Robert Graves/Robert Frost

[PhilB]

In short, I would say well adjusted. 

BTW: Homophilic rather than homophiliac? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes - homoneutral, homonormal

I wondered about homophiliac. There doesn`t appear to be such a word, so I copied haemophiliac, but it could be homophile or homophilic. Phil B

[PhilB]

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)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would this be H.H.Monro AKA Saki, Dave? Phil B

[Soren]

Hi,

I'd just like to apologise to Pal's who have felt/or have taken offence at my school boy humour earlier, it was that and nothing else, certainly not homophobic.

Kind regards

Soren

[DaveBrigg]

Would this be H.H.Monro AKA Saki, Dave?  Phil B

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's what I first thought, but sadly not, for Harold Monro survived, whereas 'Saki' was shot through the head near Beaumont Hamel in November 1916. Aged 44, and suffering from malaria, he had every reason not to be there.

If anyone is unfamiliar with Saki I cannot recommend highly enough the dark humour of his prose and his insight into the less pleasant sides of the human character. An IMHO excellent short story can be found at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/doklands/Clovis/Tobermory.html

Some have said that Saki was to write THE great war novel, had he survived. As it is, I only know of one of his war poems, from memory:-

While Shepherds watched their flocks by night

All seated on the ground

A high explosive shell came down

And mutton rained all round.

Below, his inscription on the Thiepval Memorial (facing you, on the right as you approach from the gravel path)

[Dragon]

warpoet101 seems to have engaged in classic troll behaviour -

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suspect that this is possibly not the case, as broadly the same question appeared around the same time that evening elsewhere on the Internet. It had the hallmarks to me of a literature student rather lost with a set topic in which he or she didn't know where to start.

Gwyn

[Guest jumberly]

Wilfred Owen

Perhaps not the finest great War poet, but one who certainly touched my heart.

He was killed in action, who gives a sh*t about his sexuality. The very discussion belittles him and trivialises his work.

Has anyone asked if he weas vegetarian? Why does it matter to people? Get a bl**dy grip.

Soren has treated his thread with the irreverence it so clearly deserves. Mate, you know you're right. When you're bumped you want people next to you with their sh*t together.

And yes, it's good not to be a homophobe, but do we need to use Owen to prove we are not.

IM very HO

[liverpool annie]

Wilfred Owen

Perhaps not the finest great War poet, but one who certainly touched my heart.

He was killed in action, who gives a sh*t about his sexuality.  The very discussion belittles him and trivialises his work.

Has anyone asked if he weas vegetarian?  Why does it matter to people?  Get a bl**dy grip.

Soren has treated his thread with the irreverence it so clearly deserves.  Mate, you know you're right.  When you're bumped you want people next to you with their sh*t together. 

And yes, it's good not to be a homophobe, but do we need to use Owen to prove we are not.

IM very HO

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am another who wasn't going to respond to this post - but I have to say I totally agree with everything Jumberley has said ....... !

Wilfred Owen's words will forever link me to a very important man in my life - and consequently - he has more than touched my heart! The poet and the words are the thing that matter!

Annie

[Soren]

Wilfred Owen

Perhaps not the finest great War poet, but one who certainly touched my heart.

He was killed in action, who gives a sh*t about his sexuality.  The very discussion belittles him and trivialises his work.

Has anyone asked if he weas vegetarian?  Why does it matter to people?  Get a bl**dy grip.

Soren has treated his thread with the irreverence it so clearly deserves.  Mate, you know you're right.  When you're bumped you want people next to you with their sh*t together. 

And yes, it's good not to be a homophobe, but do we need to use Owen to prove we are not.

IM very HO

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is kind of what I wanted to say, I can't see why it matters, anyhow I posted an apology

Soren

[Guest TanyBryn]

Well said Jumberly.

I was going to ignore this thread like Liverpool Annie, but sometimes you just can't resist. I love his poems, studied them at school for A level still enjoy them as much today. This, as has been pointed out, is a serious forum, his sexuality is perhaps not as serious a question.

[Gunboat]

I would like to suggest a compromise. I think this is a subject worthy of debate, his reputation as a poet, soldier and as a human being has been subject to much dicussion over the years and I know that his pacifist views, the unfounded smear on his personal courage was often blamed on his sexuality in less enlightened times. Whilst it is a subject worthy of debate perhaps this is not the forum to discuss societies attitude to homosexuality either at that time or today.

