|
|
Post by Jonathan on May 15, 2016 3:41:41 GMT
THIS IS FOR 1ST PERIOD Sorry! I totally forgot to post this so you can take your time till next week  So all of you guys read about the Soldier and how Rupert glorifies the idea of war. War is something that should be glorified. There is no "good" war since it always kills someones son, daughter, father, mother, a whole family, and so on. The idea of going to war would send you to a magnificent afterlife in my opinion is just so wrong. I want you guys to compare the idea of Rupert Brooke's war and the reality. The reality in WW1 was basically living in those trenches for days or even weeks fighting for your country's good. |
|
|
|
Post by ETypeRegymon on May 15, 2016 13:30:50 GMT
Brooke never really mentioned the actual things that happen during a war in the poem, which further pushes that this is a propaganda. Then again, even if he did mention how battles took place in previous wars, the reality he would write still wouldn't match up with World War 1, because they didn't have tanks or other war vehicles back then. So whatever idea of war he had would never be similar to the reality of it because wars became different since World War 1.
|
|
dilan
New Member
Guys homework sorry for being late write 5 lines peom about your life
Posts: 16 
|
Post by dilan on May 15, 2016 14:12:45 GMT
In my opinion, the author of this poem he was just telling his feelings about the war. He is trying to show his feeling about the war from this poem and also his telling, fighting for his country is a great thing. I'm agree with that. From the presentation, I heard the author of this poem,
never went to the battlefield and he was working as a navy solider but he was showing his love for his country from this poem.
|
|
|
|
Post by maysamyounis on May 16, 2016 3:06:10 GMT
I think the author purpose is that we have and world and war in different perceptive as I read his poem I felt he kind used philological beliefs Brooke here reflects the contents of many letters home from soldiers to families, filled with the foreboding message about possible death. The use of 'if' shows the mentality that many soldiers had during the war. The soldiers did not want to directly say they were to die for their loved ones back at home. The soldiers understood the psychological effects that were inflicted on them during the war. They did not want to distress their loved ones with agony and pain. Therefore, the use of 'I' provides hope to their family, in that the soldier's status is heightened, conveying their importance.
|
|
sunnyp
Junior Member
Posts: 92 
|
Post by sunnyp on May 17, 2016 10:54:29 GMT
Yes war should not be glorified becuase it's there is nothing glorious about it. Since the poem glorified the war, there is a lot of difference between the war on the poem and real war. But there is nothing else that is really different because the author didn't describe war so much. He only talked about how great it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by timmy on May 20, 2016 15:54:57 GMT
Well, the propagandas did glorify war. I have not lived in the time when WW1 started, but am kind of wondering why people actually fell for the whole propaganda. I mean, war is war. People die. Families suffer. Nobody really wins. I wonder what the people thought it was. Victory? Money? Country development? In the end, it was neither.
|
|
|
|
Post by graceyichen on May 22, 2016 0:20:11 GMT
I think Rupert Brooke encouraged death and sacrifice in times of war, while in reality, there's nothing glorious about millions of bodies lying on the battlefields. He promised heaven, and unforgettable achievement for those who died for England, while in reality nobody remembers all the soldiers that died in a war, there's far far too many, and who knows if anyone goes to heaven, let alone soldiers. Perhaps in the beginning of the war, when soldiers fought with no fear and only an undying puncoolion to serve their country, at the moment of death they comforted themselves by thinking that they are going to heaven and have made their country proud...but slowly as war progresses, it becomes scary and horrifying, and death comes so fast they don't even have the time to think or reflect.
|
|
|
|
Post by melody on May 22, 2016 13:52:00 GMT
Before WW1 happened, most of the people in the world thought like Rupert Brooke. They glorified the victory of war and thought it was a honorable (required) thing to do. However, after the WW1 happened, nobody valued war anymore. Since the war was very disastrous and brutal, people became aware of the tragedy of war and how they had to suffer. Agreeing with Grace, I really can't find the point that it's glorious to kill millions of people which can actually be our family and friends. Propaganda can be very dangerous to people since it rationalize crime for a reason. Everything can be rationalized and the worst situation can happen by this which is murdering.
|
|
