Category Archives: jerusalem

“Jerusalem is the most Shakespearean of Butterworth’s plays”. Looking at the play, what are the features which reflect this cultural heritage.

A series of student essays in response to the above.

I like the discussion of double entendre and sexual allusion in this one

It is said that Butterworth’s ‘Jerusalem’ has irrefutable references to Shakespeare and cultural literary heritage. Like Shakespeare, Butterworth also makes crude and yet humorous sexual innuendos alongside profanities, the only difference being Shakespeare’s are subtler. Furthermore, Johnny and Ginger resemble characters from Shakespeare work and resemble what ‘real Englishness’ truly means.

Whilst the language in ‘Jerusalem’ is so clearly offensive, the rudeness in Shakespeare’s plays are often overlooked or misunderstood. Throughout ‘Jerusalem’ we hear Byron and his battalion of “rats” utter all kinds of crude words. From a simple “bloody” to a more aggressive “cunt”, the characters in this play feel more than happy enough to speak with such colour. One might expect that Shakespeare plays, ones that have been approved by a Queen and now taught in schools, to contain no sexual innuendos or profanities at all. This is not the case. His plays were littered with various comments hat often go unnoticed. In arguably Shakespeare’s most famous work, Hamlet, we see the mad Prince make a racy comment concerning Ophelia and some “country matters”. In writing one would think nothing of this comment, however, phonetically it is clear that “country” is implied to replicate the word “cunt”. Shakespeare used profanities, the only problem being: our language has evolved. The same words that were considered ‘rude’ in Shakespeare’s time no longer hold the same context or meaning. We now live in a world full of “fucks”, “shits”, “cunts” and so on. Both Shakespeare and Butterworth use swear words to depict what the real world is like. People swear, especially the English. This has been part of English culture for centuries. In Henry IV we see the female anatomy being disguised as a “Pie-corner” and again “pie” is used in ‘All’s Well That Ends Well’ to describe the vagina. It is not abnormal that Shakespeare plants subtle sexual innuendoes or oaths that are almost impossible to find unless you know they are there. These jokes or references are only clear for someone of that time. Like in ‘Jerusalem’ with the “Mars Bar” story, only someone who understood the reference to a young and wild Mick Jagger would pick up on it. Shakespeare did the same and wrote for the people of his era.

As well as the free use of profanities and sexual innuendoes, Butterworth and Shakespeare share the same enthusiasm and engagement with the English forest. The woods in Flintock are dangerous and “strange”. From “a rainbow” hitting the “earth and set fire to the ground” to “a young girl…give birth to a baby boy” the forest demonstrates a degree of beauty and magic. The time throughout ‘Jerusalem’ goes ever so slowly and it seems as though the woods are a place outside the realm of ‘civilised’ people. The woods are a completely world altogether. Similarly, Shakespeare’s forest in ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’ contains magic through the use of fairies. One must draw similarities between the fairies in this play and that of the “May Queen”, Phaedra, dressed as a “fairy” in ‘Jerusalem’. Furthermore, the forest is often seen as a place to escape and find solitude. We see Phaedra “flee” from her arguably abusive stepfather into “Rooster’s Wood”. Again in ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’ Hermia and Lysander escape into the forest to be alone from the rest of the world. Ginger, Pea, Tanya and the rest of the Flintock misfits come to the forest to experience something they cannot otherwise experience in the ‘real world’. A place where there are no rules, no policemen and nobody judging you is what the woods provide. Despite its danger of a “Werewolf” in ‘Jerusalem’, the forest can provide an element of safety but also riot. After all “What the fuck do you think an English forest is for?”

As well as the language and imagery that have similarities, the characters in ‘Jerusalem’ demonstrate a significant reference to the characters in some of Shakespeare’s most famous plays. Firstly, characters like Pea and Tanya share the same names as Shakespeare character, such as Peaseblossom and Titania from ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’. These similarities mustn’t be overlooked and should be seen as a clear reference by Butterworth to English literary heritage and therefore the Pastoral.

However, Johnny can be compared to one Shakespearean character in particular, Falstaff. Much like Rooster, Falstaff creates riot and misrule, something Johnny has an expertise in. Many critics link the character of Falstaff to carnival and the spring festive season. Once again, Johnny is also associated with carnival and is described as “the Flintock Fair”, implying that without him fair day, carnival and riot are not the same.

On the other hand, Ginger also shows characteristics similar to that of Falstaff. He too takes part in riot and misrule, but also stands by Johnny throughout the years; despite the fact Johnny often abuses him verbally. Prince Hal insults Falstaff by calling him a “trunk of humors” or a “bolting-hutch of beastliness”, whilst Johnny tells Ginger “I’m not your friend” and calls him a “rat” regularly. Furthermore, it seems as though all Ginger wants is Johnny’s approval, and that’s the reason he’s stayed with him for so long. All he wants is for Johnny to say” Ginger is a DJ”, and yet Johnny won’t give in. Perhaps Rooster enjoys infuriating Ginger over small things like this or maybe it is friendly ‘banter’. Falstaff also wants approval from Prince Hal, and goes out of his way to impress and obey him. Even Falstaff’s occupation resembles Ginger, after all being a knight means you must obey the orders of the Prince. Similarly, it is Johnny who “winds the siren” and rallies the troops, therefore Ginger is just another one of his soldiers.

