The Impact of War in the Novels by George Orwell and Sylvia Plath - Essay Example

The Impact of War in the Novels by George Orwell and Sylvia Plath Introduction Literature that is represented during different time frames is designed to create a relationship to the surrounding culture and politics which are a part of society. It is the expressions that come from the influence of the external environment which can then be used for a sense of social change and understanding about the current status that is being faced within a society. When looking at “1984” by George Orwell, and the works of Sylvia Plath, such as “Ariel,” it can be seen that there is a strong relationship to the current political and cultural surroundings. This is identified not only by the understanding and expressions of the individual artists. Instead it shows a specific response related to the current political and cultural context during this time, as well as the philosophies represented by the authors. The specific context of war and brutality outline the responses and expressions as a voice of society during this time. The external environment in the 20th century was surrounded by war and brutality. The political realm was the first area which showed this. World War I, the Holocaust, The Russian Revolution, World War II, Communism in Russia and the movement into the Cold War were the large scale political battles which took place. For those connected to these communities were ideals and outcomes which were consistently seen, showing the brutalities and fierceness of the war and the political relationship which was a part of this. With this setting, were also social and artistic responses which were created, specifically with the need to create a remembrance of the brutality of the war. Expressing what had happened, how it had occurred and the questioning of what had happened to culture and society as a result of the several shell shocks became the main components. Personal interactions as well as overall philosophies were the main conflicts which began to arise socially and in terms of cultural recognition (Winter, 52). George Orwell “1984” The identity of politics and expressions of society can be seen through George Orwell and the content of “1984.” Orwell was well – known among other intellects in society to his opposition of specific political ideals, directly related to the rise of Stalin and Communism in Russia as well as his strong opposition to the Communist Party. Orwell had seen the difficulties of World War II and the brutalities which were associated with this. However, the concern which was a part of Orwell’s philosophies was based on the outcome of war and brutality and how this would affect different societies and individuals. Orwell held a strong belief that Communism would lead to socialism and take away the rights of individuals, similar to the Nazi party. There was also a philosophy that the lack of social justice would continue to arise, without the ability to oppose the brutalities of war and political injustice. Orwell was against the modernism which was arising in society and believed that the social context of the 20th century would only lead to more brutalities through the political face of fascism and Communism (Rodden, 188). These philosophies drove the writing of Orwell and showed the layers of injustices which could occur from the war and brutality occurring in society. The creation of “1984” is the best representation of the philosophies of Orwell and how he associated the injustices of politics with the social context of the time. The first representation was how the politics would begin to affect society and the injustices which would be forced among those in society. This was represented through the ideal of Big Brother, which had an eye on the individuals in society and kept them trapped in a cell like position to ensure that nothing would happen. However, Orwell didn’t relate the Big Brother theory to the injustices of socialism and Communism, but instead intertwined the injustices of capitalism within society. He states “the capitalists owned everything in the world, and everyone else was their slave and history had been rewritten according to the party’s ideology” (Orwell, 84). This is combined with the totalitarian society that emerged because of Communism and socialism, which Orwell shows is based specifically on the social injustice which took over the world. Orwell shows how there is an ideal of creating freedom and equality; however, this is never obtained because of the imbalanced controls of those within society (302). The political imbalances that Orwell states are followed by his strong associations with war and brutality and how this emerges as a main complexity within society. He uses the party’s ideology of “war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength” (pg 6) to outline how the brutalities of war and injustices have taken over the time frame. This is followed by the factual information about war, and the acceptance of brutality that are immediately seen as a part of life. The references to war give a historical account of the bombings and the death which happens; however, the context is one which shows a numb reaction where the facts are stated that brutality is a part of the new order. From the beginning, these facts are shown as a part of the political party and what is expected. “You are prepared to commit murder… to commit acts of sabotage which may cause the death of hundreds of innocent people?” (199). References such as these show that the political changes had led to an acceptance of war, brutality and the social slavery that led individuals to commit the crimes and continue to experience the injustices of war. However, the party ideology shows that the war and brutality came from the strength of the government, which was based on keeping society “ignorant” and in a sense of “slavery.” Orwell is then able to relate to the dangers of the political order and how it could lead to the war and brutality of society. Sylvia Plath “Ariel” Another example of the brutality of war came from the poetry and writing of