted. This curve-fit for the graph has an equation of: y = 0.216x + 0.828 (depth of crater = 0.216 x drop height + 0.828) and an r-value of 0.8191 (a r-value of 1 would fit the plotted points perfectly). The r-value reveals that the line fits the points fairly well but does not accurately represent the relationship. However, considering that the test from 5 metres seems to be an anomaly, the removal of this point from the results and the graph revealed a clear relationship between the depth of the crater and the height ball #1 is dropped from. When the line of best fit is graphed on the line has a r-value of 0.9849, fitting the points fairly accurately (y = 0.3459x + 0.5871). Additionally, it is consistent with the observations that the y-intercept is positive on the graph. When placed on the sand (dropped from a height of 0m), a crater is created in the sand with a depth.

The test was repeated to ensure that the hypothesis was supported when the type of ball was changed. It was found that in addition to ball #1, balls #2, #3 and #6 had similar results in that the depth of the crater increased as the height increased from 1 – 4 metres. Again, with balls #2, #3 and #6, the test from 5 metres produced a crater of smaller depth than the test from 4 metres (see graphs on pages 50-53 of log book). The linear relationship between the two variables is especially clear in the results from ball #4 – the line of best fit with an r-value of 0.9715 and the equation of the line being y = 0.113x + 1.603. While it is clear that there is a relationship between the variables (they seem to increase proportionally), each ball has shown results that are independent and there is no correlation between the tests. While the hypothesis is supported as the graphs all have a positive gradient and tend upwards, the fact that there is no common gradient or y-intercept between the graphed results (see appendix 3) suggests that the depth of the crater has been affected by another variable relating to the difference in each ball.

Despite the variation in results, the tendency of the ball to create a deeper crater as it is dropped from a greater height can be explained using relevant theory. Each ball, as it is raised to a height, gains gravitational potential energy (Hyperphysics, 2014). Gravitational potential energy is stored as a result of the gravitational attraction of the Earth for the object and is stored in an object because of its vertical position or height (The Physics Classroom, 2014). This gravitational potential energy is stored in the balls as the product of the work done in lifting it away from the Earth. If an object is lifted straight up at a constant speed, then the force needed to lift it is equal to its weight, mg (Inkling, 2014). The work done on the mass is then [work = force x distance = mass x gravity x height]. So the potential energy of the objects (balls) is associated with the state of separation between two objects that attract each other by the gravitational force (see pages 6-9 of log book) and is dependent on the mass of the ball and the height to which it is raised. Since G.P.E. (gravitational potential energy)=mgh (mass x gravity x height), increasing the height (as was done in the first experiment) will increase the gravitational potential energy – when mass is kept constant.

When the balls are released and start to fall, the gravitational potential energy that they possess is converted to kinetic energy (TJHSST, 2012). They are pulled toward the ground by the gravitational force of the Earth and begin to accelerate. This acceleration has an approximate value of 9.81 m/s², which means that, ignoring the effects of air resistance, the speed of an object falling freely near the Earth’s surface will increase by about 9.81 metres per second every second (Labman, 2013). According to the Law of Conservation of Energy (see page 17 and 18 of log book), the loss of gravitational potential energy is in fact the transformation of this energy into kinetic energy. The further the object (ball) fell, the less gravitational potential energy it had and the more kinetic energy it had. When the object (ball) hits the sand, all of the gravitational potential energy has been transferred into kinetic energy (Finnen, 2012). So, increasing the height from which the ball was dropped increased the gravitational potential energy that it possessed. Increasing the gravitational potential energy increases the kinetic energy as the ball hits the sand. As kinetic energy is proportional to the product of the mass and speed of the object and mass is kept constant, the velocity of the ball as it hits the sand is greater when there is a greater amount of kinetic energy. This is consistent with the knowledge that the further the ball has to fall the greater the eventual speed because of the constant acceleration (9.81 m/s²).

Any object in motion interacting with any other object will transfer energy to that other object. Sand (a mass or some quantity of sand instead of just one grain) is a collection of many individual objects. So, when you drop a ball into the sand, the ball will hit the sand and transfer its energy into the sand. Each sand grain will absorb some sand and move to hit another piece of sand till it eventually disseminates the movement enough that nothing else has the energy to move another piece of sand. The kinetic energy of the ball is a function of its mass and velocity squared and this energy must be absorbed in the collision between the ball and the sand. This means that the more kinetic energy that must be absorbed in a collision, the greater the potential for the movement of sand.

It was also observed that some of the balls bounced on the sand before coming to a stop. This is because, according to Newton’s law (see page 34 of log book), all actions have an equal and opposite reaction. If not all of the kinetic energy can be dissipated by the contact with the sand, it will push back against the ball sending it up.