In the end, Johnny turns his back on Ginger and says ”We’re not friends” and orders him to leave “Rooster’s Wood”. Again, Falstaff is repudiated by Hal and never earns his approval. This cannot be a coincidence and must be seen as a nod to English heritage and the importance that Shakespeare has had on what it means to be ‘English’

In conclusion, Butterworth has written a play littered with references to the Pastoral, the Golden Age and of course to Shakespeare. It must be said that Shakespeare and his plays have had such an impact on England, so much so that it is still taught in schools today and has shaped the way we speak. I think Butterworth recognizes the importance of Shakespeare and tries to replicate the intrinsic nature of what it means to be ‘English’ in ‘Jerusalem’.

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under jerusalem, OCR A level, OCR English Literature, OCR NEW English Literature, Shakespeare, Uncategorized

Jerusalem (Butterworth): Term Paper collection

I thought I would collect a few essays written this term about Jerusalem by my Lower 6th Boys.  I believe these to contain some excellent material, perhaps not in the form of model essays for examination, but in the form of written work to promote discussion and to provide material for discussion.

Please use them and share them to a wider audience.  I have not edited them and have not included the “marked” versions quite deliberately. This is the work of 16 and 17 Year olds and I believe it stands on its own regard without excuses.

binder2

 

Please enjoy.

Leave a comment

Filed under jerusalem, OCR A level, OCR NEW English Literature, Uncategorized

“The vision of England depicted by Butterworth is a bleak one. Society is in crisis.”.

A lower 6th discussion seminar base don an essay by one of the class. Please feel free to listen and to add comments as you will.

I find the use of MP3 recording in these sessions is having a real impact on the quality of the written expression – vindication in its own right.

Leave a comment

Filed under jerusalem, OCR A level, OCR NEW English Literature

Yr 12 conversations after OCR AS texts

Two members of my Lower 6th class surprised me last week by announcing that they had been recording conversations about our set texts as a revision model. I am so pleased.

I hope they are useful. I would be happy to post responses if anyone has them…

I will share them below as they appear:

Tom and Karan on Jerusalem and Hypocrisy (among other things)

 

Leave a comment

Filed under jerusalem, ks5, OCR A level, OCR NEW English Literature

On Ginger and Davey: Jerusalem, Butterworth

img_1016 I found this on the board when I arrived to teach this  morning….

This is an essay seminar on Jerusalem for OCR AS level English Literature. I think it is excellent and warmly offer it to anyone teaching the text as a basis for discussion.

The transcript is here:

explore-the-significance-of-ginger-and-davey-3

Leave a comment

Filed under jerusalem, ks5, OCR NEW English Literature, Uncategorized

The Pastoral in Jerusalem: Butterworth

I have asked students to write on the topic of the pastoral in the play as an exploration and context exercise.  I append 2 essays here for critique and comment.  One does lose itself a little when discussing the possible Greek antecedents of Johnny and is a little confused re Phaedra in MSND, but for essays in the lower 6th, I find these impressive and interesting.  For their privacy, I have not named the students, but H and A know who they are!

Consider the presentation of the Pastoral in ‘Jerusalem’ 

In Jez Butterworth’s modern interpretation of a Satyr play, the pastoral can be considered in many different themes. The audience can use ‘Johnny’s’ frequent medieval references as a notion for a nostalgic look on an idyllic past, as well as the references to ‘Rooster’s wood’ signifying a longing for refuge in a rural paradise, furthermore the ‘feral’ nature of ‘Rooster’ also highlights the differences between social and natural law. Finally, we can view the pastoral as a celebration of life that is free from social constraints by interpreting the nature of the play itself; it is a form of satyr play that were often displayed at pagan festivals to celebrate an auspicious occasion thus showing the entire play may be a comment which symbolises the author’s views on the pastoral.

