Prevailing themes in Susan Hill's 'Strange Meeting' and C.R Sherriff's 'Journey's End'

Warfare is the issue of conflict between not only the opposite forces but also between comrades. It is apparent that this is a central theme in both texts ‘Strange Meeting’ by Susan Hill and in the drama ‘Journey’s End’ by C.R. Sherriff. The subject-matter of war-fare is a broad topic, in which both texts cover a wide range of issues that were prevalent during the war.

One of the key themes both writers try to get across is the strong sense of detachment of soldiers from their homes. This is clearly demonstrated through the language and can be seen particularly in the initial pages of Strange Meeting through protagonist, John Hilliard, who due to his determination to stay awake in his bedroom because ‘He was afraid to go to sleep. For three weeks, he had been/ afraid of going to sleep.’ An opening declaration, which sets the mood of the novel, as one of restlessness and distress, to illustrate his detachment of his home, which is illustrated in his inability to sleep, an idea which is reinforced through the repetition of ‘afraid’. This is also presented by Hill through the characters stream of consciousness, which reveals his feelings towards his home are that: ‘He had been unhappy at home’. This is further illustrated through the presentation of the characters relationships with his family as detached, as it is related that Hillard had 'argued twice, bitterly, with his father.’ The war-fare between, him and his father exemplify their conflicting view points and their warring relationship. On the other hand Hill’s presentation of Hilliard’s relationship with his sister, Beth, is much closer, as it is declared that ‘Beth. Beth. He had always gone to Beth.’ particularly when he was in distress, a statement, of their close relationship and of her providing comfort. Images we also get through Hill’s images, of him sleeping under her bed and of her providing him the courage to swim further, which overcame his fear of water. However Hill shatters this impression of closeness and familiarity by contrasting the youthful images of her swimming to the present Beth as reserved and her tone being ‘cool, formal as the letters’. A contrast, which Hill uses to present the differences in her character, to underline the transformation the war causes in not only soldiers, who have been to the war but also people at the home-front. It is this transformation in not only Beth’s character but more importantly Hilliard who has experienced the reality of war, which has changed his perspectives, perspectives which conflict with others, such as his father and Beth, subsequently leading to a disconnection of their relationships and leading him to become detached from his home. 

This idea of disconnection can similarly be seen, in Journey’s End through Hardy’s enquiry of: ‘He didn’t go home on his leave, did he?’ A query, about the central character, Stanhope, who drinks excessively to cope with the war and avoids going home on his leave because of the profound changes; the drinking has caused in him, as Sherriff portrays his behaviour as somehow erratic and peculiar, through Trotter’s claim, that he greeted Stanhope, after he had been drinking and ‘he didn’t seem to know who I was.’ Behaviour due to his excessive drinking, which leads him to keep away from his home, as he is adamant that his family and friends don’t find out he has changed. However Stanhope’s secret, remaining private is threatened when Sherriff introduces the character, Raleigh, Stanhope’s childhood friend, who is ignorant of his drinking and the change he has undergone. Therefore the possibility he will find out and tell others at the home-front causes Stanhope into a tense confrontation with Raleigh, whereby [STAHOPE clutches RALEIGH’S wrist and tears the letter form his/ hand], in a desperation to find out whether Raleigh has exposed his drinking to Raleigh’s sister and those at the home-front, action which dramatizes the scene to show Stanhope’s desperation at maintaining his, unaffected and impervious facade to those at the home-front.

The idea of the soldier’s detachment of their homes is closely connected to the idea of the trenches becoming their home and their fellow soldiers becoming their new families. This is presented by Sherriff through the character of Osborne, who is addressed by the other soldiers as ‘Uncle’ and also through other character’s comments, such as Hardy’s reply of ‘Well, naturally you’re biased. You have to put him to bed/ when he gets home.’ A direct comment which refers to the trenches as ‘home’, which transmits Sherriff’s view that during the period of the war, the trenches were considered to be treated like a ‘home’ to the soldiers, however this statement also creates an image of other officers being put to bed as if they were children images which are generally associated with a family. This idea of the trenches as becoming their homes is parallel to the one found in Strange Meeting as Hilliard feeling ‘at home and in comparative peace’ in his trench; a direct contrast to the restlessness he felt at his home.

