What do you think of the view that the most meaningful relationships in Birdsong are those between men?

Stephen Wraysford, the protagonist of Birdsong, and his different relationships with women prove to be a plentiful source of meaning throughout the novel. When he begins his love affair with Isabelle, he frees her from the strict oppression imposed by marriage and society. He gives new significance to her life, as Jeanne does for him after the war effectively makes his life void of meaning. However, some may argue that the relationships between men are also significant. His relationship Jack gives them both something to live for as they face death in the tunnels, and his relationship with Levi could symbolise the end of the war itself. It appears that Birdsong’s most significant relationships are those between men because they develop the central theme of war in the novel.

It could be argued that the relationship between Isabelle and Stephen is just as meaningful as those between men in the novel. Before her love affair with Stephen begins, Faulks portrays Isabelle as imprisoned and oppressed by her marriage with Azaire. She is forced to behave in a “strong and formal” way in a house with “iron railings”, which connotes the image of bars on a prison window. The violence and passionless sex that Azaire forces Isabelle to endure incarcerate her in a life she does not want, a life “made intense by desperation” to escape. Her life is defined by “submissive indifference”, until she begins her love affair with Stephen. Before meeting him, Faulks refers to Isabelle as the “wife” of Azaire or “Madame Azaire”. After the love affair, new meaning is given to her life, and she is free to become “Isabelle” again. However, a much greater reading suggests that this relationship lacks meaning altogether. Faulk presents the passionate love affair between the two characters as sensual, and as only appealing to sexual impulses. It is described as a “simple frisson”, with no more meaning than that. It is founded by “charged senses” and impulse: they performed sexual acts “without thinking”, and merely to provide each other with “excitement”. The relationship between Stephen and Isabelle lacks any deeper meanings because it is all about appealing to the senses. Once the passion of the love affair dies (becoming an “icy stillness”) they have no reason to continue the relationship. Isabelle runs away without telling Stephen about their unborn child, connoting that their relationship lacks the meaning and depth needed to raise a child.

Nevertheless, Faulks presents the relationship between Stephen and Jeanne as just as meaningful as those between men. During the First World War, Stephen “lost…reality itself”. His life appears absent of meaning as he is left “drifting” from battle to battle. Even his humanity is missing as he experiences this “test on how far man can be degraded”. This presentation of the protagonist changes once he meets Jeanne. She acts as a “soft” support for the traumatised character, filling in the “void” created by the war. When Jeanne reveals her love for Stephen, and they start to raise Isabelle’s child as their own, a new meaningful life is created to follow the war- he becomes “much happier in his heart” as a result. Thus, it appears that the relationship between Jeanne and Stephen is one of meaning and significance. Without it, Stephen would be “empty” and have nothing. However, a much more meaningful relationship in the novel is the one between Jack and Stephen. They are trapped in the tunnels for many days, and Stephen develops a much more meaningful bond with Jack as they genuinely believe they are going to die together- “they were facing death”. The use of the pronoun “they” unites these two characters together, thus emphasising the strength of their relationship. Faulks presents these two characters as intimately connected through their understanding of the other’s horrifying experiences in the war. Both know what it is like to lose someone they love, and they are both searching for “whatever miracle” they can find as they try to survive in the tunnels. Their relationship is so meaningful because they share a fundamental intimacy of understanding. This is best exemplified when the two characters lose a sense of the outside world- “there was no time”. Both characters have lost the worldly concept of time; their relationship and understanding of each other is all they have. This is what makes the relationship between these two men more meaningful than the one he shares with his wife.