In the second experiment – testing the second hypothesis – the height from which the balls were dropped was kept constant so that a comparison between the results obtained from changing the mass of the ball. While the hypothesis predicted that the depth of the crater would increase as the mass of the ball was increased it is clear that the results collected from the experiment do not reflect or support this hypothesis (see page 48 and 54-56 of log book).

When dropped from 1 metre, 2 metres and 5 metres the ball of mass 160g achieved the greatest depth of crater. This ball had a greater mass than only 3 other balls and was smaller than 3 balls. If the results supported the hypothesis the heaviest ball, ball #7 should have achieved the greatest depth of crater and the smallest ball, ball #1 should have made the smallest crater in the sand when dropped. Unfortunately, even through manipulating the data, it is seen in the graphs on page 34-56 that no relationship can be found between the mass of the ball and the depth of the crater. It may be possible to conclude that the mass of the ball has no particular influence on the depth of the crater. However, it must also be noted that there was a major flaw in the design of this experiment in that the surface area of the balls was not controlled. So, while air resistance, the frictional force that acts upon objects as they travel through air, may be considered neglected due to its negligible magnitude, it is impossible to draw accurate conclusions as a number of influential variables have not been controlled (Nave, 2014). Theoretically, as in the hypothesis, a greater mass should create a larger crater depth because it results in the object having a greater gravitational potential energy and therefore a greater amount of kinetic energy on impact (Hyperphysics, 2013).

This investigation sought to determine the relationship between the height from which the ball is dropped, the mass of the ball and the depth of the crater in the sand it created. In summary, as the balls are falling from a certain height, their gravitational potential energy is transformed into kinetic energy. This kinetic energy causes the movement of sand as it transfers itself to the sand in the collision. It was found that if the ball possessed a greater amount of gravitational potential energy as a result of its height above the ground then a greater amount of kinetic energy was transferred into the sand and the crater had a greater depth. Although it wasn’t supported by the results, it is also still believed that increasing the mass of the ball will have the same effect as increasing the height. The errors made in the experiment seem to explain the confusing results.

Errors and Improvements

A number of errors were made during the experiment that may have affected the accuracy and validity of the results. As mentioned above, the inaccuracy of the measuring technique may have affected the results and observations made during the experiment. As a 30cm metre ruler was used with increments of 0.1cm and the resulting depth of crater was fairly small a more accurate ruler would have eliminated a greater amount of uncertainty. Another error that may have contributed to the inaccuracy of the results was the levelling of the sand in the bucket. After each test the sand was meant to be evened out and a level surface so the depth of the next crater could be accurately measured using this level sand. Unfortunately, it may have occurred that the sand was not smoothed out evenly and the next measurement to be made based on this level was inconsistent and inaccurate. Another mistake that was made during the experiment was that in the second experiment the variables were not controlled. The balls all had varying surface areas and characteristics. The unexpected nature of the results suggests that these variables did influence the experiment and without controlling them a fair test cannot be conducted. It can also be seen that the bucket braking seemed to have an effect on the results. It is believed that the broken bucket may have caused the anomalies seen when the balls were dropped from 5 metres in the first experiment. The depths of the craters from these experiments were smaller than anticipated and this may be because the broken bucket allowed a wider dispersion of the kinetic energy. It also changed the conditions of the experiment, rendering that part of the experiment inaccurate and not a fair test. As well as this, during the experiment it was difficult to obtain results as the method that was employed to drop the balls into the bucket was imprecise. It allowed for the possibility of accidentally throwing a ball, giving it a greater amount of kinetic energy, and also made it difficult to aim into the bucket, often the ball completely missed the bucket. Lastly, as is seen (page 48 of log book), there were also no results collected for ball #7 from 4 and 5 metre drops. This was because the bucket had completely broken and could no longer be used.

Improvements should be made to this investigation in order to obtain fairer, more accurate, results and to relate the experiment to a real-life situation. As in the example experiments on page 12 of the log book, it would have been beneficial to measure the diameter of the craters as well as the depth of the craters. This additional measurement would have allowed the volume of sand displaced to be calculated and a clear representation of the amount of sand moved to be seen. It also would have been advantageous to use a wider variation of both heights that the balls were dropped from and masses of balls (with the same surface area) so that there was a greater amount of data to be analysed. It may also be beneficial to add an additional experiment to this investigation to observe the effect of differing surface areas on the displacement of sand (controlling both mass and height). This additional experiment may show the effect of air resistance and the influence it had over this experiment. To further improve this investigation a larger area of sand should be used as to keep the level of sand consistent, remove the possibility of ‘breaking’ the container and make it easier to drop the ball on to the right spot. The use of more accurate measuring tools would certainly increase the accuracy and reliability of the results of this investigation. Finally, the calculation of the impact force to determine the effect of falling objects may prove to increase the usefulness of this experiment as the results may be used to demonstrate the effect of falling pieces of infrastructure/coconuts/rain.

Christof Monologue / The Truman Show

Hope for Christof

Contextualisation

Character:  Christof
Scene:  Christof has a moment to himself after witnessing Truman exit the show.
Setting:  Christof is in his office by himself.

