Robert Graves/Robert Frost

[Guest warpoet101]

could anybody help me with any information about this topic or any knowledge on any other great war poets who have had questionable sexuality as i need help urgently

[Auimfo]

Can you explain why this is an urgent matter? Otherwise I don't quite see what's relevant about Owen's or anyone other poets sexuality - questionable or not.

Tim L.

[Marco]

could anybody help me with any information about this topic or any knowledge on any other great war poets who have had questionable sexuality as i need help urgently

Good luck in whatever way.

Regards,

Marco

[HarryBettsMCDCM]

as i need help urgently

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm tempted!!

I cannot see what his or anyone elses's sexuality has to do with it,he is either a great War Poet, Or, he is not,I expect when sat in a Foxhole being shelled the s**t out of no one had much time for thoughts of sexuality,more rather just hoping to survive another day...........

[Muerrisch]

You could always read published works: poems, novels, diaries, autobiographies and biographies, like many of the rest of us have done. Subject is trivialised if said to be urgent.

[Moonraker]

Robert Graves had some flirtations when at Charterhouse, see his autobiographical "Goodbye To All That". I gather modern thinking has it that this is almost acceptable.---edited---and that most young people who so indulge confine themselves to heterosexual relationships on leaving school.

A modern biography of Siegfried Sassoon (I think a new one has just come out) will also discuss his sexuality.

Moonraker

[Guest]

Unless any historical figure of the Great War made an issue of their sexuality, or had it made an issue for them, at the time, it is really not an issue for discussion.

Frankly, who cares?

And there is no such thing as "questionable" sexuality. Only people poking their nose into matters which do not concern them.

[Muerrisch]

I totally agree ...... prurience is a word that springs to mind.

[Eddie Bosano-Andrews]

And there is no such thing as "questionable" sexuality. Only people poking their nose into matters which do not concern them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well said, I had wondered what questionable meant as well.

[Terry_Reeves]

Lease note this thread had been pinned because there are two threads on the same topic. Anymore contributions should be added to the topic that is still open.

Terry Reeves

[bernardmcilwaine]

maybe it was best that wilfred owen was killed,no doubt someone would have tried a character assassination on him after the war,which wouldnt have been a fitting tribute to a fine soldier,all i know is that he was a better MAN than me,after going through all that hell,perhaps it would be fitting to talk about wilfred owen soldier/poet,bernard

[Gunboat]

I must agree that I was at first shocked to see the use of the words questionable sexuality. I do think it was probably meant to be in inverted commas and reflect the attitude of society at the time. Don't forget that homosexuality at the time was a criminal offence and the attitude to homosexuality in the armed forces up until very recently was draconian, some people even cited that homosexual men were/are ineffectual as soldiers which is just plain nonsense.

Having had a great interest in the warpoets my understanding is that Wilfred Owen was gay as was Siegfried Sassoon and that this was well known amongst their social and literary circle but not generally for the obvious reason that they may be imprisioned. Robert Graves mentions in his book that homosexual activity was common in the public school environment at the time and it is clear that he had deep feelings for a school friend although it seems this was platonic, he did marry and later said that he was not gay but was in no way ashamed of the feelings he held for his schoolfriend and for and good for him. Given that the majority of the officer corp at the commencement of the war was from the public school their was probably a number of men in the army who had at some time during school had experienced some same sex curisoity and some were undoubtedly gay. I agree though with the general consensus of the other contributors "so what if they were gay...is it relevant" the answer is no, what is relevant is that fact that Owen and Sassoon were undoubtedly brave men but if by discussing their sexuality we perhaps open the minds of some people who may hold the fallacy that gay men are iffectual as soldiers and this can be proven wrong just by examing the records of just those two men perhaps it is worthy of the debate.