The pastoral can be considered in the play if we explore the idea that Johnny’s constant references to medieval England create an idea of nostalgia for n idealist past. Johnny is often referred to as an ‘ogre’ and is fixated with stories about ‘giants’ and other medieval fables such as the construction of Stonehenge as well as owning an ‘old Wessex flag’ with the play celebrating St Georges day. For example Johnny says, “I once met a giant that built Stonehenge.” The short sentence shows that Johnny is trying to convince people that his story is reality, there is no question about whether it is true or not, it is just a fact. When others try to question him about it he further justifies that he is correct with more presumed lies until they eventually believe that Johnny is telling the truth. He has essentially hypnotised them into believing what he does.  This causes parallels to be drawn from Merlin’s tale of how Stonehenge came into existence; that Giants had taken these stones from Africa and built them in a circle in Ireland, Merlin then fought the giants for these stones, won, and floated them across the sea and recreated the healing circle near Salisbury.  Johnny’s claim that he ‘met a giant’ shows how connotations can be made that compare Johnny to Merlin; they both convince people of things which probably did not happen, they both seem to see and interact with mythical creatures and they both seem to reject social law as Johnny lives in a caravan and we can presume is a subsistence farmer (as well as a drug dealer), and Merlin practised magic which was outlawed at the time, yet both men seem to be outwitting the law.  Johnny’s very acceptance of breaking the law also brings a sense of nostalgia; he aggressively makes the threat “I’ve been here…since before you were born. I’m heavy stone, me. You try and pick me up, I’ll break your spine.”  His reference to being a presence ‘before you were born’ coupled with him referring to himself as ‘heavy stone’ further links back to Stonehenge. It seems as if Johnny represents the idea that no one knows exactly how long he has been around, and exactly what he does but as he has been around for so long he must have some purpose in society however obscure and therefore we should leave him as he is, a common way which people of the medieval era would treat outcasts of society. Perhaps the reader is making a comment, that by allowing one to do what they wish to do with their life, if they are not harming others than they should be allowed to do so without the government or ruler intruding on their opaque nature.  The reference to Johnny’s obscure and unusual nature is further shown by his name ‘Johnny Byron’, he shares the same surname as the infamous Lord Byron. Educated at harrow school the womaniser was renowned for his eccentricities and partaking in events that affected him or England in almost no regard, he became involved with them because he wanted to rather than out of necessity. For example he died fighting alongside the Greek Insurgents against the Ottoman Empire, he had a daughter with his half sister and had an affair with the wife of the Italian Noble man who allowed him to stay with them when he had gone bankrupt as a result of his separation from his wife, which was again due to another scandalous affair with the wife of an English nobleman.  Lord Byron clearly showed no regard for the law or had any grace when regarding societal etiquette, however he was still hailed as a national hero because of his poetry.  The reader’s comparison between Johnny and his name sake Lord Byron could explore the author’s comment on the pastoral, perhaps Butterworth would like to return to a time where people could live according to their own moral codes whilst rejecting societies, and yet still be praised for their actions; rather the opposite to how Johnny is perceived. He follows his own moral codes yet is criticised and used as a scape goat for any wrong doing in society, even if his wrong doing are morally justifiable.   This shows that the author considers the pastoral by suggesting, in the past people who were outcasts of society or slightly different such as Merlin or Lord Byron were celebrated rather than scrutinised for their actions. Perhaps the component of the pastoral that is a nostalgic look on an idyllic past, in this instance would be to ensure that people like Johnny are no longer scrutinised and made a societal scapegoat just because they live their life in accordance with a different set of laws.

Another method in which Butterworth allows the audience to consider the pastoral is by exploring “Rooster’s” longing for refuge in a rural paradise. Johnny lives in a caravan in what he ‘declares…is called Rooster’s wood’, the audience can think of the ‘wood’ as being part of Johnny’s rural refuge where he has created his own paradise where magical things happen in relation to the Merlin-esque ‘ogre’. One can assume some of the ‘feral’ things that happen in ‘Rooster’s wood’ include the ‘drinking, smoking, pilling…and shagging too’. All of these things in some form allow the people involved to escapes the realities of life and be absorbed into the mysterious yet artificial world that is ‘Rooster’s wood’. This wonder and mystery links in with 19th century German literature when writers such as Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm were writing fictitious tales that include Snow White, Hansel and Gretel as well as Sleeping Beauty.  All of these stories included wondrous, gruesome and supernatural events occurring in forests. For example in original version of Sleeping Beauty, the princess is left in the ‘wood’ unconscious, the prince then rapes her and returns home and marries, nine months later the princess regains consciousness gives birth to the prince’s bastard children, when the prince hears of this he burns his wife alive (after she tried to kill and eat his illegitimate children) so he can reunite with the princess. Another example is the poisoned apple Snow White eats which she finds in the forest, the mystery and wonder of her dwarf friends as well as (in the original version) her evil mother who sends a huntsman to return Snow White’s liver and lungs (which she will then eat) to ensure she has been killed. These stories were designed to give a 19th century adult audience a diversion from their lives and divulge into the mystery and wonder of a rural wonderland.  Links between the forest and “Rooster’s wood’ which demonstrate links between the pastoral also include the specifically chosen name “Phaedra” despite being a woman steeped in Greek Mythology, the name was also used by William Shakespeare in his 1605 Comedy A Midsummer Night’s Dream. The character is a fairy who lives in the ‘wood’s’, and she plots and schemes to cause confusion about love between key characters in the play. Her name means bright, however this can be seen as ironic as if anything she provides no light in uncovering the truth about what is happening in the play, this is true for A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Jerusalem, instead she is rather an opportunistic temptress. She can be seen as this because in Jerusalem one could argue that she seeks refuge with Johnny is “Rooster’s wood” because she does not want to face the reality of her real life with her supposedly abusive step father Troy and would rather seek the help and pastoral care of Johnny because it easier than going to the correct authorities and she has access to ‘spliffs…whizz…and the rest of it’. She can be compared to a snake such as Ka in Rudyard’s Kipling ‘The Jungle book” who tries to tempt Mogli into being eaten by her using her hypnotic forest powers, further linking back to the enigmatic and deceptive ‘wood’. She can also represents the snake in the story of Adam and Eve in the Bible, who caused them to pick the forbidden apple in the Garden of Eden (another magical and unprecedented ‘wood’).  All of these stories show that the ‘wood’ is a place where innocence is lost and children learn valuable life lessons. Perhaps Butterworth’s view on the pastoral being a rural refuge and paradise is more a comment on it being a paradise from urban problems, which we create with things such as work and mortgages. Rather it is place where humans can find refuge from these trivial and man made problems (be it in a book describing a wood, or a physical wood) by testing the laws of nature (such as seeing how the human body will react to drugs in the 21st century or the tales of the 18th and 19th century literature).  Therefore ‘Rooster’s wood’ may not denote a rural paradise, rather it is a metaphor for the magical things that happen within a ‘wood’ which makes some of the audience feel safe and is their and certainly Johnny’s idea of a rural paradise.