Structure	Script	Blocking
Awareness	No. Truman. You’ve made the wrong decision. You don’t know what you’re getting into, a nightmare far beyond your wildest imagination. There is no comfort in the truth, Truman. Reality is an enemy and the truth is his weapon. Truman, hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man. [Friedrich Nietzsche]Freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength. [George Orwell, 1949]   I had plans for you, Truman, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. [Indirect, Jeremiah 29:11]. He should know that the reality I have designed, his perception of the world, is more desirable than anything achievable by truth and certainty. His reality, as perfect and peaceful as heaven, cannot compare to the inadequacy of Earth, just as God himself intended. It was faultless, really, the ending. Truman delivered a seamless performance, the best of his life. No! I control him and the ending should have been on my terms, by my word. I should have ended it.	Angry, storm in to room. (Pace quickly, panicked) Stop face audience on ‘There is no comfort in the truth!’ Bitter. Seething, slam fist on desk on ‘strength’. Emphasise ‘know’. Laugh sarcastically, defeated on ‘faultless’. Yell ‘No!’ Breathe heavily.
Self-Doubt	I almost did. I just about killed him. He was born in front of an audience and living in front of an audience. Why couldn’t I let him die in front of one? Isn’t death just another part of existence, of reality, of life?  In an instant I could have stopped this from happening.  How could he want to leave so desperately? His world was faultless why did he question it?  With perfection there is happiness and satisfaction, isn’t there? Aren’t we all searching for perfection, for contentment, safety? His fear should have debilitated him, controlled him. Fear is a darkness closing upon you like the shutting of an eye, wrapping you in a stifling embrace. It is the strongest emotion of mankind is fear and the strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown. It is a potent weapon. How has Truman’s yearning for truth and freedom overcome his fear? I saved him from the reality he might have faced, as an orphan in the real world, the world I am forced to live in. A life of misery, poverty and unrelenting hardship. Tragedy is an orphan with no takers. Christof: the saviour. The Truman Show: an inspiration.	Firm, directed. Confused, disgusted. Sit down on chair. Run hands through hair. Thoughtful and confused.
Self-Reflection	Why not a whole lifetime? I was intrigued; a social experiment with no comparison fascinated me immensely. A world fashioned from the fabric of my own imagination. A perfect world.  A perfect reality. A chance to inspire the world back to small, close communities – the town square surrounded by neat houses, front porches close to the street, white picket fences.  A society free from pollution, crime, disease and sin. A world only God and myself have had the capacity to imagine. A simple existence as opposed to the modern urban life I’ve become too familiar with.  I built Truman and shaped his world. I didn’t make any mistakes. Nonetheless his curiosity and suspicion weren’t a product of my design. His undeniable faith in the truth and the development of his individual desires was uncontrollable. So in that moment, when the choice was mine, life or death, was I prepared for him to die? The man of my own creation? I had decided twenty-nine years ago that the Truman Show would last a lifetime. What changed?	Stand up and pace. Use hand gestures. Smile and emphasise ‘perfect.’ Loudly, convinced. Pause after ‘imagine’. Frown, bewildered. Unable to make sense of Truman. Overwhelmed and confused.
Self Realisation	Of course I never anticipated what Truman would become, who he would become. I could never have predicted the uncontrollable nature of his individualism. Did I underestimate Truman, presuming him to be a passive audience to his own reality? Did I believe him content in the bliss of ignorance? Yes. I believed that he would never question his fear of water, the reappearance of his father, the disappearance of Sylvia. I believed that he would remain oblivious to these to preserve his perception of reality. It was arrogant to assume that Truman would have no input into his individuality. Underestimating Truman’s desire for truth and hope for enlightenment was wrong of me. I did not believe that his death would affect my life either. I was wrong on both accounts. Death transcends reality. In all realities, regardless of perspective, we seem to search for the truth. The thirst for knowledge overcomes the fear of the unknown. In fact, the show itself was born from my curiosity. The intense longing to observe an unfamiliar situation. Truman opposed perfection and left in the hope that truth would bring fulfilment. In saying that, if perfection does not satisfy us, it can’t be the answer to happiness either. If contentment and satisfaction with life is rewarded with happiness then happiness is not found in perfection, but in hope. Hope in the truth and hope that there is always something greater, something that can discovered. Hope that the possibilities are endless and that limitations can’t be found.	Dark, heavy tone. Apprehensive and uneasy. Play with fingers, hands. Annoyed at self. Run hand through hair, stressed. Sit down again. Emphasise ‘happiness’.
Resolution	Truman, everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth. So there is always another reality. Another way to see the world. People fight for hope and truth. It seems then that we must fight our battle between fear and hope in the knowledge that hope is always stronger. [Saint Francis de Sales] Time:	Shake head, steady voice. Conclusive, decisive.