There is also a strong portrayal of war-fare being futile, in both texts. Although as Journey’s End, is a drama, Sherriff demonstrates this futility through language as well as action. This can be particularly seen in the raid, which results in many deaths including the death of Osborne, for the capture of a ‘German Boy’, who they receive no useful information from. This idea of the stupidity and futility is demonstrated by Sherriff, through the language, in Act 3 scene 1, where the capture of the German Boy, who is searched, by the Sergeant Major recounts that he’s found: ‘… a few oddments, sir-/bit o’ string, sir; little box o’ fruit drops; pocket knife, sir, bit o’/ cedar pencil- and a stick o’ chocolate, sir’. These trivial pieces of belongings move the audience as they are like child-like possessions, which serve to inform the audience of the young age, which boy went to war but it also gives us a glimpse of who are on the other side of the front- line, which highlights the idiocy of killing your fellow man. The scene of the interrogation is also comical in highlighting his incompetence and the little information they gather not only underlines the ineptitude of the high command but also the view that the war cannot validate the loss of so many innocent lives. An idea which is equally shared in Strange Meeting, which is presented, through the character Barton, who in being sent on a mission to draw a map; witnesses the death of a soldier, leading him to exclaim ‘To make a map!’, using the exclamation to highlight the ridiculousness of drawing a map, while men are dying around him. An event which dramatically changes him, leading him in a pursuit to try to finding a justification of war and the sense of war itself, in the passages of Sir Thomas Browne, however it is something he is unable to find, underlining the fact that there is no justification for the loss of so many deaths, even in the context of war.

 

The idea of futility is closely linked, with the problem, of the ineptitude of the higher command, as the questioning of the Colonel, in German, is amusing as he is aware that the German boy speaks English, yet he continues to question him in ‘poor German’. However when they reverse back to English, the Colonel refuses to push for answers to his questions but merely replies: ‘Oh, well, that’s all right.’ A reply which intends to show his incompetence, as many men have died for the capture of the German and yet he behaves as if he is not the captor, making the audience question, which one of them is in control. His incompetence and is further emphasised in Act 3 scene 1, as he overlooks the men, that went on the raid and instead ‘excitedly’ comments on how pleased the brigadier’s will be. Behaviour, which Sherriff emphasises, as it astounds Stanhope, who gives ‘[…one look of astonishment at the COLONEL and/ strolled past him. He turns at the table and speaks in a dead voice]’ replying ‘How awfully nice- if the brigadier’s pleased’. A sarcastic and discourteous reply, which Sherriff uses to show increasing signs of Stanhope losing his respect for his superior officers but also creates tension as it shocks the Colonel, into changing his bearing and asking about the men. Although Stanhope’s anger can be felt, through his challenging of the Colonel, in asking ‘Did you expect them safely back, sir?’, a question, which shocks the Colonel as he then goes on to stutter euphemism: ‘I’m very sorry. Poor Osborne’, as he, ‘fidgets uneasily as STANHOPE looks at him/ with a pale, expressionless face.’ Actions and dialogue, which shows his gaucheness in dealing with other officers but also makes him, seem insincere.

We also get strong portrayal of men’s feelings in war-fare, in particular the emotion, of the fear soldier’s felt during the war, although our reactions to these feelings differ slightly in both texts. As in Strange Meeting this fear is exhibited through the character of Harris, who Barton tries to give comfort as ‘He put out his hand and found Harris’s wrist and held it.’ The basic human contact, which comforts him as ‘he began to cry’, displays the reality of war and the fear of young Harris, who was ‘huddled inside like a foetus, his hands up near/ his face’ a simile, which portrays an image of him as defenceless, to emphasises the vulnerability of his character, by contrasting his position as if he was in a womb an image which makes the reader sympathise with his character and question the soldiers having to fight at such as young age, a view which is further reinforced, by Hill, through Barton’s guilt at his premature death.

This fear is also evident in the character of Hibbert, in Journey’s End; however the fear expressed by Hibbert’s character, is shown, by Sherriff through the actions as well as language of Hibbert, as he pretends to be suffering form neuralgia declaring that ‘I shall die of this pain if I don’t go!’, so that he can be sent to the Medical Officer, instead of doing his duty. However in Hibbert’s case Stanhope is not sympathetic, but refuses Hibbert’s claims, leading to an unruly action of Hibbert in Act 2 scene 2, as Hibbert, ‘With a lightning movement (he) raise/ his stick and strikes blindly at Stanhope’ action of his willingness of striking a superior officer is dramatic and not only serves to create a tense atmosphere but is also used demonstrate the lengths he’d go to, in his desperation to leave because of his overwhelming fear. This scene is further dramatised through the pause where ‘[There is a silence a few seconds go by. Suddenly HIBBERT bursts into a high-pitched laugh.]’, Hibbert’s response to the possibility of his death is an eerie and frantic reaction, which makes the audience feels his fear and desperation, in his desire to leave, which overwhelms his desire for living. This is emphasised through Hibbert’s urgent pleas, to Stanhope, to shoot him, a scene which is heightened in suspense by Sherriff as Stanhope counts down to shooting Hibbert, as Hibbert waits in anticipation of his death and does not yield, an action which earns Stanhope’s respect and leads to Hibbert as he ‘…Suddenly breaks down and cries’ . An reaction, which is similar to the breakdown read in Strange Meeting, however as Hibbert admits that he is afraid and elucidates: ‘I can’t bear to go up into those awful trenches again’, his character, unlike Harris’, who is portrayed as vulnerable, Sheriff exposes Hibbert’s character flaw, of lying about his illness and his willingness to neglect his duties, causing him to appear more unfavourable and spinelessness, an pronouncement which makes the audience less sympathetic to Hibbert’s character. 

