|
READ THIS
The poet writes about an incident from his childhood when he was continually confronted with lower class
boys whom his parents disliked and warned him to avoid.
Despite their warnings, however, the boy found himself admiring and possibly even envying certain
elements of their life although he was also afraid of their rough, bullying ways.
ABOUT THE POET
Spender was born in London in 1909. His parents were both literary people, his father being a journalist
while his mother was a painter and a poet.
Theirs was middle class society and typically for those days, they tended to despise the ways of the
working class. His parents' attitude would naturally influence the poet as a young boy -- hence the theme
of this poem.
The poet initially attended Oxford University but did not finish his degree. Indeed, he was very proud of
the fact that he had never ever passed an exam in his whole life.
While he was at Oxford, however, he fell under the influence of the poet W. H. Auden with whom he
did some major collaboration. Later he would also pal up with both Louis MacNeice and Cecil
Day-Lewis, as well has many other rising English poets.
Instead of finishing his degree, Spender spent time in Germany where he studied some of the German
poets.
Germany during the 1920s was a hotbed of socialism and Spender became caught up in this political
movement -- becoming for a time an ardent admirer of communism itself.
The world in which he lived, however, quickly came to be dominated by a struggle between fascism and
communism, and Spender became involved in this clash of ideals. Indeed, he even launched himself into
the Spanish Civil War where he opposed the fascist dictator, General Franco.
Despite his lack of a degree, Spender's proven poetic track record allowed him to teach at various
American universities. In 1965 he was appointed "Poet Laureate Consultant in Poetry" to the
United States Library of Congress.
He would eventually return to England, however, where he took up a post as Professor of Rhetoric at
Gresham College and, later, Professor of English at the University College in London.
As early as 1962, Spender was awarded a C.B.E. and was knighted in 1983. He died in 1995 at the age
of 86.
Have you looked at the questions
in the right column?
|
TEST YOURSELF!
Read the left column and then answer
the following questions:
"I feared the salt coarse pointing of those boys
Who copied my lisp behind me on the road."
- What does the poet mean when he speaks of "the salt coarse" pointing of the
boys? (4)
[Need help?]
The boys were lower class, working class. They were regarded as "coarse" or uncouth by the
poet's parents.
One can still buy coarse salt. It's lumpy, hard and rough. And it's not pleasant to taste. It's used for
cooking purposes. It is not refined enough to use on the table as table salt.
By comparing the coarseness of the boys to the coarseness of coarse salt -- " salt coarse" -- is
therefore to tell the reader that they regarded these boys as very coarse indeed.
And remember, too, that it was regarded as very rude to point. Because the boys were pointing, therefore,
it also made them appear as very rude, very coarse -- indeed, " salt coarse" or as coarse as
coarse salt.
|
- What language device is being used in the expression "the salt coarse pointing of those boys"?
What is being compared to what? (3)
[Need help?]
This is a metaphor, is it not? A metaphor is a comparison in which one thing is said to be the other. It is
not just like another.
The coarseness or uncouth way in which the boys pointed is compared to the coarseness of coarse salt.
|
- Use just ONE WORD for "they copied my lisp". (1)
[Need help?]
You could say "imitated" or "mocked".
|
"They threw mud
And I looked another way, pretending to smile,
I longed to forgive them, yet they never smiled."
- Why does the poet-child "look another way"? (4)
[Need help?]
The child pretends he doesn't notice that they have thrown mud at him.
There are two possible reasons for this. First, if he does notice, then he must surely try to seek
vengeance, to put the children in their place. He is too weak to do this, however, and so he pretends not
to see them.
On the other hand, the child would have loved to be friends with the children. He "longed to forgive
them", longed to play with them.
|
- Why does he only pretend to smile? Why does he not smile properly? (4)
[Need help?]
He has been warned not to be friends with the children, remember. If he were to smile at them, this would
be a sign that he genuinely wanted to be friends -- and this would be against his parents' wishes.
On the other hand, he is afraid of the children. If he scowls at them for throwing mud, they might attack
him or bully him some more. So he smiles at them, but he doesn't mean it -- it's just a pretend smile.
|
- Why does the poet as a child only "long to forgive" the children? Why does he not forgive
them? (4)
[Need help?]
The child would not have been able to forgive them, would he? If he had forgiven them, they might then
have invited him to play with them. Then what? His parents had strictly forbidden him from playing with
the children.
And so, although he might long to forgive them, he could not do so in reality. Indeed, he could give no
sign that might be interpreted as a wish to play with them.
|
- Is there any reason why the children themselves never smiled? (4)
[Need help?]
The class war was a two-way thing. The middle class despised the working class but the working class
felt uncomfortable in the presence of the middle class.
Although the children bullied and teased the boy, he was nevertheless still middle class and it was always
possible that his parents might seek reprisals for their action.
They could never smile at him, never show him friendship. Only he could do that. Only the apparently
superior class could initiate friendship with the lower class. But even if he did, could they trust him?
|
GENERAL QUESTIONS:
What do you notice about the style of this poem? (10)
[Need help?]
The style is a rather simple, almost a story-telling one. The poet as an adult remembers an incident that
happened when he was a child. In retelling that incident, he attempts relive the simplicity of his early life.
There is therefore nothing complicated in this poem except perhaps the occasional word like "lithe"
and expressions like "the salt coarse pointing of those boys".
There is no rhyme scheme. Indeed, the use of run-on lines enables the poet to retell the story in an easy,
childlike manner.
Nevertheless, his purpose is clear and deep: to narrate an incident that was dramatically controlled by
a class struggle, between middle class morality and working class conditions.
His metaphorical language is also rich: "who threw words like stones" and "feared more than
tigers their muscles like iron" and "the salt coarse pointing of those boys" and "they sprang
out behind hedges like dogs to bark at our world".
|
This is a poem about class, and about friction arising out of class and its misplaced ethical values.
- What does one mean by "class" and "friction arising out of class"? (4)
[Need help?]
"Class" is an artificial human barrier erected between different groups of people.
Originally there was a ruling class and the workers. The ruling class came eventually to be known as the
nobility. As cities grew in Europe, however, there arose a new class of wealthy urban
manufacturers and merchants who called themselves the bourgeoisie.
By the end of the 19th century, this latter group had absorbed such professional people as lawyers, writers
and teachers and so had become known more simply as the middle class.
They believed that their wealth was a blessing from God and so their lives tended to be rather puritanical
lest they offend God by their sin and lose their wealth.
The middle class, however, tended to despise the working class whom they saw as lacking in
drive and morality. They therefore advised their sons and daughters to shun friendship with this class.
|
- Would you agree that the main theme of this poem is indeed about "misplaced ethical
values"? (10)
[Need help?]
The ethical values of the middle class had grown out of a sense of sin. They had believed that their wealth
was a blessing from God and feared therefore that they would lose this blessing if they committed sin,
especially sexual sin.
They therefore followed puritanical ethical ways so as to avoid sin, and the centre of their ethics was spelt
out in sexual terms -- sex to be avoided except in marriage and preferably avoided even then -- and in
their code of dress which was to hide the body and prevent temptation.
Since the working class did not see the world in terms of blessing and sin, they did not follow the standard
middle class morality. In fact, they tended to scoff at it.
The middle class despised the working class whom it saw as loose in morals and given to the ways of the
flesh, e.g. a tendency to drunkenness.
Were the ethical values of the middle class misplaced? Were the parents in this poem correct to advise
their child to shun the children of the working class?
|
|