Plath, such as “Ariel.” Plath was never recognized as a political writer and didn’t associate with the political battles which were taking place, such as through the Cold War. However, there is direct reference to the external environment, showing the philosophies of Plath and the brutalities which she found to be a part of the wars (Annas, 17). Plath instead focused on the dehumanization of the individual, the suffering which individuals went through for politics and the anxieties which were created globally and in specific cultures. This went beyond the political decision to be a part of the leading parties, and instead opposed the general decisions made for war, freedom and ideas of justice (Peel, 16). There are several areas that relate to the suffering of war in “Ariel,” all which show the same metaphor of suffering that occurs in politics. For instance, Plath states “Black sweet blood mouthfuls, / Shadows. Something else.” (Plath, lines 13-15). This particular metaphor refers to the shadows of the time, either social or political. The interpretation of the blood mouthfuls and the blackness can refer to the war and can be interpreted as a relationship to the suffering which many were going through during the time. This relates to the lines “White / Godiva, I unpeel - / Dead hands, dead stringencies. / And now I / Foam to wheat, a glitter of seas / The child’s cry / Melts in the wall. And I / Am the arrow” (lines 19 – 27). The idea of her being the arrow, causing the death and the child’s cry all show the relationship to the brutality of wars and how this relates to the suffering of humanity. This can be taken in the personal context of the “suicide” referred to at the end. However, the suicide can also be linked to the metaphor of how mankind becomes suicidal in creating their own death and becoming the arrow, specifically because they are pitted against each other. The main lines then show the layers of brutality that come from the violence which Plath saw in the external environment. Other poems of Plath refer to the same concept, specifically by the confessional poetry which is used throughout her works. In the work “Daddy,” there is a specific attribute to the international politics that remain confessional among Plath’s poetry. The work shows the relationship to her father, who is the Aryan, and possibly Nazi German that represents the brutality of the political movement (Strangeways, Plath, 370). Plath is able to take this ideal and relate it to the Holocaust and the war that is continuous among her father. While this doesn’t directly point to the Nazi party or the outcome, the confessional concepts show the same brutality of the war. For instance, Plath writes “If I’ve killed one man, I’ve killed two -- / The vampire who said he was you / And drank my blood for a year” (Plath, 75). These lines directly refer to the Nazi party described as her father from the lines before and show how this reference relates to the brutality of death and the vampire like state of the party. The same type of brutality is noted with “Lady Lazarus” as well as ‘The Rabbit Catcher.” Both poems have direct reference to the brutalities of the war as well as the inhumanitarian acts which are associated with this. For instance, in “Lady Lazarus,” Plath writes “Ash, ash - / You poke and stir. Flesh, bone, there is nothing there - / A cake of soap, A wedding ring, A gold filling” (Plath, 16). This particular concept is one which shows the Holocaust, specifically which is referred to in the above lines. The inhumanitarian acts and the reference to the ashes and wedding ring further upon the points of the Nazi party. While the main focus isn’t political, the ideals which link back to this show the political reference and how this affected the lives of millions. “The Detective” makes the same references, such as “that is the valley of the death.. The fingers taping a woman into a wall. / A body into a pipe, and the smoke rising. / This is the smell of years burning, here in the kitchen” (Plath, 31). The other works of Plath follow this same brutality and express the outcomes of war and how it has affected the lives of those involved. The descriptions and the approach toward this then show not only a political stance, but also how the wrong association with the political realms can lead to brutality, death and the suffering of millions (Rowland, 5). Conclusion The context which is used in Plath and Orwell in the stories and poems are directly related to the viewpoints that were taking place during the time, specifically in relation to the brutality and conflicts of war. The associations with the external environment, specifically from the political and social realms were reflected in the poetry and the observations of what occurred during this time frame. The 20th century conflicts, and the movement away from the beauty of literature and into the aesthetics of brutality came from the observations of politics from the time and how the writers associated with this according to personal philosophies. When looking at both works, it can be seen that the influence, as well as the main themes and metaphors of the pieces, link directly to the political and social conflicts that framed the time period of both authors. Works Cited Annas, Pamela. The Self in the World: The Social Context of Sylvia Plath's Late Poems. University of California Press: California, 2000. Orwell, George. 1984. Routledge: New York, 2004. Peel Robin. Writing Back Sylvia Plath and Cold War politics Rosemont Publishing: Massachusetts, 2002. Plath, Sylvia. Collection of Poems. Penguin Publishers: New York, 2000. Rodden, John. George Orwell: The Politics of Literary Reputation. Transaction Publishers: New Jersey, 2009. Rowland, Anthony. Holocaust Poetry: Awkwards Poetics in the Work of Sylvia Plath. New York: Routledge, 2002. Strangeways, Al, Sylvia Plath. "The Boot in the Face": The Problem of the Holocaust in the Poetry of Sylvia Plath.” Contemporary Literature 37 (3), 1996. Winter, JM. Remembering War: the Great War Between Memory and History in the Twentieth Century. Yale University: Boston, 2006. Read More