Butterworth may also consider the pastoral by using Johnny’s ‘feral’ nature to accentuate the differences between social and natural law or civilisation and savagery. At the beginning of Act 1 Johhny is does the following things “…sticks his head in the trough…fishes around for an egg…lets out a long, feral bellow from the centre of the earth.”  The verbs that are used to describe his actions such as ‘sticks’ and ‘fishes’ denote actions that have a sense of inaccuracy or uncertainty and that he does them in hope of a result, rather like what an animal would do when hunting.  The use of  ‘bellow’ further likens his action to that of a ‘feral’ animal. This clearly shows that Johnny has untamed traits and the audience can also see this when we look at his lifestyle, he lives in a ‘caravan’ selling ‘spliffs…and whizz’ to underage children, whilst having very little to do with his son ‘Marky’ and using his days to spite the council and promoting his ideas to ‘fuck the new estate’ so that he can remain in ‘Rooster’s Wood’. Johnny is clearly a man of nature, and he can also be considered a leader by the ‘rats’ who follow him around, perhaps due to his superhuman abilities the audience may even think of him as a potential god of the wild with his ‘rats’ being considered as acolytes. From this parallels and comparisons can be drawn between Johnny and the Greek God of hunting and nature called Pan (whose name is a derivative of the verb to pasture). Parallels which are observed include: Firstly, Pan ruled over a mystical land called Arcadia which was a woodland utopia where mythological beings such as nymphs lived, Johnny rules over ‘Rooster’s wood’ and allows children to experience magical hallucinations by giving them drugs and alcohol. Secondly, Pan often perused nymphs in order to seduce them, Johnny has a following of several young girls, a wife, ‘red in the face…Kelly Weatherly’ and most other women in Flintlock as well as Phaedra. Thirdly, Pan if half goat and his animalistic feature are easily observable, Johnny although not physically an animal, can be portrayed as an animal in the mannerisms and etiquette which he uses to convey himself. Next, Pan ruled Arcadia on behalf of Zeus (the King of the Gods) and was technically never entirely in charge, the same can be said for Johnny as despite what he may think and say, the council hold authority over ‘Rooster’s wood’. Furthermore pan was considered the God of the wild, and he would help to make land and animals fertile so could be considered as an unorthodox father to the lands, Johnny although not a father to his ‘rats’ can be considered as an unorthodox father as he guides them about what to do in life albeit if it is regarding use of alcohol and drugs. Also, Pan was the god of rustic music and Johnny likes playing music and causing a ‘fracas’. Finally,  Pan was often considered ‘feral’ and enjoyed causing havoc and Johnny does the same as shown by his ‘rural display’ when he slaughtered a pig with a ‘flair gun’. After the reader has considered and accepted all of these similarities they may accept that Johnny is a metaphor to shows the differences between natural law (which the audience would consider as savagery) and social law (what the audience would classify as civil), however if one were to consider the meaning of the poem Jerusalem by William Blake the audience may arrive at another conclusion to what the author views as the pastoral. The poem states “And did those feet in ancient time Walk upon England’s mountains green…And was Jerusalem builded here Among these dark satanic mills?” This shows that Blake is considering the new building of factories to be bad or savage as he describes it as ‘satanic’ but England’s countryside is lush and verdant and this is what a civilization and social law should be founded upon. Perhaps Butterworth is suggesting that although the audience may consider Johnny to be barbaric, uncivilized and an enforcer of natural law perhaps if we review the situation from Johnny’s perspective we can see that he feels this new civilization with city dwellers and ‘phones’ (that Johnny can not work out how to use, further showing his dislike of modernity) is ‘satanic’ and barbaric, and he wants to revert to the days when life was more simple. The author may feel that modern civilization is barbaric, and ancient rural civilization was the height conformity with social law. Butterworth’s view on the pastoral could perhaps be looking back on the differences between natural law and social law but with a reversed perspective to that of most of the audience.