Furthermore death is also an inevitable occurrence in war-fare, an issue which Sherriff demonstrates in Journey’s End; through the actions of Osborne in the final moments to the oncoming raid, which leads to his death. The specific action, of the removal, of his ring is a profound moment in Journey’s End and used by Sherriff to symbolise the inevitability of death, as Osborne is aware that he is going to die, if not in that particular raid, then in the course of the war. Therefore the ring is a symbol of the acceptance of the occurrence of death in war-fare. His absence, due to his death, is also signified in Act 3 Scene 2 though the empty bed as Stanhope impassively asks ‘Must you sit on Osborne’s bed?’ a question which signifies the idea that death, particularly of a close comrade is memorable and also makes the audience feel the loss, of the presence of Osborne’s character. Sherriff also shows the effects of death; in Journey’s End, through the actions of Stanhope as, as a result of Osborne’s death he drinks excessively in order to cope with his fear and to forget the loss of his closest friend. A similar coping mechanism we see adopted by Colonel Garrett, in Strange Meeting, whose ‘skin was/ a bad colour, yellowish grey, so Hilliard wondered if he/ might not, in fact be psychically ill. But the bottle of whiskey/ was on the desk beside him’, dulling his complexion, as the physical changes in him could be seen from the drink, which he consumes to cope with the significant loss in his battalion. 

The structure of Hill’s ‘Strange Meeting’ is very different, to that of Sherriff’s ‘Journey’s End’ because they differ in genre. While ‘Strange Meeting’ is a novel, it is therefore able to use, more varied devices such as time shifts, as well as sensual imagery, which brings the characters surroundings alive, this can be seen in particular through Hill’s use of time shifts, from Hilliard’s bedroom to the hospital, surroundings, which Hill brings alive through the use of sensual imagery of ‘the sounds of hoarse breathing and death, and the crying of the Field- Gunner in the next bed, he only wanted to sleep.’ Sensual images, which plays on the reader’s smell, auditory and visual senses, which actively gives the reader their first insight to war and signifies the brutality of war-fare. Hill’s novel also uses the third person narrative, which is appropriate for the main protagonist, Hilliard, as his character is reflected as cool and detached from his surroundings and the narrative is used to further distance the reader and emphasise his detached nature from both his home and relationships. His detachment is also emphasised through the contrast of Barton’s character, which is more sociable and open, therefore the narration changes to being told, in the first person narrative, through Barton’s letters to his family, which reflects not only his ‘friendly’ disposition but his close relationship with his family.

The structure of ‘Journey’s End’ however is very different to that of ‘Strange Meeting’, as it is a stage show and consequently meant to be viewed, and therefore the narrative and war-fare is developed more through the action, in the stage directions and dialogue. More effectively through Sherriff’s extended silences, which increases the tension between the characters. However this tension is subsided through the similar device of the motif used throughout the play. An example is when Osborne’s character, comforts Raleigh in the final minutes, keeping his mind off the raid with distracting questions of ‘Your coffee sweet enough?’, a conversation of food which like, Strange Meeting’s motif of the poignant smell of roses, food in Journey’s End acts as a motif, as it is a constantly recurring throughout the play. This is a motif is an effective technique, which Sherriff uses to ease the tension in the scene, as food is a light topic and indicates a sign of normality in the midst of war-fare. 

Overall,  I thought that Hill’s presentation of war was much more moving and expressive, which is why I preferred reading ‘Strange Meeting’ because she was able to portray the characters feelings and set the scene, for the reader, through devices such as sensual imagery, which brought the scenes alive and shaped the text. However this preference may also be due to the difference in genre, as she is able to use more varied range of devices or it could be because due to their differences gender, as Hill is female, while Sherriff is male and therefore took a distant approach, which was effectual but typical of the male writers, who wrote during the war. However they are both similar in their presentation of war-fare, in recognising the different emotions the men felt, during war, as well as the detachment, form home, war-fare brings about.