[Robert Dunlop]

As this, and its related, thread has evolved, I have given some thought to issues that have been raised. FWIIW, I would like to offer the following comments.

As we know, this Forum is dedicated to those who fought in the Great War, not just the Fallen. It has been great to see this respect extended to others affected by the war, including those who served in other ways, particularly the contributions of women, as well as the families who were directly affected.

Essentially, we are saying that each and every person, irrespective of what they did and how they were involved, directly or indirectly, is worthy and esteemed. There are obvious ways in which this is demonstrated, the 'Remembering Today' being one example. But I also enjoy the way contributors from so many different backgrounds and perspectives have addressed issues that affect our understanding of the experiences of this momentous war. Not just military issues, though it is particularly valuable to have the perspectives from Members whose interest lies in the German, Austro-Hungarian, Turkish, and other countries that were involved. Social and political issues have been tackled, opening our minds to ways in which social mores or political propaganda for example may have detracted from the respect that was, and oft-times still is, due. Indeed, at its very heart, war is about lack of respect, both in its starting and in its execution.

Almost all of us have been personally affected in some way by the Great War. Respect for each other is the natural extension of the primary focus of the Forum. This is encoded in the Forum Rules. But rules are not sufficient and cannot convey the deeper sense of intrinsic worth that each Member has, irrespective of what he or she has to contribute.

Whenever we discuss an individual involved in the Great War on this Forum, we should consider what we would say if that individual were actually a Member. More relevant, that individual's much loved granddaughter or great-grandson might be a Member.

Does this mean we should avoid tackling difficult issues? By no means. It is important, however, to maintain the distinction between who a person is/was and the actions taken or opinions expressed by that person.

When Members ask for information about relatives involved in the Great War, there is almost always an immediate and helpful reaction. This is highly valued by those Members. At times, however, it seems that there is a different reaction if the Member is perceived as or has explicitly stated he or she is asking for information about a school project. Especially if there is an impending deadline. I am impressed that these Members have found their way to the Forum. I wonder if we sometimes think that the requests are motivated by a form of laziness. This was NOT the case in this instance but I raise it as a general observation. We do not make assumptions (or at least do not express assumptions) when someone asks about a relative. Perhaps we should afford the same respect in other cases as well? I think it is perfectly reasonable, as in this case, to ask the Member for further information about the nature of the question. For a school project, I think the Forum is an excellent place for people to be challenged about how they might approach the subject. Futhermore, we can often point people to relative material that exists on the Forum.

In this case, it appears to have been the issue of homosexuality that evoked the concern. Gwyn, quite rightly, raised some questions and then proceeded to offer the Member helpful advice. All credit, Gwyn, for revisiting how this was done but I think the methodology behind your approach was sound. It is not 'wrong' IMHO for someone to raise questions such as 'Was Wilfred Owens a homosexual?' or 'Can we deduce that Wilfred Owens was a homosexual from his poetry?'. Thankfully, in more recent times our awareness of the terrible injustices perpetrated on people with, or perceived to have, 'different' sexual orientations has been heightened. There is still a long way to go, however, to ensure that these injustices are eradicated from perceptions and behaviours. So this issue is, how do we respond to such questions?

Firstly, we must seek to understand what is actually being asked. As some Members have pointed out, there might be a perfectly valid rationale that is not clear from the way the question has been phrased. The question may be directed at exposing the inappropriateness of other commentators speculations about Wilfred Owens' sexual orientation, developing a deeper understanding of how injustice may prompt commentators to make such speculations, and to contrast this with a more appropriate approach. And here I do not mean 'politically correct' - a term that smacks of duplicity. I mean that we should challenge each other to achieve a deeper, sincerely-held conviction about the worth of individuals, irrespective of gender, ethnicity, religion, age or sexual orientation. The manner in which we challenge each other should be predicated on achieving this outcome. I am not advocating we turn this Forum into something it was not designed for. But when these opportunities arise, we should face them in the spirit in which the Forum was created.

Secondly, if the question is directed at something that threatens respect, then we should politely point this out, along with the rationale, and provide a steer in a more appropriate direction, even if the topic is homosexuality.

I am not naive enough to believe that we can change World opinion, promoting such levels of respect as to make future wars an impossibility. But let us not get trapped by the 'What can one person do?'. This Forum makes a difference. I am proud to be part of it.