The most meaningful relationship in the novel is the one connecting Levi and Stephen. Structurally, Faulks oscillates the narrative point of view of the ending between Levi and Stephen as they tunnel towards each other. This constant switching of point of view appears to symbolise the gradual peace being brokered between Britain and Germany. They are both climbing through the metaphorical “darkness” of the war to find peace and each other. Together, these characters are presented as sorrowful and traumatised by the war they were forced to endure: “weeping at the bitter strangeness of their human lives”. Despite their different nationalities, Faulks highlights the enduring bond between these characters as they have both seen atrocities “that should never be spoken”. Their relationship appears to symbolise peace between two fighting countries as they escape the “inhumanity” of World War One and return to the world they once knew. Whilst some may argue that the shared burial of Jack and Joseph actually symbolises the healing of two countries, it is clear that the relationship between Levi and Stephen represents this newfound peace to a greater extent. This friendship between a British and a German character is most significant to the novel because it evokes hope after the horrors of war. Despite feeling immense “hate” for each other earlier, Faulks uses this relationship between men to show us that reconciliation and peace are possible.

Whilst it could be argued that the love affair between Stephen and Isabelle brings emancipation and meaning to the latter, it is clear that their love affair is one of sensuality and appealing to sexual impulse. Nothing more. This does not mean Stephen cannot have a meaningful relationship with women though. In fact, Jeanne’s love for Stephen brings a lot of purpose to his life as she fills the void left by the First World War. Nevertheless, the most significant relationships Stephen experiences are those with other men. Stephen’s relationship with Jack is all he has within the tunnels as they both believe they are on the verge of death. The relationship between Levi and Stephen, which closes the war sections of the novel, is most meaningful for symbolising the healing of wounds and the peace between two warring countries. Faulks appears to be suggesting that the relationships between men during wartime are more intimate and meaningful than any marriage or love affair can possibly be. The relationships between soldiers are so meaningful because they give each other reason to survive in near-death situations, while also giving hope to the reader that the two warring countries can finally find peace.

A Not So Great Britain

A Not So Great Britain

It is ironic that we are called Great Britain. Nothing about the abhorrent society that we live in today is of an exceptional quality that we can be proud of. Unfortunately, extreme levels of nationalism, xenophobia and racism have become accepted. Britain’s democratic decision to leave the European Union appears to have become a justification for hatred towards different ethnicities. However, the British people are not entirely to blame. It is the Vote Leave politicians who pulled the first brick out of the wall of equality. Vote Leave campaigners have made it socially acceptable (for perhaps up to 52% of the electorate) to be intolerant towards those that are not British. Whether it is the European leaders in Brussels or the immigrants travelling here in search of a livelihood, leave campaigners have steadily demonised those that are different to ourselves. This is not “great”, and it is certainly nothing to be proud of.

In Britain’s shameful quest for sovereignty, we have sharply lost all our influence over what happens to the world and our country. One of the key arguments that lay at the heart of the Vote Leave campaign was the concept of control over our own legislation, and how we can “unshackle” ourselves from the rules and restrictions of the European Union. The officials in Brussels have been portrayed by Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson as dictators who have an oppressive grasp on our country. This appealed to voters profoundly. They questioned why we cannot have the freedom to create our own laws? Surely we should have the right to create our own legislation without the influence of an external governing body, they pondered. These are all perfectly valid points. Democracy is a valuable system we should never take for granted; in fact, it should be cherished. If 36.9% of the electorate desire for a Conservative government to create our laws, it is perfectly understandable that they would want to break away from the overpowering influence of Brussels.

However, as the seismic consequences of Brexit begin to tear the British economy apart, the evidence appears to suggest that we have become much less sovereign. Our credit rating has decreased, the pound has steeply fallen in value and we are steadily losing the power to prevent Scottish independence in the next decade. Leave voters believed they had chosen to “take back control”, to break the chains of the European officials, who were portrayed as tyrannical and undemocratic. For many xenophobes, the idea of “those European bureaucrats” having influence over our country’s politics appeared too much to endure. It must deeply hurt them to see that we have in fact lost control since we voted Brexit. Defined as the ability to govern ourselves, and to have authority over what happens within our country, it is clear there is nothing sovereign about this post-Brexit Britain. Our markets are suffering, and there is nothing we can do to prevent the tumultuous storm of a recession heading our way. The only choice our parliament can make entirely on their own is when to activate Article 50. Yet, even that decision can be overturned by the House of Lords, who are just as undemocratic and unelected as the European officials that have been demonised. Fortunately for the xenophobes in this country, the House of Lords is mostly comprised of white males, which must make it acceptable for them to have undemocratic control. Ultimately, when Article 50 is activated, we lose our influence in Europe and what happens to our own country forever. It will be they who decide what our future trade deals look like, not us. Thus, for many remain supporters, the country’s decision to leave the EU is embarrassing and appalling. In the quest for more control over our own country and break away from foreign influence, we have lost economic stability, our allies and the once strong union that defined our country. Without these, we are no longer “great”. We are just a little country who tried to augment our own power, but have lost it in the process.

