"...we stood on the Stockton's screened porch. Lighted windows and buzzing conversation at our backs didn't blot out a full moon above the chapel of Holberg College, or the sound of crickets through a warm and green-odorous dark." (p. 16)
A detailed description appealing to three of the senses.
Robert Anderson thinks that Tom Havig, a thirty-plus year old science teacher, could have served his country better by staying at home during World War II:
"But the crusade had been preached, the wild geese were flying, the widowmaker whistled beyond the safe dull thresholds of Senlac." (ibid.)
Evocative language, recalling Kipling:
What is a woman that you forsake her,
And the hearth-fire and the home-acre,
To go with the old grey Widow-maker?
-copied from here.
Two evocative passages from a single page.
11 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
So many of Kipling's stories and poems are permanently apt.
Ad astra! Sean
There was a wider range of ages in the American infantry in WWII than ever before or since. The average age now is about 26, 27 -- that's because it's volunteer professionals and they usually do at least 2 four-year hitches.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Including even 17 years old lads lying about their age to get into the armed forces, when the minimum age for enlisting was 18. I read somewhere that when Anderson tried to enlist he was rejected because of bad hearing and near sightedness.
WW II was somewhat odd in that respect, there was both massive voluntary enlisting and conscription.
Ad astra! Sean
In the World Wars, conscription was often used to -restrict- enlistment, so that essential industries could get enough manpower.
One thing about mass warfare is that most troops are usually not very well trained. A lot of WWII infantry didn't shoot in combat, for example; now virtually everyone does. That was a simple matter of more and better training -- training people to snap-shoot at fleeting glimpses of man-shaped targets until it's a conditioned reflex.
"A lot of WWII infantry didn't shoot in combat, for example"
I read about that in "Humankind: A hopeful history" by Rutger Bregman. Bregman attributes that at least partly to a general reluctance of humans to kill other humans.
Does the "conditioned reflex" lead to more deaths by 'friendly fire'?
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Jim!
Mr. Stirling: That was interesting, conscription being used to restrict enlisting. But I can see why, you need a certain of men in all kinds of industries and professions for a nation to function. Not all police officers of military age or school teachers like Havig's father would be allowed to enlist.
Jim: No, when it might well happen soldiers face armed opposition they will shoot to kill, because that's the best way to survive.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: If one lives in a culture with low crime rate and effective policing being ready to kill causes more harm than good for oneself. If you are in a combat zone then being ready to kill keeps you alive. Moving from one to the other gives you the wrong reflexes for survival.
Kaor, Jim!
I agree, I had the second scenario you cited in mind. Unfortunately, in too many parts of the US criminals can literally get away with murder, because of the soft on crime policies favored by the Democrats. That may well lead some law abiding citizens to take recourse to self defensive violence too easily.
Ad astra! Sean
I've been in a couple of kill-or-be-killed situations, and I had no reluctance to strike. OTOH, by that time in my life I'd seen dead and dying people quite a lot.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree that is the right attitude, be as ruthless as it's necessary to be in kill or be killed situations.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment