salesie Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 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. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As far as I know, Angie, no one has ever said that anyone with mental illness or near blindness should be prevented from painting because they would be no good at it. But if they ever did, we could point to Van Gogh and Monet to show why such an argument is ridiculous. There are, however, plenty who believe that homosexuals cannot make good soldiers - which is why Owen is a prime example to highlight their argument's inherent stupidity. And, if we don't point this out then how will they ever learn? Cheers - salesie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 I think it’s relevant to bear in mind that this thread and the one in which he or she explained better why the information was needed, was started by someone working for the IB, so that he or she is probably still at school. It’s not the student’s fault that the English teacher has set the subject of gay poets and I suspect it can be very hard for students to know where to start. I accept that the question was expressed badly. As I said on the other thread, I find distasteful the concept of going looking for evidence of writers’ sexuality, but having said all that, if some of us with adult perspectives and maturity can help a young person locate reliable sources of literary or historical comment and biography, then maybe we can show the way for a mature appreciation of its relevance, or irrelevance. Some of us did try to help with academic references or observations rather than prurient speculation. However, as usual, the very mention of homosexuality brought out the usual sniggers, double entendres, effeminate stereotypes and facile remarks which rather reinforce Angie’s point that discussion brings out the homophobes. It also seems to challenge some to demonstrate how wonderfully worldly they are by making amusing comments and, in justification, describing their astonishingly broad-minded social circles and claiming that we’re all grown-ups. Well, we’re probably not, if you include the person who was looking for the information. He may be a sixteen- to eighteen-year-old girl. Having been one once and met the odd specimen, I believe that many sixteen year old girls would find the way that thread was developing to be the e-equivalent of having accidentally walked into the boys’ toilets. If the original questioner had started from Owen’s poetry, accompanied by some solid background reading, s/he might have formed an opinion of his sexual preferences. Starting with the premise that he was gay, then looking for quotations to support this, is entirely the wrong way to go about a literary study. It trivialises it to the extent that you might as well write an assignment on poets who had blue eyes. Gwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 Taking on board what Dragon says, a question for Warpoet101 - will you have the courage to tell your teacher that some of us on this board are concerned about whether this is a proper subject for discussion. Ask your teacher to explain why it matters - hopefully by joining up and posting here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 Taking on board what Dragon says, a question for Warpoet101 - will you have the courage to tell your teacher that some of us on this board are concerned about whether this is a proper subject for discussion. Ask your teacher to explain why it matters - hopefully by joining up and posting here. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I also would like to see that happen. Is it possible that the teacher set this subject in the hope that pupils would discover that sexual proclivities need not have an adverse effect on a soldier's ability to carry out his duties. I suppose, in this day and age, I should say his/her duties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 However, as usual, the very mention of homosexuality brought out the usual sniggers, double entendres, effeminate stereotypes and facile remarks which rather reinforce Angie’s point that discussion brings out the homophobes. Gwyn <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Do I detect a certain overreaction here? I may have missed something but where are the "sniggers, double entendres, (should that not be doubles entendres?),effeminate stereotypes and facile remarks"? Perhaps a case of "Honi soit qui mal y pense"? As the Scousers say, "Calm down, calm down" Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 should that not be doubles entendres<{POST_SNAPBACK}> No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 Do I detect a certain overreaction here? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 Perhaps a case of "Honi soit qui mal y pense"? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Non. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 (should that not be doubles entendres?),<{POST_SNAPBACK}> No, the OED says not - but my schoolboy French indicated yes! Any idea why "double" doesn`t take an S in the plural? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Clay Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 ...but where are the "sniggers, double entendres, (should that not be doubles entendres?),effeminate stereotypes and facile remarks"? ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> On the other thread, Phil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 However, as usual, the very mention of homosexuality brought out the usual sniggers, double entendres, effeminate stereotypes and facile remarks which rather reinforce Angie’s point that discussion brings out the homophobes. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It does indeed reinforce Angie's point, but if I have to be in the e-company of those who will snigger like schoolchildren at such matters, or who are homophobic or, otherwise bigoted, then I prefer to know who they are. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Clay Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 ... if I have to be in the e-company of those who will snigger ... or who are homophobic or, otherwise bigoted, then I prefer to know who they are. