- All Quiet on the Western Front deals extensively with the interrogation of masculinity; what qualities make someone masculine and how they’re able to protect/project masculinity during war or other periods of intense strife. Not So Quiet‘s first chapter touches on the interrogation of femininity, specifically when Tosh chooses to cut her hair to rid herself of lice. Does this set her apart from the other women as “unfeminine”, and is her womanliness supported or hindered by her bluntness and vulgarity?
- Chapter two begins with Helen’s experience being assigned to Hospital 13, her struggle managing the Commandant, and her (temporary) anger toward the other women she rooms with upon arriving home. How does the leader/follower dynamic in Not So Quiet compare to Himmelstoss, Paul, and the other boys? Does the Commandant’s lack of sympathy bring the women closer together, like in All Quiet on the Western Front, or drive some of the inter-group conflicts (Skinny and Tosh, The B.F. and Edwards, Helen and the “selfish beasts”?
- When the Commandant breaks in the new arrivals, Smith writes she plays “her trump card” when suggesting that Preston should return to England if she isn’t ready to drive an ambulance by herself for the midnight convoy. What do you think the consequences on the home front were for women who couldn’t remain or become volunteer ambulance drivers? Would it be more, or less socially unacceptable than being a man who refused to enlist during the war?
8 thoughts on “Elijah’s Reading Questions – September 11th”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
When Tosh begins to cut her hair at the front lines, she forgoes the need to cling to modernity and femininity. At the front lines, shelling and gunfire lull the women to sleep and their day consist of driving wounded men to hospitals in harsh conditions. Smith finds her job to better suited for the lower-class, as she’s a educated and clings to her social standing throughout the first few chapters (Smith 50). When Tosh begins to cut her hair, other women remark that they could never do such a thing, and exclaimed what their families would think if their hair were that “boyish” (Smith 15). Tosh’s actions do set her apart from the other women, as she adjusts to the conditions of war and adapts accordingly to suite her and the needs of her role more comfortably. With shorter hair, she’d evade lice and would have to smooth her her with less effort food inspection. I believe that outwardly, other women uncomfortably denounce her departure from traditionally femininity. Secretly, I think the other drivers understand and admire how Tosh is willing to let the war change her- and be willing to break away from the confines of societal standards.
Himmelstoss and “Ms. Bitch” have very similar qualities throughout the respective novel and the first chapters of Not So Quiet. They are both pleased with making soldiers’ lives increasingly difficult and they tolerate little insubordination from their troops. Himmelstoss makes his soldiers clean tools with toothbrushes and the Commandant made Smith clean her ambulance, Smith’s ambulance, and the women’s restroom within a single hour (Remarque 23). Both leaders push their soldiers to annoyance and lack compassion for their troops.
I believe that Commandant’s treatment feeds into the divide of ambulance drivers. It appears that the extra work and tasked assigned to the new recruits and Smith doesn’t help the conversations that divide the women already. The women argue about God, the war, and femininity; the Commandant’s extra work may fuel the disdain for other women within the hall (Smith 56).
Throughout the text, the phrase “doing your bit” and familial opinion about personal war contributions stated multiple times. I think that many women throughout this war were essentially “damned” either if they volunteered or did not. Women that contributed seemed less pure because they were around and aiding young men’s bodies. At the same time, women that did not give to the war effort may not have been “doing their bit” for the cause, or not nearly doing enough to contribute to the war effort. I think there would have been much shame for women that did not become ambulance drives, and another degree of shame that if women could not withstand the demands. As a man, I think it would be much worse to not enlist in the war. Masculinity was demanded with WW1 and many women had to conform to that trend, as Tosh cut her hair short. Though men could not “stoop” to femininity, for that was not tolerated socially.
1. So I definitely think Tosh cutting her hair was viewed as unfeminine, but ultimately, it’s practical and a way to avoid lice and bugs. Nowadays it’s normal to see women with short hair, but I think back then, hair was definitely valued as setting women apart–with how they cared for it and how they styled it. So even though she’s setting herself apart from the other woman, I don’t necessarily think that makes her less of a woman in any way.