Finally, Butterworth may consider the pastoral to be a celebration of life free from social constraints. He shows this by using the nature of his play to aid his argument; the play is in a Satyr form, which often consists of a tragi-comedic plot with bawdy and raunchy jokes with elements of sadness. The ancient Greeks in 500BCE first used this form of play and can therefore be described as a pagan ritual; it was often used to celebrate things such as the time of the harvest or the coming of spring.  These plays often included mythical creatures and heroes.  The audience can once again draw parallels between Jerusalem and the original form of Greek Satyr plays as the plot of the modern Satyr is similar to that of a Greek Satyr and Johnny can also be seen as a mythological hero.  Johnny can be considered a mythological hero because: he meets mythological creatures for example when he “once met a giant who built Stonehenge”, rather like when Theseus met the minatory. Next, he escapes from captivity when he “had a run in with four Nigerians…and I escaped” as he got ‘’thinner and thinner…I didn’t swallow nothing”, this is reminiscent of Jason and the Argonauts when they met the Cyclops and cunningly escaped. Then Johnny is said to have cheated death when ginger explains, “they pronounce him dead…He walks it off” rather like when Hercules cheated death at the hands of the Nemean lion. Johnny is also said to have had a magical birth a “rare blood” rather like Achilles who had a magical Nymph birth and a magical gift. Furthermore, Byron is said to enter the enemies lair and despoil their women for example when the council (Byron’s enemies) are complaining about him he says “I snuck in…she’s up there saying Johnny Byron’s a filthy menace…I swear to Christ I was shagging her only last June”, this is reminiscent of what war heroes such as Alexander of Macedon would have done when they conquered their enemies, and was an accepted practice of the age. Finally Byron is made to appear super-human as he drinks a concoction made of ‘half a bottle of vodka…milk’ and ‘eggs’ taken from the ‘chicken coop’ and ‘downs it in one’ then gives a ‘long, feral bellow from the center of the earth’. One would think that a mixture of this would probably kill most people, but Byron doesn’t seem to be affected, this coupled with the ‘feral’ nature of the ‘bellow’ makes him seem as if he is a cross between an animal and a man.  All of these feature combined make Byron appear as if he is a hero, which raises the question in the audience that perhaps Johnny is a hero in his own unorthodox manner. It allows the audience to perceive Johnny in a new manner, as he does save Phaedra from Troy, and act as a guardian to his ‘rats’ so perhaps Johnny is a hero. The audience then remembers that the heroes in Greek Mythology were often celebrated in forms such as Satyr plays during pagan festivals. It makes the audience think that perhaps Butterworth comment on the pastoral is that we should celebrate people for who they are according to what they do and how they help, regardless of how they fit in to the social hierarchy that is society, his point could be that he pastoral is a celebration of life free from social constraints, and he uses the play as an anecdote to explore this notion.

To conclude the presentation of the pastoral is considered in many ways in Butterworth’s play ‘Jerusalem’, however it is the connotations behind the initial views of the author that allow the audience to truly understand the full presentation of the pastoral in the play.

CONSIDER THE PRESENTATION OF THE PASTORAL IN JERUSALEM 

At the heart of Jez Butterworth’s play ‘Jerusalem’ is a forest, and what goes on within it. The idea of the pastoral goes back to ancient Greece and conveys the idea about going back to nature. This thought in itself incorporates ideas of nostalgia, refuge and a time without modernity. In the world of ‘Jerusalem’ and our world, it seems that the countryside is under threat from urbanisation, and in the play it is under threat from the “New Estate.” In the play the pastoral can be seen as something that was glorious, but is being destroyed with dire consequences. Alternately, it is also presented as a wondrous land where many mythical and magical creatures reside, as well as a safe haven for adolescents and Johnny Byron himself.