[PhilB]

Maybe people are assuming that the poster meant something negative when he referred to questionable sexuality. Quite possibly he only meant open to doubt or question - ie not confirmed? Phil B

[Jerrymurland]

Strange request! However thinking about it over the last day or so, the question of sexuality is present in both poet's work but perhaps more so in Owen's? I suppose both Owen and Sassoon shared an attitude that rejected women and feminine values, seeing them as, 'a manifestation of the uncomprehending civilian ethos. Sassoon certainly gave vent to his feelings in 'Glory of Women' as did Own in 'Apologia Pro Poemate Meo'. Owen stresses the masculine self sufficiency of the companionship of the trenches. Again in 'Greater Love' Owen refers to the 'red lips' of women and rejecting them as the emblem of both women and undefined sexuality. Owen had little pity for the suffering of bereaved women. Male fellowship and self sacrifice are to Owen an absolute value and Owen could be said to celebrate it in a manner that fuses the paternal with the erotic - not that one would overestimate the latter quality!! but its implicit presence will be apparent to any open minded individual? Take Owen's poem 'Futility', it illustrates Owen's preoccupation with the destruction of youth and it is overtly more sensuous than many of his other poems, a young man's unrealised potential and unachieved sexual fulfilment, however is it an insight into Owen's sexuality? Anyway my brain hurts after all that so good luck with the essay.

[Guest]

I think this discussion is absolutely disgusting. Just what does it matter what their sexuality was? Grow up boys, please.

[Muerrisch]

I think this discussion is absolutely disgusting. Just what does it matter what their sexuality was? Grow up boys, please.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I totally agree. If we are not careful, we will be wondering out loud whether DH picked his nose at breakfast, and if Plumer had problems with piles.

I shall now leave this thread, the person who started it has probably handed his multiple choice paper in by now.

[salesie]

I think this discussion is absolutely disgusting. Just what does it matter what their sexuality was? Grow up boys, please.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A discussion on Owen and Sassoon's sexuality does matter, and is far from disgusting within historical and literary considerations.

To this day, the narrow minded bigot's stereotypical image says that writers, particulary poets, are probably puffs and that good soldiers can't possibly be queer or supreme poets. Yet, here is incontravertable evidence that this impression is about as far from reality as it's possible to get.

Owen's undoubted homosexuality, and Sassoon's bisexuality, is a slap in the face for those who hold bigoted views. Here we have two men who wrote some of the English language's best poetry, but also served their country as brave, resourceful and determined soldiers in a war so dreadful it tested everyone who took part to the very limits of human endurance. Their sexuality didn't prevent them from being "men" in war, but did this combination of supreme human suffering and their sexuality lift their poetry, especially Owen's, to the level of greatness?

I write poetry, was a regular soldier, and I'm heterosexual. Maybe, just maybe, if I was of a different sexual persuasion my exploits as a soldier would have been more laudable and my poetry much better? Probably not, but it certainly makes me think that discussions of this sort are only disgusting if we try to hide such debate, for that simply helps to reinforce the views of bigots, and anything that makes anyone think has to be a good thing, doesn't it?

Cheers - salesie.

[Gunboat]

Well said Salsie I agree with you. I am sure though that all those that have questioned the validity of the debate are concerned that the debate could easily have been trivialised and reinforce negative stereotypes and detract from perhaps what this site celebrates, the bravery and self-sacrifice to those that fought and sied in the great war

[salesie]

Well said Salsie I agree with you. I am sure though that all those that have questioned the validity of the debate are concerned that the debate could easily have been trivialised and reinforce negative stereotypes and detract from perhaps what this site celebrates, the bravery and self-sacrifice to those that fought and sied in the great war

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, Gunboat.

I too am sure that those questioning the validity of a debate such as this are well-meaning, but my aim is to point out that stifling such discussion has the reverse effect. Confront the bigots and shout out long and hard that, historically, homosexuals have fought and died for their country just as well (or as badly) as heterosexuals have.

And, I can think of no finer example to confront the bigots with than Wilfred Owen.

Cheers - salesie.

[Guest]

But we simply have no way of knowing Owen's private thoughts, or what he did as a consenting adult in private.