Farage's poster has been highly criticised as racist and
morally disgusting 

Furthermore, many British voters opted for Brexit believing it would lead to greater controls over immigration. To be worried over immigration is a completely legitimate concern. Our public services are under strain. It is understandable why many would want to alleviate the pressure from a struggling NHS by having greater controls over immigration. However, it is repulsive how immigrants have been used as the scapegoats for all of our problems because it is easier than blaming ourselves. Whilst it is true that tighter controls on immigration would take away some of the strain on the over-worked NHS, and to perhaps take away the demand for new homes in this housebuilding crisis, to completely blame immigrants is untrue. It is our Conservative government who have made cuts to NHS funding, who have not created enough jobs or built enough homes to meet demand. Yet, we continually blame the many Europeans who come to live in the UK. Despite the fact they are 43% less likely to take out of the benefit system, instead providing vital skills that over twenty billion pounds to the economy, many British citizens have diabolized them. Many have made them the problem. Since the referendum result, reports of hate crime have risen by 57%. Europeans are being described as “vermin”, as people who the government should “send them home”. Immigrants, who have only come here to work and provide for their family, are being portrayed as a plague that has marred Britain. This portrayal is wrong and morally repugnant. How can we call ourselves “great” Britain when hate speech such as this is taking place? As Michael Keith argues, “the unspeakable became not only speakable, but commonplace”, and it is utterly repellent.  

The most extreme demonisation of Europeans is evident in the manner that the Vote Leave campaign used terrorists and criminals as a weapon of fear. On one of their leaflets, they played upon societal anxieties by highlighting how a country like Turkey, which is planning to join the European Union, is bordered with Syria and Iraq. This is an attempt to label foreign people as the other, as something different and threatening. Shockingly, this worked with a majority of the British electorate. The Vote Leave campaign’s ridiculous warnings that the entire Turkish population of 77 million, described as being full of “murderers, rapists and terrorists”, will move over here as soon as the country joins the EU. For the campaign to make this claim is absurd, for the British electorate to believe it is very worrying indeed. Believing the claim that all of the world’s criminals exist within Turkey and Syria only leads to latent prejudices and hatred rising to the surface. As discussed earlier, many British citizens have taken it upon themselves to tell foreign people to “go back to your own country”, or to “get out”, as the reports of racism have suggested. This hatred towards those who are not British can and will escalate from verbal taunts to violent acts if we do not stop demonising them now. It is almost as if the British electorate have forgotten that MP Jo Cox was brutally murdered by a British terrorist, or that murderers, rapists and thieves of white nationality do exist also. There is a horrifying ‘us and them’ attitude in this country; we have become divided as we choose to fear those of different nationalities, rather than work with them to create a progressive future. The chasm that splits our country is so profound that to call ourselves the United Kingdom sounds ironic and foolish.

The name of our country completely juxtaposes with the negative ideals that we are currently holding. We are a country who shuns the political influence of Brussel’s officials, yet would be the first to accept their help when the disastrous consequences of Brexit arrive. Our economy cannot survive without immigration, yet we continue to portray it as a plague that will eventually destroy us. And finally, we are a country that uses criminals from different countries as bogeymen to instil fear, whilst ignoring the atrocities that British people have committed themselves. This post-Brexit Britain is appalling and disgusting. Xenophobia has swiftly become commonplace in this depraved society that we now live in. It is ironic that national pride was used by the Vote Leave campaign to attract votes, because there is nothing about Little England that we can be proud of anymore.