The first words that are heard in the play are that of Phaedra, who purely and innocently sings about the “mountains green” and “pleasant pastures” of England. Here, the pastoral can mean going back in time, to nature, where the world was far more wondrous than it was today, in those “ancient” times. The prologue sets the tone for the first act; carrying the theme that life was better in the old days, when there were beautiful sights to be seen. It immediately makes the audience identify Fawcett and Parsons as villains, as they wish to disturb what is left of the past, and the pastoral, which is pure and divine. After losing the Garden of Eden, it became a lost unobtainable past for Adam and Eve, much like countryside is for us today. However, some characters in the play, such as the Professor, remember the past and drinks with Johnny to “St George” and the “Lost Gods of England.” It is their memory and love of the pastoral that brings Johnny and the Professor together here, despite their different realities and generations. They drink to an unobtainable, better past, which they both knew existed. This acts as something the two characters share. It appears that for the characters, the pastoral is a different country or state of mind, and is also a time when things were better and a great deal easier. Ginger talks about the fair when he was a “boy” and remembers hoofing a man “in the bollocks,” and if he faltered he would win a “pound.” Lee remarks that this was “Simple. Pure,” and these two words can be used to describe the past, as it fits with the theme of the past being better than the world we have today, even in the smallest of cases. Even for Wesley and Johnny, the past is a much more pleasant place, due to their “summer of love.” At first Wesley tries to disassociate himself from the past, as if ashamed of it, but is brought back into it by Johnny. There is a moment in which “they remember” the past fondly, and it again reinforces the idea that the pastoral is used to represent a much happier, easier past for all the characters, and that it is now being disturbed. The two enjoy casting their mind back into the past, as for them it was a time of simple, uncomplicated happiness, unlike the world they live in today. Dawn notes that Byron is “still here,” in the forest, and it could be argued that Johnny doesn’t move because he is still clinging onto the old days, and living in the woodland is the closest he will get to those days ever repeating, as the fonder memories of the easier, simple days all lie in the past.

It is also abundantly clear that our time with the pastoral is presented as something that is ending, and coming to a dramatic, tragic close. The “dark satanic-” mills are commonly seen to allude to the Industrial Revolution, from Blake’s perspective, and here can be applied to the expansion of the New Estate and the destruction of the English countryside. It is here that Phaedra is interrupted, as if Johnny wishes not hear of the idea, and wishes to stamp it out. Due to this abrupt end, the idea does not carry through the whole act, until the entry of “Kennet and Avon Council,” in the form of Fawcett and Parsons. Fawcett is trying to flush and force out Johnny from his caravan, and therefore eliminate the remaining country for purposes of the New Estate. The New Estate links to the idea of transience, the inevitable loss of paradise due to change and decay, as the countryside is being destroyed. It appears that the English landscape is being trampled on, and the culture of the countryside with it. The idea of time also comes into this, as it is clear that the time we have with the pastoral is limited, due to the length of the play itself, as well as the time in the play Johnny has to prepare for the council. In this sense, the pastoral is presented as something that is tragic, within a play that is a tragedy. Liebler, author of ‘Shakespeare’s Festive Tragedy’ writes that ‘tragedy performs an uncontrollable breakage at great expense despite human efforts.’ It is Johnny who is trying to stop the breaking up of the pastoral, and he who is trying to stop our time ending with it, although Phaedra does remind him in act three that “time is running out,” a fact that he is solemnly aware of.

Clearly, our time with the pastoral is ending, and although the characters may not see it for themselves, it is clear to the audience that this is an awful thing. This leads to the fair and ideas about identity. On seeing Johnny’s home in the opening minutes of act one, Parsons remarks, “it’s a lovely spot.” It is terrible that we could lose this spot to council flats, yet the council doesn’t think of this, as their priority is to their work, and for Fawcett, ensuring that she does her job correctly. Paul Kingsnorth, who wrote the programme notes for ‘Jerusalem’ also discussed the idea of identity, referring the Union of Scotland and England n 1707, creating Great Britain. He suggests that the individual identity of the countries was lost, and this loss of identity can be seen in the play, as we are “losing sight of who we are.” This can be seen in the context of the fair, and especially in the idea of the May Queen, which is an idea that has stemmed from the Middle Ages. Pea is adamant that Phaedra will “turn up” as she “has to,” as without her, the traditional succession of the May Queen is lost, and a piece of Fintock’s identity is lost also. The loss of the pastoral, also extends to the “Men in Black II” and “X Factor” floats at the fair. It appears that the pastoral is no longer a refuge from modernity, as our cultural identity is being lost through these floats. In”1978” Ginger claims Johnny “was” the Flintock Fair, and whether this be true or not, the group feels that the identity of the fair has been lost as the “Council put a stop to it.” The italics emphasise the importance of Johnny to the community, and provides reason for Johnny’s hatred for the council and fond nostalgic moments. As the fair has changed, it has become “shit on toast,” as its identity has been lost, and this case, its identity was the “daredevil” Johnny Byron. It is due to the ending of the British countryside and the pastoral that ideas about the fair and Phaedra follow, as the old identity of Flintock has been destroyed and replaced with a modern world.

The destruction of the forest could also mean the loss of a mythical place, which harbours terrifying creatures. Much like ‘A Midsummer Nights Dream’ the pastoral setting allows for ideas and hints towards mythical and magical creatures in the forest. At the start of act two, following Davey’s “Werewolf” story Phaedra sings ‘The Werewolf’ by Barry Dransfield. This provides a darker tone to act two, as it is clear that the forest could be home to vicious predators, who, to us, take the form of human beings. There is no clarity as to whom the Werewolf represents, but it is an idea that should not be ignored in such a mythical setting. Johnny is also referred to as an “ogre” and “free troll” at the end of the garden. Johnny does not have the form of a troll, but certainly does have some traits to fit the idea as he has been living in his caravan, and has not moved, for many years. This begins to open up the idea that Johnny is the mythical figure hiding in the pastoral setting as comparisons can be drawn between him and many mythical characters, most notable the Lord of “misrule,” Pan. In classical Greece he was the God of nature, and was shown to be riotous and in the company of nymphs and music. He has his group of “onlookers” that help him, and it is his unruliness the council wishes to tidy up, as they wish to reclaim a positive view of Englishness. Again, the council threatens to destroy the pastoral and the mythical inhabitants within it.