2. So I’m not really sure that Commandment’s treatment of the women drives them apart, but it definitely leaves little opportunity for them to grow closer together. There’s extra work if you’re being punished which in a lot of ways does lead to resentment seeing as it means skipping meals and all the hot drinks being used up. Rather I think there’s other factors that divide the women up. I think in a lot of circles it’s easier for women to group up in cliques, but I think it’s some of the mindsets of the women like Etta Potato and B.F. who are insistent upon doing all they can for the grand old flag while feigning innocence and lack of true understanding for the war that repulses Smith and Tosh.
3. I absolutely think women would be more positively accepted back into society for returning from the front than men. In letters to Smith, Smith’s mother insists on Smith not going out in the cold due to her delicate chest, and things like that. Women are automatically viewed as physically and mentally inferior to men, so of course it would be “natural” if they couldn’t handle the grueling front, whereas for men, you’re a coward if you can’t handle the war since everyone at home assumes “it’s not so bad out there,” and it’s nothing a man can’t handle.” Plus, these women come from more upper class families so it’s not essential that they do this kind of work.
I’m already quite invested in these women and the story that will be told. Especially Tosh and Bug, they are interesting to me!
The scene of Tosh cutting her hair reminded me of when Jo March did it in the novel Little Women. Yet I like that in this novel Tosh does it for herself for practically rather than for someone else. #Toshiscool
Elijah, these questions are incredibly thought-provoking, and very well written. I will respond to question number three with my thoughts about the connotation prescribed to women who stayed or returned to the homefront due to some form of avoidance of the war.
It is my belief that yes, women were shunned for not joining the war effort, however not in the same way that men were. It seems as though a man’s decision to not join the war is a societally-accepted aversion from his masculinity. A man who does not join the war, for example, might be presented a white feather by a desirable, young flapper, signifying his cowardice and selfish laziness in the eyes of a pretty woman. A man should patriotically step up for his country and represent the values associated with said country, indirectly impressing such women. On the other hand, women are not societally pressured to go to the front lines, but rather familially pressured. Referring to the hypothetical letter a family member would send to her if she complained of her role on the front, Helen contends, ‘they will reply… “you were always inclined to exaggerate darling”’ (Smith 31). As a symbol of status to her mother, Helen is depended upon for her role as an ambulance driver in the war, and because she is not a man fighting on the front lines, any adversity she faces is dramatic whining. Her spoiled youth has made her unable to handle driving around an ambulance at night, on slippery ice, dealing with starvation, gore, and lack-of-sleep, because anybody else would be able to handle that easily. Therefore, as a woman she must represent her family (a role historically prescribed to women), and she must not succumb to stereotypes about her gender and upbringing. So, to end this rant, men are societally pressured to join the war as soldiers, whereas women are in a constant bind of fulfilling family expectations while also resisting the stereotypes tied to their gender and upbringing.
I’m really glad you included question 2, since the dynamic between the women and Commandment immediately reminded me of the men from All Quiet on the Western Front and Himmelstoss. Helen’s desire to “murder [Commandment] slowly and reverently and very painfully” is very reminiscent of Paul and the other men taking immense pleasure in violently attacking Himmelstoss in chapter 3 (Smith 39). Both Himmelstoss and Commandment are very cruel towards their respective troops, leading to the widespread hatred of them and the way their subordinates seem to almost yearn to make them suffer. Part of me wonders if the respective troops see Himmelstoss and Commandment as an almost manifestation of the war and the traumas that they are constantly enduring, providing a human outlet to take out their rage and frustrations on.
Question 1. Chapter 1 ends with Helen vividly imagining her mother and father back home, bragging about her and her sister in France. What is the effect of this scene and how is it enhanced by the literary style (e.g. use of repetition, ellipses, end the chapter with short sentences). How does Helen’s attitude toward her parents, civilians back home and the war in general set the tone for the rest of the novel?
