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.

In House of Cards, are the female characters only presented as victims of Frank Underwood’s pursuit of power?

Throughout Frank Underwood’s rise in power, many of the female characters are presented as suffering and as manipulated victims. His ruthless pragmatism and almost inhuman indifference allows him to suppress anyone who stands in his way. Characters such as Heather Dunbar, Rachel Posner and Claire Underwood- to varying extents- suffer attacks on their dignity, power and livelihood. However, there are occurrences throughout the series where these female characters defy what Frank expects of them, thus becoming strong, independent and stoic characters as a result. 

Note, this analysis only considers Seasons 1-3. I have not yet watched the fourth season in its entirety.

Some may argue that Heather Dunbar is presented as a victim of Frank’s ruthlessness as he attempts to sustain his power and the presidency. During her first debate, she is forced to endure sly and cunning personal attacks, from both Frank and Jackie Sharp, as they use her gender as a weapon. They try to portray her as a “bad mother” who abandons her children, and even as a “sexist” who only looks after herself, rather than the whole of America’s female population. This assault on her character increases in intensity when they try to use her actions in the past, such as sending her children to public school or her lack of a “record to defend”, in order to diminish her credibility and humiliate her. To some extent, it does appear that this attack on her character and her past victimises her, for she loses the first caucus in Iowa, thus suggesting that her public image has decreased in popularity. However, to a greater extent, it appears that Dunbar is actually Frank’s strongest obstacle in his pursuit of the presidency, and perhaps one of the most powerful female character in this television series. Throughout the third season, Frank “trails” behind her in the polls. Rather than someone victimised by Frank’s ruthlessness, Dunbar is portrayed as a formidable opponent that Frank struggles to overcome. Even when he humiliates her during the debate, labelling her a “bad mother”, she swiftly responds in an calm and human way “do I want the best for my kids? Yes I do!” Frank’s attempts to humiliate her are quickly halted by her strong and defiant demeanour as she refuses to fall to his depraved level of politics. Thus, it appears that not all female characters are presented as victims of Frank’s pursuit of power. Dunbar, a “symbol” for the power that women can have in politics, proves to be one of the strongest and most controlled characters in the series, and certainly a very worthy candidate for president that Frank will struggle to defeat in the later seasons.

Rachel Posner is portrayed as a greater of a victim of Frank’s ruthless pursuit of power. During the first season, she is essentially a pawn which Frank uses to progress through his plan to the vice-presidency. Her value never increases above this- Frank does not even meet her due to her lack of significance to him. Yet he still does what he pleases with her, using Doug to take complete control of her life. She is paid to keep silent about her sexual encounter with Peter Russo, and then to seduce him later in the season. Each time Frank needs her silenced with regards to what she knows, she is forced to “move again”, despite her pleas that she has “finally made a life for myself”. Furthermore, during her last appearance in the series structurally, she is presented as utterly humiliated and powerless. She is kidnapped by Doug- bound and gagged by a rope which appears to symbolise the oppressing constraints of Frank’s power. She is even forced to urinate all over herself “back there” in the van, which is incredibly degrading and suggests she is considered as below human by both Doug and Frank. She is repeatedly told to never “overestimate yourself”, as it steadily becomes clear for the audience that she is a victim of Frank’s abusive manipulation of her. Whilst some may argue that many of her actions suggest she is not victimised by Frank, such as the way she overcomes and escapes Doug, or the way she creates a new identity for herself as Cassie Lockhart off-screen, it is clear that all of this is meaningless. Many consider her storyline with Doug to be extra-baggage and unimportant, which is entirely the point. Other than being a minor hindrance to Doug, she is never allowed to accomplish anything substantial. As the series progresses beyond season four and beyond, her horrific, unfortunate and untimely death will steadily be forgotten by the other characters. Other than as a puppet for Frank to use in his pursuit of power, she serves no purpose. She dies as an unfortunate victim of his manipulation.

Nevertheless, women are not presented only as victims in Frank Underwood’s pursuit of power, for Claire Underwood could be interpreted as one of the most influential and powerful characters in the entire series. Her impact on other character’s decisions is incredibly substantial. For many voters in this fictionalised version of America, she is the only reason that people vote for Frank in the first place- “people like Claire”, and are persuaded to vote by what she says. During the third season, Claire even acknowledges this fact “I should have never made you president”. The use of the word “made” offers a lot of insight into the amount of power she has, for it suggests that Frank would have achieved nothing without the authority she has in this corrupt world of politics. Furthermore, her role as CEO of Clean Water Initiative would have proven very effective in getting the environmental bill to pass through Congress, if she actually decided to used her high-ranking position. She chooses not to though, and this causes a lot of delay in Frank’s pursuit of the presidency. Thus, it appears that Claire Underwood is a character who makes a substantial impact, someone who is certainly not victimised by Frank’s pursuit of power. However, a much deeper reading suggests that her authority within the show is superficial- an illusion that never becomes a reality. Ironically, as Claire becomes First Lady of the United States, she finally comes to realise that every bit of control she had over her life has been manipulated by Frank. Her business, her influence on voters and even her role as First Lady have all been for his benefit- not hers. President Petrov even observes that Frank simply “pimps” Claire out; every action she takes in the show contributes to Frank’s plans, rather than for her own benefit. Dunbar manages to get the role of solicitor general and builds a successful campaign for president alone, but Claire has nothing unless Frank gets it also. He oppressively tells her that “without me you are nothing”, suggesting how any power she had has been completely usurped and absorbed by Frank. Now she is victimised by him, feeling utterly “weak and small”. Whilst it could be argued that she is portrayed as one of the most commanding and authoritative characters in the series, her influence in events is presented as much more superficial than it is genuine. In fact, many argue that she is presented as being the most victimised by Frank’s pursuit of power, and his lack of respect for her as a person.

The female characters in this series could considered strong, defiant and powerful in the face of Frank’s ruthless pragmatism. Many of the women in this series fight for what they want and what they believe in, such as their own life, or to progress further up the political ladder. However, it soon becomes clear that this battle against Frank is often fruitless. Women are unfortunately presented as victimised by, and suffering from, Frank’s merciless desire to become the president. Often their own plans and goals are ravaged, exploited and ruined because Frank’s ambitions always come first throughout the entire show. Whilst there are occurrences where it appears that women are triumphant in their own aspirations despite Frank’s plans, it soon becomes clear that it is always the protagonist who succeeds in what they set out to do, and that women are often left victimised as a result.