- In John McCrae’s “In Flander’s Fields”, the poem encourages the reader to have faith and to remember the soldiers fighting on the battlefield. In Andrea Razafkeriefo’s version, the poem encourages African Americans who live back home to live for the soldiers who have died. Why do you think Razafkeriefo made the change to emphasize the living at home?
- In the WWI literature we have read throughout this semester, the narration suddenly becomes detached at the end of the story when the characters die in battle. Now we have seen this happen in “Not Only War” as well. What is the effect of this change and why do you think this ending is consistent throughout war literature?
- In “All Quiet on the Western Front”, Paul regains his humanity when he tries to save Gerald Duval, the wounded French soldier. Like Paul, Montie cannot bear to see Bob, his enemy, in agony. However, is Bob the one who gains empathy and human connection? If they had lived, do you think that Bob would have apologized to Montie?
3 thoughts on “Megan’s Reading Questions for November 11th”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Literature of World War Answers to Three Student Questions – November 10, 2025 Mike Everett
Book: Not Only War by Victor Daly
Poems: “In Flander’s Fields” by John McCrae and again by Andrea Razafkeriefo
Assignment: Read Daly, Not Only War, chapters X-XV (Pages 38-70) and both the “In Flander’s Fields” poems by John McCrae and Andrea Razafkeriefo. Next, answer the three student questions on the readings.
Question 1. In John McCrae’s “In Flander’s Fields” the poem encourages the reader to have faith and to remember the soldiers fighting on the battlefield. In Andrea Razafkeriefo’s version, the poem encourages African Americans who live back home to live for the soldiers who have died. Why do you think Razafkeriefo made the change to emphasize the living at home?
Answer. The wars fought by John McCrae and Andrea Razafkeriefo were completely different. John McCrae and his white compatriots warred on the stated enemy, the Germans facing them across the fields in Flanders. White soldiers made war on behalf of ideals extolled by their respective nations, clothed in the ideals of freedom, democracy and dignity. Andrea Razafkeriefo and his black compatriots also fought on the battlefields of Flanders, but their war was really at home in the United States. Black soldiers bled the same color, red, and died in the same manner as the white soldiers, but the war for them was not with the Germans, but with the nation back home; a nation that did not look to the black race and think of them as clothed in the ideals of freedom, democracy and dignity. John McCrea’s dead admonished the living to keep up the fire ad fight the Germans for the Allied powers and their belief in freedom. Andrea Razafkeriefo’s dead admonished their brethren back home to fight the injustices against the black race that was taking place in America, a nation that would accept the black man’s sacrifice unto death, but denied him the freedom, democracy and dignity at home that was promised to white citizens.
In Flander’s Fields
In Flanders fields the poppies blow, Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly; Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die, We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields.
John McCrae
Note. John McCrae wrote “In Flanders Fields” on May 3, 1915, the day after his friend, Lieutenant Alexis Helmer, was killed in the Second Battle of Ypres. Inspired by the sight of bright red poppies growing on the graves of the fallen soldiers, he composed the poem in Belgium while serving as a medical officer in the Canadian Expeditionary Force.
In Flander’s Fields – after the poem by John McCrae
In Flanders fields where poppies blow, Beneath the crosses, row on row, We blacks an endless vigil keep– Yea, we though dead can never sleep– Ingratitude has made it so.
Why are we here? Why did we go From loving homes, that need us so? Was it for naught we gave our lives, On Flanders fields?
Ye blacks who live, to you we throw The torch: be yours to face the foe At home: and ever hold it high, Fight for the things for which we die, That we may sleep, where poppies grow, In Flanders fields.
Andrea Razafkeriefo
Note. First published in The Crisis Magazine in July 1920, this answer to John McCrae’s original poem was an answer from the African American soldiers who dies along with their white counterparts on the battlefields of Europe during World War I.
Question 2. In WWI literature we have read throughout this semester, the narration suddenly becomes detached at the end of the story when the characters die in battle. Now we have seen this happen in “Not Only War” as well. What is the effect of this change and why do you think this ending is consistent throughout war literature?
Answer. The shift to a detached, objective narrative tone when characters die in the Great War literature serves to emphasize the profound disillusionment and sense of meaninglessness associated with modern warfare. Specifically, the effects of the change in narrative tone:
· Emphasizes the loss of individuality. By shifting from an intimate, personal perspective to an objective, almost clinical one, the narrative suggests that in the machinery of modern war, individual lives and deaths are insignificant and easily dismissed. The soldier, a person with hopes and fears, is reduced to a mere casualty.
· Underscores the brutality and inhumanity of war. The detached tone forces the reader to confront the harsh reality that death in battle is often random and devoid of traditional heroic meaning. It resists the urge to sentimentalize or glorify the sacrifice, highlighting the sheer, unfeeling nature of the conflict.
· Creates a sense of emotional numbness/trauma. The shift in tone can mirror the psychological trauma and emotional numbness experienced by soldiers, who, exposed to death on an enormous scale, may have developed a detached way of processing the loss of their comrades.