So, what is the evidence for Douglas Haig's hetrosexuality?

[salesie]

But we simply have no way of knowing Owen's private thoughts, or what he did as a consenting adult in private.

So, what is the evidence for Douglas Haig's hetrosexuality?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But, Angie, we do have a clear path into Owen's private thoughts, and thus his sexuality - we have his work - for example:

It Was a Navy Boy

It was a navy boy, so prim, so trim,

That boarded my compartment of the train.

I shared my cigarettes and books to him.

He shared his heart to me (Who knows my gain!)

(His head was golden like the oranges

That catch their brightness from Las Palmas sun.)

'O whence and whither bound, lad?' 'Home,' he says,

'Home, from Hong Kong, sir, and a ten months' run.'

(His blouse was all as blue as morning sea,

His face was fresh like dawn above that blue.)

'I got one letter, sir, just one,' says he,

'And no shore-leave out there, sir, for the crew.'

(His look was noble as a good ship's prow

And all of him was clear as pure east wind.)

'I am no "sir"', I said, 'but tell me now

What carried you? Not tea, nor tamarind?'

Strong were his silken muscles hiddenly

As under currents where the waters smile.

'Nitre we carried. By next week maybe

That should be winning France another mile.'

His words were shapely, even as his lips,

And courtesy he used like any lord.

'Was it through books that you first thought of ships?

'Reading a book, sir, made me go abroad.'

'Another hour and I'll be home,' he said.

(His eyes were happy even as his heart.)

'Twenty-five pounds I'm taking home,' he said,

'It's five miles there; and I shall run, best part.'

And as we talked, some thing he said to me

Not knowing, cleansed me of cowardice,

As I had braced me in the dangerous sea.

Yet I should scarce have told it but for this.

'Those pounds,' I said. 'You'll put some twenty by?'

'All for my mother, sir.' And turned his head.

'Why all?' I asked, in pain that he should sigh:

'Because I must. She needs it most,' he said.

Wilfred Owen 1915.

This poem, with its overt homosexuality and playful coyness (for the time), is not used by me to raise Owen's sexuality into a critical issue in order to judge or condemn him. It is to help recognise a central feature of the poet's consciousness and awareness as a human being, and thus, to show those who think that sexual persuasion is a guide to a man's ability in war that they are not just wrong, but completely and utterly so.

I take you're point about Haig. But ignorance and bigotry will never be defeated by ignoring the obvious - by ignoring the fact that prejudice still exists and here is a prime example with which to defeat it.

Cheers - salesie.

[Guest]

I remain convinced that discussion like this just give an opportunity for the dirty little homophobes to muckrake.

[salesie]

I remain convinced that discussion like this just give an opportunity for the dirty little homophobes to muckrake.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And I remain convinced that stifling discussion allows the "dirty little homophobes" to reinforce their ignorance - it allows no progress.

Ask yourself this - Without discussion that openly confronted bigots, would women have ever achieved the vote? Would slavery have ever been abolished? etc. etc. etc........?

Cheers - salesie.

[Guest]

All I know is that when I see a Van Gogh painting I know he was mentally ill and when I see a late Monet I know he was nearly blind, but I simply judge the work on what I see. If I knew nothing of the artists, it would make no difference to how I regard their work.

[ianw]

If you study the man and his artistic work , IMHO I think it is quite proper to consider the sexuality of the artist along with all other aspects of his life. As Salesie has demonstrated Owen fairly overtly considers/evaluates his own sexuality in some of his poetry.

You really can't seek to stifle debate of this aspect of Owen's work because you fear that homophobes will have some sort of prurient field day. Neither could you sensibly ban consideration of D H Lawrence's sexuality or Van Gogh's mental state when considering their works. Their artistic works do not exist in a vacuum - if you consider them in this way , their meaning withers.

I would , however, agree that sexuality is often pulled out in isolation for people to snigger over. Regrettable maybe but preferable to the suggested bowdlerisation. "No sex please we're artistic".