The pastoral is also presented as a wondrous and magical place, which appears more light-hearted than the dark mythical creatures it could harbour. The professor feels that nature in itself is magical, as he speaks of the “wild garlic,” “bluebells” and “blossoms” in a way that other characters don’t, as he greatly appreciates the natural pastoral world for what it is. To him, nature is enchanting, and it excites him to think that “summer has begun.” The contrast of the darkness of the mythical and joyousness of the magical is a thought provoking one, and it demonstrates to the audience the vast amount of life that could exist in the forest, and in the pastoral.

As it is sheltered by trees and woodland the pastoral is also seen as a safe place for adolescents and Johnny himself. As they are safely hidden away and concealed from the world they are separate from it, and have their own space to do as they will (much like Titania and Oberon from ‘A Midsummer Nights Dream). “Rooster’s Wood” is Johnny’s land, in which he feels safe and secure. As his home and solace is being threatened, Johnny defiantly stands up to the council, and appears to defend it from the threat of contemporary England. The pastoral keeps Johnny safe, as Johnny keeps the pastoral safe also. They appear to be two forces or beings that need and depend on one another, as if one were to be lost, the life of the other would dramatically change in a negative way (from their respective perspectives).  Wesley later calls Johnny’s morals into question, as at his “Gathering” he can be seen giving drugs to people such as Ginger’s “Little sister Rosie.” Johnny claims he is protecting the teenagers, as they can’t be “wandering around at night pissed.” Johnny appears to be kept safe by the forest, and he keeps adolescents safe. He argues that at least in the caravan they are warm and dry, making the pastoral appear as a safe haven.

Primarily the pastoral is presented as something that was glorious and is now being lost. This then leads to a loss of identity for Flintock as well as its individual characters. However, the pastoral can also be interpreted and seen as a more magical and mythical place, and the extent of this mystery cannot be quantified or known, as our time with the pastoral is always ending. The evolution and the progression of the pastoral is a key force that drives the play, and is what calls Johnny Byron to arms, highlighting its importance.

Leave a comment

Filed under jerusalem, ks5, OCR NEW English Literature

Jerusalem: closing pages – stimuli for discussion

The closing pages of Jerusalem (Butterworth) present a wonderfully open denouement to the play. Butterworth leaves the final outcome undecided and although reason will always indicate a victory for the forces of Society, our emotional response to Johnny’s invocation is surely some form of hope for a magical victory for the forces of Nature.

I want to leave these questions unanswered for students to discuss in class.
1: How does Butterworth use the sound effects in the stage direction on p 104 to comment on the action that has just taken place?
2: Why is Johnny so cruel to Ginger in the scene on 105/106? How does Ginger’s response develop his character?
3: Where does Marky come from and, more importantly where does he go?
4: Why does Johnny pour petrol over the caravan and then do nothing to it?
5: What does Johnny see at the end of the play?

Marky fascinates me. He appeared as though by magic in act 2 (p 62) as though summoned by the Byron drum. Once again here he simply materialises saying “I got lost”. This is strange though – the caravan is nowhere near the fair and Marky is young, at 6, to have made his way to the clearing all alone. It is also significant that he arrives just as Johnny has driven the last of the “onlookers”away. It is as though this is a moment of great import for father and son. Only at this juncture does Johnny tell what seems to be an unadulterated tale – the story of the Byron blood. We realise that this is a father passing on knowledge or lore to his only son. If Johnny suspects that the is about to be defeated, he does not intend to go quietly. He prepares a funeral pyre and presumably intends to be swallowed up by the fire that he sets. He prepares his defence – the ashes of the petition possibly acting like the sowed dragon teeth of legend to bring forth the ghost army of his ancestors. But if this defence is not successful, he has arranged his succession. Marky is primed with knowledge of his forefathers and his “noble” bloodline: he too will be treated like a King in the future Johnny checks his teeth and once satisfied that he truly is a Byron Boy, sends him on his way. The lost boy is sent to “find his mother” and wanders off into the woods. Even if he finds Dawn, Johnny is sure that he will be followed by Marky and that the unbroken line of Byrons he recites to close the play will be continued and lost to the modernising world he so despises. The boy simply walks into the woods. I do not think we fear for him – a Byron, he will be safe in the hands of his mother – nature.

Leave a comment

Filed under jerusalem, ks5, OCR English Literature, OCR NEW English Literature

Jerusalem essay presentations

In the lesson today, one of my Year 12s was asked to present his essay to this title:

“Johnny Byron is a modern man who is rooted in the past.”

