- Note that example essays should be used to inform you work and inspire your form. Do not copy and paste. It's not worth the potential exam-board sanctions.
Compare and
Contrast the Presentation of Relationships in ‘Journey’s End’ and ‘The Accrington
Pals’ in Light of the Opinion that “Most relationships become damaged by the
stresses of war”
Though both Journey’s
End and The Accrington Pals provide
evidence that support the opinion that the
strain of war can cause tension in pre-existing relationships, there are
also corroborations from both texts which suggest that relationships formed
under the stress of war are strengthened by the shared experience of trauma,
and a transcendent depth of comradeship is established.
Both texts explore how pre-existing romantic relationships
are affected by war. The destruction of these relationships can, in part, be
attributed to the separation of genders during war time; the long distance is a
notable cause of strain, as particularly emphasised in The Accrington Pals due to Peter Whelan’s exploration of female
perspective. However, it is not the women who are affected by this separation,
as the relationship between Ralph and Eva demonstrates. Ralph admits to Eva
that he has had affairs in their separation. However the confession, in the
form of a letter which serves to pathetically emphasise the distance between
them uses language which evokes sympathy due to the distaste with which he
describes the himself as “a bastard” and the “whores” he had his affairs with,
contrasting with the romanticised way he describes “a field of snowy white bed
sheets” with Eva (“snowy white” being a symbol of purity). This sympathetic
tone suggests that their relationship would have survived, had Ralph survived
also. Throughout The Accrington Pals
the relationship between Ralph and Eva is used to juxtapose the relationship
between Tom and May. Their relationship has none of the conflicts that May and
Tom endure; as made particularly clear when Eva kisses Ralph on stage while Tom
walks out of May’s kitchen, signifying a definitive end to their relationship.
As though this end to one relationship makes Eva more grateful for her own, Eva
is describe as “crushing herself to [Ralph]” to emphasise the urgent nature of
their love - an urgency that's made all the more poignant by Ralphs untimely
death. The romantic relationship between May and Tom, however, is presented as
impossible regardless of the war. May’s line “there’s not an inch of common
ground between us!”, in the same scene, is used by Whelan to summarise the
reason that a relationship between them is impossible. Even in the nightmarish
penultimate scene where Tom is raised from the dead to taunt May; it is a
reminder of the differences between them that he “snarls” at her; even in death
it is their political views, not the war, that primarily keeps them apart.
While in Tom and May’s a romantic relationship is destined to fail without the
influence of war, Ralph and Eva’s would have survived, had Ralph not been
killed.
In Journey’s End the romantic relationship
that exists between Stanhope’s and Madge (Raleigh’s sister) is somewhat
overlooked due to R.C. Sherriff's decision to overlook the female perspective.
Instead all of the paranoia that Stanhope experiences which could cause strain
in his relationship with Madge, is focused on Raleigh, allowing the play to
focus on comradeship and hero-worship, unlike The Accrington Pals which primarily focuses on romantic
relationships. Throughout Journey's End Raleigh's youthful
optimism juxtaposes with the obviously unbalanced and overworked character of
Stanhope. This juxtaposition combined with Raleigh's excitement at the "frightful
bit of luck" that brought Stanhope and he into the same regiment creates
an ominous sense of an impending
collapse in Stanhope and Raleigh's relationship. Osborne cautions Raleigh that
he “mustn’t expect to find [Stanhope] – quite the same”, ominously warning the
audience that the high expectations that Raleigh had of Stanhope will not be
met. However despite this foreshadowing and the tension that inevitably rose in
their relationship, Raleigh's letter to his sister eases Stanhope's paranoia
and allows him to resume his role as Raleigh's hero and protector at the
conclusion of the play. The letter form is used to evoke pathos, like in The Accrington Pals, only Raleigh's
letter is not used to emphasise the distance between the writer and the
recipient, it highlights the distance between Stanhope's thoughts and reality.