Answer. The letter written by Helen to her parents back in England is a gigantic lie. Her words reinforce her parents, and those of civilian England, of service in France being a great patriotic duty that is cheerfully borne to support the aims of the country, support “our boys” and to fight “the Hun”. This letter, as a missive described in Chapter 1, highlights the profound emotional chasm between the Homefront and the reality of war on the continent. It is a stark contrast between Helen’s grim experiences and the fabricated, cheerful image she presents to her parents creates a powerful sense of dramatic irony and internal conflict. The letter, and the reader’s involvement in the thought process behind it, reveals several key aspects that color the entire book:
· Emotional isolation. Helen imagines the scene of her parents bragging to their friends and neighbors about her duty in France. As this scene plays out in her head, the reality she describes exposes the utter isolation of the soldiers at the front. Her parent’s pride is based on a patriotic fantasy and Helen’s life filled with trauma, gore, and futility is objective reality. She has no one back home with whom she can share her truth.
· The deception of a dutiful daughter. Helen is lying to her parents in her letters and this weighs heavily on her. But this lying is what she believes she needs to do so as not to shame her parents back home or force a break between her life as a dutiful daughter, a member of the “Splendid Daughters of England”, and a member of the British Ambulance Corps. Helen knows she will return home one day and does not want to cause a rift between her and her previous life.
· Futility. Chapter 1 sets the tone for the book; those deployed and working in France simply cannot share the reality of what life is really like working in France with those at home. Helen’s parents bragging about her “splendid” work underscores the immense gap between propaganda and lived experience. The civilian population of England has a rosy view of the war, Helen knows this is absolutely not the case, and the chasm between the patriotic fantasy and the horrible reality make all the sacrifices Helen and her sister ambulance drivers make seem absolutely futile. And Helen can tell no one outside of France.
The literary style, including the use of repetition, ellipses, and short sentences, enhances the impact of the three first chapters because the reader gets a clear view of Helen’s psychological state and how torn she is between her parent’s fantasy of her life in France and the gory reality of medical work near the front. It also causes the reader to “be inside Helen’s head” as the style is like someone thinking – and the reader is right there – thinking with Helen. All of the stylistic choices use in the text rob Helen and the reader of any comfort and presents only the finality of her grim new life. Specifically:
· Repetition. The repeated idea of her parent’s’ boastful, detached pride emphasizes the jarring and relentless nature of the disconnect between fantasy in England and reality in France. Helen cannot escape the suffocating performance of being the “brave girl,” and the repetition forces the reader to sit with the painful contrast.
· Ellipses. The use of ellipses, particularly in internal thought or fragmented sentences, conveys Helen’s exhaustion and the terrible, unsaid truths she carries. They suggest thoughts trailing off, of an inability to articulate the full horror of what she’s seen, and an underlying sense of dread. The silence represented by the ellipses speaks louder than any cheerful lie Helen could write.
· Short sentences. The chapter’s final short sentences, following the longer, descriptive passages in Helen’s imagination, act as a sudden, sharp jolt back to reality. The brevity creates a final, chilling punctuation mark on what she has seen (and endured), cutting off the imagined moment of parental praise and emphasizing the harshness of her real life in France.
Overall, the imagined scene at the end of Chapter 1 is more than a simple comparison; it is a critical thematic statement. The contrast between Helen’s internal and external worlds, what she really thinks as opposed to what she writes to her parents back home, are amplified by specific stylistic choices. Chapter 1 allows the reader to understand the conundrum and the use of style sets a powerful and ironic tone for the rest of the book, and describes the severe psychological toll the war will take on Helen and her sister ambulance drivers.
Question 2. Commandant and Himmelstoss are very similar characters – people who abuse their authority over the narrator and main characters. How do your feelings toward the Commandant differ from Himmelstoss? Is your reaction to Helen’s violent desires toward Commandant any different from your reaction to the violent revenge the boys enacted upon Himmelstoss? Why or why not?