Robert

[DaveBrigg]

I would like to suggest a compromise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks. A welcome form of Gunboat diplomacy.

[shinglma]

Robert

Thank you for your eloquent post.

I find myself in almost total agreement with what you have written. I am glad that you took the time to share your thoughts.

Thanks

Mike

[Dragon]

Hello Robert

Thank you for your thoughtful reflections, which I enjoyed reading.

Unfortunately, Warpoet101 did himself a disservice by the tone of his first request or information, (the one at the start of this thread). From what I’ve seen on other forums which attract students (or their parents) in search of help for their English assignments, it’s usual for the opening post to give some basic information about the assignment topic and the age group. Otherwise the question is simply ignored.

Had he, or she, started by introducing himself as a student doing the IB, then gone on to say that he had been set the task of talking (to whom?) on homosexual poets, but that he was finding it hard to track down relevant information, it would have been a lot easier for people to know what sort of help he needed. Thus my opening post on the other thread pointed out that I didn’t have any framework in which to offer ideas.

Though I am not particularly interested in the sexuality of writers, I would never condemn its discussion in literature lessons. Were I in the position of working with adolescents, I would discuss sexuality without blushing. It is in the nature of English literature that sexuality arises and relationships are explored, particularly in the company of a sensitive and trusted teacher. However, given that there is so much to enjoy in English, I feel that sexual preferences in writers’ personal lives isn’t perhaps the wisest choice of stand-alone topic to set, especially if – as might have been the case till we knew more - the student is still in early teens, if for no other reason than to protect the teacher who has to make a robust justification for whatever students are asked to do. I have friends who teach English in secondary education who have had complaints made about them by parents concerned because novels included sex. Occasionally parents have gone to the local press when a school’s response failed to satisfy. One woman teacher was denounced in the local paper because she taught Lord of The Flies. She was, apparently, ‘the tip of the iceberg’. Warpoet’s particular set topic seems to have led the student to seek desperately for proof that Wilfred Owen was homosexual, dipping in and out to look for quotations to support a theory, whereas I believe that that issues ought to arise naturally from the poetry. It has distorted the focus away from literature towards social issues, away from Owen’s dignity towards the sort of shallow comment that has been largely erased from the associated thread.

Of course people who are in the business of educating adolescents ought not to plan their syllabi on the basis of what might offend the sensitivities of parents and society. Of course students in English classes ought to discuss social and cultural issues. But that’s not my point. At the moment I don’t want to embark on discussing what should govern English literature syllabi. It’s possible that this student has unwittingly misrepresented what he was actually asked to do.

I was writing throughout from the point of view of someone with an academic background in English, not an historian. I really do think that if one wishes to have a full understanding of a poet, and find out what makes him tick, one needs to read the poetry and letters together and, where we can, earlier versions of the poems and even the letters or journals of people who knew him. This applies very much in reading the poets who preceded the Romantics to whom Warpoet is making comparisons. They were stuck in what was acceptable in the mannered poetic traditions when they lived. Evidence of their sexuality would be obscured by, as someone put it about Gray, (I paraphrase) the Muse, Zephyrs, Contemplation and so on standing in the light. What is standing in Owen’s light? How far is he standing in his own light by choosing, say, a sonnet form? He is young and still developing as a poet; he is never going to have the chance to revisit his philosophies in the way that Wordsworth did; yet what changes are already visible in his poetry? And thus, how far will a trawl of his poetry specifically searching for evidence of sexuality reveal the truth? It doesn’t have academic integrity to me. It lacks critical method. Wilfred Owen didn’t write the equivalent of ‘The Prelude’; it might have been easier if he had.

In the fairly moderate Advertisement which introduces Lyrical Ballads, Wordsworth starts by saying that, ‘It is an honourable characteristic of poetry that its materials are to be found in every subject which can interest the human mind.’ Then, in the penultimate paragraph of that piece, he claims that, ‘if poetry be a subject on which much time has not been spent, the judgment may be erroneous, and that in many cases it necessarily will be so’. I am convinced he is right.

I know that Warpoet101 has revisited the Forum. I hope that he will return with the thoughts that he has developed over the past few days and share a friendly discussion with fellow Forum members.

Gwyn

[Clive Temple]

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}>

Rupert Brooke wasn't a pacifist, not sure about his politics though.

[Soren]

So was he Gay?