· Highlights the Profound Disillusionment. This narrative choice directly challenges the pre-war ideals of glory, honor, and “heroic action”. The abrupt, unceremonious ending of a character’s life, presented without emotional inflection, drives home the feeling that the promised nobility of dying for one’s country (“Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori”) was a lie.
Why the ending is consistent throughout literature pf the Great War? This narrative convention is consistent throughout Great War literature because the writers, many of whom were soldiers themselves, were fundamentally trying to capture and bear witness to a new and unprecedented kind of war. Specifically:
· A shared, unprecedented experience. The scale of death and the industrialized nature of the killing in the First World War were unlike previous conflicts. Writers shared a collective trauma and a need to communicate the unique horror and futility they experienced, which challenged traditional narrative forms.
· Rejection of romanticized war narratives. Pre-war literature often portrayed battle in an epic, heroic, and romanticized light. Great War authors explicitly rejected these conventions, aiming to present “the reality as it was”. The detached endings became a standard literary device to express this anti-heroic, anti-sentimental viewpoint.
· Psychological realism. The technique serves as a form of psychological realism, reflecting the overwhelming, almost unbelievable, nature of the war. The shift to a cold, factual
description of death makes the event starker and more believable to a readership that might have been accustomed to more dramatic, personalized death scenes in 19th-century literature.
· A universal statement about war. The consistency of this approach across different authors and works makes a powerful, collective statement: in modern war, life is cheap, death is random, and the individual is ultimately expendable. This thematic unity helps define the genre of Great War literature and its lasting impact.
Question 3. In “All Quiet on the Western Front”, Paul regains his humanity when he tries to save Gerald Duval, the wounded French soldier. Like Paul, Montie cannot bear to see Bob, his enemy, in agony. However, is Bob the one who gains empathy and human connection? If they had lived, do you think that Bob would have apologized to Montie?
Answer. In the book, Not Only War by Christopher Daly, the main character, Montgomery “Montie” Jason, an African American Army Officer cannot bear to see his enemy, Bob Casper, a white southern segregationist, to be in physical agony. This scene is a pivotal moment highlighting Montie’s profound human compassion despite the brutal context of war. In regards to Bob, there is no evidence in the book to suggest that Bob gains empathy or human connection despite his plight. Further, it is doubtful that Bob would have apologized to Montie if they had lived because of the life-long environment and deep-seated prejudice in which Bob had been raised. Specifically:
· Montie’s empathy. The empathy and human connection in this book are entirely one-sided, and felt only by Montie. It is Montie who sees past the “enemy” label and recognizes Bob’s suffering as a shared human experience. This act underscores Montie’s inherent humanity amidst the dehumanizing reality of war.
· Bob’s response and fate. Montie himself dies in battle. The narrative focus is on Montie’s internal moral conflict and his ultimate fate, not on any transformation in Bob. Bob’s character does not undergo a significant shift towards empathy or reconciliation.
· Hypothetical future. The novel primarily explores the African American soldier’s experience in the First World War and the subsequent struggle with untreated “shell Shock” (now recognized as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder – PTSD) and societal disappointment. Given the themes of the senselessness and futility of war found throughout the book, it is highly unlikely that Bob, as a character, would have a redemptive arc culminating in an apology. The narrative is focused more on the profound human cost of war and the resilience of the human spirit in general, rather than individual acts of reconciliation.
The humanity in the book is a testament to Montie’s character, but Bob does not demonstrate a similar gain in empathy, nor is there any indication he would have apologized.
Hey Megan, I’m going to reply to your third question!
Honestly, I did find myself thinking about how Bob would’ve treated Montie had they lived, but I’m not sure I have high hopes for any retribution or growth on Bob’s part. Also, I think if he did, it would defeat Daly’s purpose in writing “Not Only War.” Daly shows us that at this time, racism and prejudice triumph everything, even in war. There are very few moments where it is pushed aside, and mostly in the desperation and confusion of war. I firmly believe that Montie’s attempt to save Bob is not a reconciliation, and also that we were not meant to expect Bob to drop his racist ideals and beg for forgiveness after being saved by a black man. The fact that they died holding each other is merely an ironic coincidence. No one who sees their bodies will assume that they held such contempt for each other. Perhaps they were just in that moment together and each saw a fellow human to cling to, rather than someone black or someone white. I think Daly wants us to think about these ways that the situation could be reinterpreted, but without having false hope about the growth of characters like Bob.
Hey! I’m taking your first question. Both poems from the dead petition the readers to take up a quarrel with the foe. In McCrae’s version, the foe is the other side of the battlefield they were on, which is fairly straightforward. However, the foe in Razafkeriefo’s version is at home, related to the ingratitude that keeps the dead from sleep. While McCrae’s soldiers can’t sleep because their battle is not finished, and they have not earned the respect as victors, Razafkeriefo’s soldiers can’t sleep because they have not been given the proper dignity and respect from their nation. The battle changes to be one against racism in America.