Answer. Both the Commandant and Himmelstoss are clear portraits of authority figures who abuse their power, but they differ significantly in their impact, motivation, and the context of their cruelty. This, in turn, leads to different emotional responses from the characters in the respective books and the reader. The reaction to violence against them also reflects these differences. Briefly:
· The Commandant. The reader knows very little about the background and pre-war life of the Commandant represents the oppressive, institutional nature of the military establishment itself. She is not a petty bully but rather an indifferent, bureaucratic figure who embodies the dehumanizing system of warfare. She forces the volunteer ambulance drivers, often from privileged backgrounds, to endure inhumane living conditions, overwork, and relentless stress, all while hiding behind a façade of patriotic service. The Commandant’s cruelty feels less personal and she is more a symbol of the uncaring, class-driven system that exploits the idealistic women volunteers.
· Himmelstoss. Himmelstoss is a former postman who is intoxicated by his newfound power as a corporal. His cruelties are petty, sadistic, and deeply personal. He forces recruits to stand in freezing temperatures without gloves, invents nonsensical drills, and cruelly torments Tjaden for his bed-wetting. Himmelstoss serves as an archetype, a symbol of the war’s ability to turn ordinary men into cruel monsters. Bäumer recognizes that war creates a power hierarchy that brings out the worst in people. However, Himmelstoss’s bullying is driven by a personal sense of inadequacy, which makes his actions seem pathetic as well as monstrous.
My feelings toward to Commandant are less about personal hatred and more about the simmering rage at the institution she represents. Her abuse of power is cold and strategic, not a result of a personal inferiority complex. The Commandant does what she must (with little pity) to ensure that her ambulance drivers and equipment are ready to discharge their duties every day. I can well understand Helen’s violent desires toward the Commandant, but Helen knows part of this is just the system and she admits that the Commandant also drives ambulances herself, so there is a sort of shared understanding of why this life is so hard. Himmelstoss is a coward and is revealed to be so when Bäumer and his fellow soldiers encounter him at the front as an ordinary corporal. The description of his conduct of duty on the front, juxtaposed to his petty cruelty during the training of Bäumer and his team, make me loath him and to cheer for the soldiers who beat him up when they have a chance.
Question 3. Helen is arguably in a much better position than soldiers on the front – such as Paul – yet she is seething with much more rage at the injustice of her situation than Paul was. Why do you think that is? What do you make of Helen’s quiet anger compared to Pauls’s despair and resignation? Do you think it’s justified?
Answer. This is a very big question and the answer derives not so much on what these two characters endure on the battlefield, but draws on their respective backgrounds from before the war. These back stories, coupled with duty in France, has each of them respond to the deprivations and dangers of war in France. Helen’s rage compared to Bäumer’s despair can be attributed to their different social class, their different genders, and the different societal pressures placed upon them during World War I. These national, societal and gender differences impact how they view the different forms of injustice and the nature of their suffering as young people serving on the front of a devastating war.
· Helen’s quiet anger. Helen, is an English woman from a relatively wealthy family who volunteers as an ambulance driver due to pressure from patriotic parents and her society. Raised in polite society, educated and destined to be a comfortable wife, she is ripped from this comfortable life to witness the grotesque results of war. She is forced to endure grueling and dehumanizing labor, but unlike Bäumer, she is betrayed by the people on the Homefront. Her quiet anger stems from the hypocrisy of a society that glorifies the war while remaining utterly ignorant and uncaring about the true cost paid by men whose lives are shattered and women like her whose psyche will never be the same. Her family encourages her “patriotic duty” as a “Splendid Daughter of England” and judges her, not on her well-being, but on their social standing. Helen’s quiet anger is fueled by this injustice to her, other women like her and the men she delivers to field hospitals every night.