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Fair point, John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soren Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 Why are people pointing the homophobe finger around, it really must be nice, but lonely up there on those pedestals. From what I can see more hot air has been puffed about the schoolboy humour, can we now see these fantastic minds offer their opinions on the original request Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunboat Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 For those interested in reading more about Owen, his early life (bearing in mind he died aged 25), his war service and for a balanced exploration of his sexuality I can recommend Domonic Hibberds biography published by Phoenix. I don't think anyone is spouting hot air or standing on pedestals (in my case it would have to be a particularly robust one) I think some of us were just of the opinion that it whilst Owen's or anyone elses sexuality should in an ideal world be irrelevant because we all should be open-minded to all diversity in society, we are not yet there and so it is useful to discuss these things. And as fatuous as this may seem, if General French showed lack of judgement caused by lack of sleep because of piles...then yes it should be explored Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JIM EDWARDS Posted 12 November , 2005 Share Posted 12 November , 2005 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}> I notice WARPOET101 only joined a couple of days ago. Straight in on the sex theme. Wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveBrigg Posted 13 November , 2005 Share Posted 13 November , 2005 if I have to be in the e-company of those who will snigger like schoolchildren at such matters, or who are homophobic or, otherwise bigoted, then I prefer to know who they are. John <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry, I think I'm a bit slow here. Without repeating the offensive comments, can someone provide a link to the homophobia and bigotry? Thanks Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted 13 November , 2005 Share Posted 13 November , 2005 Dave Most of the inuendo has already been edited out by the poster(s). I must say that a serious subject such as this deserves better than schoolboy, end of the pier "humour". Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest British Sapper Posted 13 November , 2005 Share Posted 13 November , 2005 Homophobia and bigotry ! Smear words ? Bloody grow up ! All the accepted 'war poets' were pacifists and socialists. That does not mean they were not right . The idea that homosexuality was also involved does not shock me at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Posted 13 November , 2005 Share Posted 13 November , 2005 All the accepted 'war poets' were pacifists and socialists. That does not mean they were not right . <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How do you explain away Owens pacifism with the fact he actively took part in combat. What are your sources? Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soren Posted 13 November , 2005 Share Posted 13 November , 2005 I seem too remember that Sassoon was known as 'Mad Jack', due to his heroics, and lust for the fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mythago Posted 13 November , 2005 Share Posted 13 November , 2005 I wasn't going to respond to this thread as warpoet101 seems to have engaged in classic troll behaviour - ie join a forum, make a couple of provocative posts and sit back and watch the fun. And haven't we performed! However... All the accepted 'war poets' were pacifists and socialists. This is rather a sweeping generalisation. *grabs copy of The Penguin Book of First World War Poetry off the shelf* Lessee. This contains poetry by among others, Thomas Hardy Rupert Brooke Julian Grenfell John MacRae Charles Hamilton Sorley Edmund Blunden Ivor Gurney Robert Graves Siegfried Sassoon Rudyard Kipling EE Cummings Alice Meynell Frederic Manning Wilfred Owen DH Lawrence Isaac Rosenberg Archibald MacLeish Many of the 53 poets included were combatants, regardless of their stance on the war, their politics or indeed their sexuality. Not all survived. While these three aspects of their characters undoubtedly informed what they wrote, I suspect for most, writing poetry about the war was a way of exorcising the demons the war induced. Should the OP still be reading, I would second Gunboat's recommendation of the Hibberd biography of Owen, which I read recently. Cas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salesie Posted 13 November , 2005 Share Posted 13 November , 2005 Homophobia and bigotry ! Smear words ? Bloody grow up ! All the accepted 'war poets' were pacifists and socialists. That does not mean they were not right . The idea that homosexuality was also involved does not shock me at all. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Pacifists and socialists to a man? With a touch of homosexuality? That's a sweeping statement, Sapper, and wrong, of course. But, as with most generalisations, it does contain an element of truth. This generalised notion, the myth that all the Great War poets were pacifists and socialists with a sprinkling of homosexuals in their ranks is the very reason I became involved in this thread. When Angie came up with her halt the discussion "campaign" I felt compelled to "speak out" about the inherhent folly of such an approach. It's clear from your posting, Sapper, that more discussion is needed rather than less. Cheers - salesie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 13 November , 2005 Share Posted 13 November , 2005 What does one call someone who (Like probably most members?) is neither homophobic nor homophiliac? Phil B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveBrigg Posted 13 November , 2005 Share Posted 13 November , 2005 But came the talk: I found Three or four others for an argument. I forced their pace. They shifted their dull ground, And went Sprawling about the passages of Thought. We tugged each other's words until they tore. They asked me my philosophy: I brought Bits of it forth and laid them on the floor. They laughed, and so I kicked the bits about, Then put them in my pocket one by one, I, sorry I had brought them out, They, grateful for the fun. And when these words had thus been sent Jerking about, like beetles round a wall, Then one by one to dismal sleep we went: There was no happiness at all In that short hopeless argument... - Harold Monro (Royal Artillery and friend of Owen) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDick Posted 13 November , 2005 Share Posted 13 November , 2005 What does one call someone who (Like probably most members?) is neither homophobic nor homophiliac? Phil B <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In short, I would say well adjusted. BTW: Homophilic rather than homophiliac? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now