However, though tested by the stresses of war, the final seen is Stanhope's
unambiguous redemption as he sooths Raleigh in his final moments. As summarised in the final directions of dramatic staging in Journey's
End, describing a "solitary candle burns with a steady flame", a
symbol for Stanhope's strength and solitude. This final scene shows that it is
not the strain of war that damages relationships, in fact the hardships endured
together can strengthen the bond, but it is death that unequivocally ends
relationships.
An
ominous parallel to the conclusion of Journey's
End is evident in the relationship between Osborne and Stanhope. Osborne is
"a father figure to the youths surrounding him"1 but
particularly to Stanhope as he shows with his defense and admiration for the
young Captain, saying "I'd go to hell with him." Evidence of this
bond is further fortified in the unnerving end of Act I, where during his break
down Stanhope instructs "Uncle" through childlike slurs to "Tuck
me up" and "Kiss me". Stanhope's vulnerability in this scene,
emphasised by his infantile behaviour, is not seen otherwise in the play and
therefore demonstrates the profundity of his bond with Osborne, yet it is only
after Osborne dies that Stanhope praises him as his "best friend" and
"the one man [he] could trust". Though Osborne is dead before he is
thanked by Stanhope, Sherriff presents Stanhope's appreciation in the form of
his character mimicking Osborne's fatherly role, both in his relationship with
Raleigh and in his guidance of Hibbert. The unlikely bond formed between
Hibbert and Stanhope (portrayed as particularly unlikely as Stanhope describes
Hibbert as a "little worm" in Act I) shows that although the strain
of war may test pre-existing relationships, under the shared experience of this
strain the bonds of comradeship can be created between almost anyone. A shadow
of the Father-Son relationship between Osborne and Stanhope is found in The Accrington Pals between Company
Sergeant Major Rivers and Tom. However while Osborne is a kind and well-meaning
character, Whelan's CSM Rivers has a more sinister nature. The stage direction
that describes May as "suddenly shy of him" is a warning, as May is
presented as strong and hard to intimidate, the ability of CSM Rivers to
unnerve May makes the audience cautious of him. In scene five CSM Rivers is
then seen describing the army as a communist utopia of trust; appealing to
Tom's politics the loyalty he is instructed to develop to his "brothers in
arms" seems more like a manipulation than a genuine bond. The symbolic
significance of the name 'Rivers' is unveiled in May's nightmarish scene where
she comes face to face with Tom's corpse. In this scene CSM Rivers becomes
identified with Charon, who ferries dead souls across the river to the
underworld. CSM Rivers is seen as responsible for the men, even in death, as in
the penultimate scene he assembles them to march on to their afterlives saying
"Move yourselves you glorious dead". In contrast to Journey's End
where father figures are just as likely to die as their admirers, in The Accrington Pals he who takes on a
fatherly role leads his men to their deaths. However in none of these
relationships did the strain of war cause damage; both texts corroborate that
the strain of war is responsible for the formation of relationships that would
not otherwise have existed.
Both Journey's End
and The Accrington Pals demonstrate
that the only stress of war that irreparably damages relationships is death.
The stresses of war, in fact, have a catalytic affect on relationships as bonds
are made faster and with people who they may not otherwise have been made with.
The wartime catalyst also works on doomed relationships, causing any semblance
of passion to burn out faster in the urgency and honesty of war, as with May
and Tom. From the evidence provided by both texts a clear conclusion to draw is
that relationships formed under the strain of war are strengthened, and
pre-existing relationships may be damaged by the stresses of war but not
irreparably. It is death which destroys relationships in both text and death,
though particularly rampant during a war, cannot be considered a hardship that
is exclusive to wartime.
Words: 1422
Bibliography
Journey's End - R.C. Sherriff
The Accrington Pals - Peter Whelan
1 An article by Hugh Cecil for The Spectator
Journey's End - R.C. Sherriff
The Accrington Pals - Peter Whelan
1 An article by Hugh Cecil for The Spectator