· Bäumer’s despair. As a soldier, Bäumer faces the direct, physical horrors of combat in the trenches. His despair is a reaction to the absolute futility and senseless destruction of the war, which he experiences firsthand. His rage, at the start of the novel, is primarily directed at the older generation who sent him and his fellow soldiers to war with patriotic lies, but this anger eventually subsides into a detached, numb resignation as his experiences strip away his humanity.
The nature of the suffering by Helen and Bäumer are both in reaction to their experience of trauma during the war but the source of their suffering differs significantly:
· Social class. Helen and her sister ambulance drivers are predominantly from the upper and middle classes, and their “service” is considered an extension of their patriotic duty. The military exploits their class-based code of honor expects them to endure harsh conditions silently and without complaint. This is the genesis of Helen’s rosy picture of the war in letters to her parents back home while she endures harsh conditions. Helen is not allowed to voice her trauma. This stifled communication of suffering only intensifies Helen’s inner fury. Bäumer and his fellow soldiers are from the lower social strata and are therefore more accustomed to enduring hardship. Their lack of social standing means there is little pretense of honor or patriotism (beyond their school masters and some parents), only the grim reality of survival. Bäumer’s experience, while equally horrifying, is not compounded by the betrayal of social expectations in the same way as Helen’s.
· Gender. Helen, as all women who volunteer to “do their bit” for the war effort, is not viewed as truly heroic – her duty is just a temporary, feminine sacrifice. Bäumer, on the other hand, is a man and war is what men do, particularly when the nation views it as not only a patriotic duty, but work that is underscored by “right” as God wills victory for Germany.
Societal pressures. Helen’s anger is internalized and often unspoken. The societal expectation that she be a “sweet girl” and a patriotic heroine. This thinking clashes with the brutal reality she experiences, forcing her to suppress her true feelings. This conflict between her forced persona and her actual trauma causes a simmering, quiet rage that is constantly in conflict with her family-facing “:stiff upper lip”. This anger is a form of self-preservation and a refusal to be broken by a system that refuses to acknowledge her suffering. Bäumer is quickly dissolutioned. His despair and resignation grow quickly as he sees his fellow soldiers die and his hopes for a normal life fade. His emotional numbness is a defense mechanism against overwhelming trauma. By the end of the book, he is no longer angry, but hollowed out, having lost his former self entirely. This resignation is arguably a more complete and ultimate defeat than Helen’s rage.
Helen’s quiet rage is absolutely justified. While her physical hardship does not compare to the daily reality of the trench warfare endured by Bäumer, the specific kind of suffering she endures is a profound and valid source of her anger and is easily more rage than that of Bäumer. As a woman, Helen suffers from a “moral injury,” where her sense of right and wrong is violated by the hypocritical behavior of the Homefront. She is forced to witness horror while being celebrated as a “sweet girl” doing “her bit” for the war effort. She was sent as a gentle “Splendid Daughter of England” and within a few short days, that veneer is ripped away by the first shell bombardment. Helen, unlike Bäumer, carries a double burden; the trauma of war and the societal expectation to remain silent, sweet, and ladylike. The public glorifies her while dismissing her truth, a specific injustice that male soldiers are not subjected to as Bäumer is free to discuss the true nature of war anywhere he likes. Helen’s suffering is largely invisible and unacknowledged by society. Bäumer’s suffering, though widely misunderstood by civilians, is at least publicly associated with the heroic sacrifice of soldiers. Helen’s contribution, though equally vital, is trivialized. In the end, Helen’s quiet anger is more enduring because her enemy is also English society that fails to recognize her as a full human being, enduring the horror of war, thar adds a layer of betrayal to her trauma. Bäumer’s anger turns into a quiet hopelessness because his enemy is the war itself.
I think question #1 can definitely be seen as a form of masculinity, especially during that specific period of time. Long hair has pretty much become a feminine trait and characteristic throughout time, though we see that changing today, but for the time it was mainly feminine, so the cutting of hair definitely set her apart if you ask me. Though I think it was for a good reason, as needless as it is to say so.