[Clive Temple]

So was he Gay?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the boat sailed on that one when he was christened Rupert.

[Soren]

I think the boat sailed on that one when he was christened Rupert. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Watch out mate, you'll get it in the neck from this lot!

[Clive Temple]

Watch out mate, you'll get it in the neck from this lot!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only kidding.

[Gunboat]

I wouldn't really include Brooke as a "war poet" in the sense that it is normally ascribed to the others. He was already an established poet before the war and he only wrote 5 poems that related to the war. His reputation as being a war poet probably rests firmly with his poem "the soldier" and because he died of illness on the way to the Dardanelles for this reason he was included in the curriculum as a war poet certainly in my school days.

[Guest jumberly]

Hang on, here's a few...

Vera Brittain, Rupert Brooke, John Oxenham, Robert Nichols, Thomas Hardy, Julian Grenfell, Eleanor Farjeon, Ivor Gurney, Rudyard Kipling, Henry Newbolt, Gilbert Frankau, John McRae, Siegfried Sassoon, Alan Seegar, Edward Thomas, Katharine Tynan, Jessie Pope, Arthur West, Owen Seaman, Herbert Read, Isaac Rosenberg, Muriel Stuart, Charles Sorley, have I missed any?

Never mind, they are all dead so we have a right to discuss their sexuality.

Arthur Greame West, killed by a sniper, 3rd April 1917, what da' think?

Eleanor Farjeon, called herself Edward, liked Axeminster?

Alan Seegar, killed 4th July 1916 at the Somme. He was an American sent to France to live in 'Gay Paree'. He joined the Foreign Legion. Umm, possible alternative lifestyle.

Gilbert Frankau, fought at Loos, Ypres, Somme and during WW2 became a Squadron Leader. Married three times, but hey, we have the right to question his sexuality.

Edward Thomas, underated poet. Killed in 1917 leaving a wife and three children. But you never know, I'll have a dig through his poems, bet we can find something...

Charles Sorley, killed at Loos 1915. NOT married....?

John McCrae, he's a big name. Come on now..

Do I need to go on?

For goodness sake. They are dead, as is their generation. Read their works and let their names rest in peace.

[Steven Broomfield]

I hadn't intended to join this one.

Artistically, their sexuality (or lack of it - not everyone is actually even interested in that aspect of their lives, believe it or not) might be of interest if it is directly related to a study of their work. So, if I were stduying Owen, Sassoon, et al as artists, then yes, I might be interested in which side they batted for.

As it is, I'm just happy to like (or not) their work, admire them as the brave men they were and leave it at that.

I agree with jumberley.

Older pals might remember the Monty Python 'Biggles' sketch on this subject.....probably the closest the boys got to satire

[Guest jumberly]

Just had a chat with our English Dept. They might have an answer to how this thread might have occurred. Critically there is little or no need to ask questions about their sexuality as it has no relevance to the actual works studied. ‘After all their experiences in the trenches probably influenced them quite a bit’ – well you’d think?

Best guess. Young Eng. Lit teacher walks into a classroom; had one too many last night. Hasn’t prepared, class is a tad rowdy – need to grab their attention quickly, so…. “Right 12T, which of you think Wilfred Owen was a whoopsy, discuss.”

Ah, youth and stupidity, a heady mix.

[Guest warpoet101]

hello

for those of you who are criticising me and my teacher, you shouldn't be as it is very inlightening topic.

I am an IB student and i am doing a project for my english class. I am presenting a 15 minute presentation on war poets sexualtiy and linking it to robert frost.

I was told that many people here would know about Robert graves and his relations with sigfried sassoon and wilfred owen?

also, would any body be able to help me with robert frost and his hidden sexuality as i have scoured books and couldnt find much on him.

warpoet101

[Dragon]

Hello Warpoet

Nice to see you back.

What have you found out so far? Which Frost poems have you read? I've read quite a bit of Frost but p'raps not the ones you need.

Where does the quotation about the mask come from, do you know?

Can I make a suggestion? I think it'd be a lot easier to start again with a new thread, so instead of renaming this one, I think you should change its name back again and then start a brand new thread with your new topic title about Graves and Frost.

That would mean that the people who want to argue about the rights and wrongs of discussing Owen's sexuality can carry on and those who want to focus on your question and help you can get on with it in a straightforward thread.

Just an idea to try to help you get a focussed thread, that's all.

Gwyn