Please feel free to use this in your classes or to respond to on here:  we are always looking for feedback!

Tasvin on context

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under jerusalem, OCR NEW English Literature, Paedagogy, Uncategorized

Music in Jerusalem (Butterworth)

I am always interested when authors specify specific music in their writing.  So often we read a generic description ” the sound of music drifts down the corridor..” so when it is specified to be music of a certain kind by a specific composer and even a specific piece of music, we must take notice.

I wrote a while ago about music in Chopin’s The Awakwening link, and this piece is a companion to that writing designed to engage students with considering the music named during Butterworth’s Jerusalem.

Obviously the play itself carries the name of one of the most passionate “hymns” to nationalism played and sung at sporting events (and in schools) throughout the country.  When Parry set Blake’s Jerusalem he was inspired by its grandeur and power to inspire thoughts of Great Britain and for him the rhetorical questions all required the answer “yes”.  Performances like this at the Last Night of the Proms are designed to leave no doubt that Britain is Great and that England is in some way “God’s own country”.

Butterworth can buy into this expectation from the outset.  As the play begins, Phaedra, dressed as a fairy sings the poem unaccompanied.  The prologue has begun with a musical reference to an older time in terms of the pipes and accordians and then a solo voice pierces the darkness of the theatre – purity and innocence, singing Blake’s text.  Whether or not she sings to Parry’s tune is not made clear since the focus is the text and the point at which Butterworth allows the music of Johnny’s “gathering” to interrupt Phaedra’s singing.  Here the student needs to consider both the point at which the the singing stops: “satanic” and also the sense of innocence questioning surrounding a young voice questioning the very nature of the country in which she is growing up.  It may be that Phaedra is asking these questions in disbelief that something so wondrous might have occurred in what she sees as such a dark and satanic place, though the Satanic idea might just as well flow from Johnny’s caravan whence the interruption comes.  Which ever is intended, the audience is challenged and forced to consider before Act One even begins, the true nature of Jersualem/England.

As act one develops, music has an automatic link to carnival and to older times.  Padstow’s morning song is sung by the village and by the revelers on page 10 and a link is made to the early roots of festival in the Spring.  The words sung have sexual overtones (unite and unite) all suggestive of fertility and rebirth, yet the actual fair represents nothing of the sort.  Butterworth is once again juxtaposing the old with the modern and finding the modern crass and materialistic.  This song, however is not named in the text.  It may well be tradition in Flintock top sing the song and no one pays much attention to it.  The next song named is Werewolf by Barry Dransfield at the beginning (Prologue 2) of Act two.  Once again it is Phaedra who sings alone and once agian the positioning of the song in a “prologue” must be significant – almost telling the audience the theme of the act which will follow.

Lyrics to The Werewolf Song 

The werewolf, the werewolf
He comes stepping along
He doesn’t even break the branches

Where he’s been and gone

You can hear his long holler from away across the moor
That’s the sound of the werewolf when he’s feeling poor

He goes out in the evening when the bats are on the wing
And he’s killed some young maiden before the birds do sing

For the werewolf, the werewolf
Please have sympathy
For the werewolf, he is someone
So much like you and me

Once I saw him in the moonlight
When the bats, they were flying
All alone, I saw the werewolf and
The werewolf was crying

Crying, “Nobody, nobody, nobody knows
How much I love the maiden as I tear off her clothes”,
Crying, “Nobody, nobody knows of my pain
When I see it is risen, that full moon again”

When I see that moon moving through the clouds in the sky
I get a crazy feeling, and I wonder why

The werewolf, the werewolf
He comes stepping along
He doesn’t even break the branches
Where he’s been and gone

This song sets up several lines of thought as we hear it.  As the idea of the werewolf begins to surface, the audience may remember Davey’s story from page 28 in which he suggests that Phaedra may have been taken by a werewolf-  “whereupon a werewolf has heard her tragic sobs… and he’s pounced”.

This gives the most straight forward reading of the intertextual purpose of the song:  Johnny is seen as some sort of werewolf who has lured Phaedra to the caravan for his own ends, but who also can claim that “I love the maiden as I tear off her clothes”,  From this it follows that Johnny  is to be seen as a force of evil, but one who craves sympathy since his actions are utterly out of his control.  However, there must be other candidates.  Later in the act, Butterworth will challenge our preconceptions by bringing Troy into opposition with Johnny.  It is clear that Troy is accused at the least, of harbouring lust for his step daughter – “she in your dream,s boy?” (p81) and is evidently a man with little or no respect for the girls camped around Johnny – “Just fucking open your cockhole one more time… Little cocksucker…”  Indeed his language is the violent and sexualised language of the predator.  To Johnny the children are “rats”, to Troy it is possible they are something more.  With this in mind, the audience will begin to shift their thoughts and the duality which pervades the play begins to focus on Johnny.  It might not be good that he lets all the youth stay at his caravan, but is he really causing harm?  Werewolf seems to sum up the  pleas of the paedophile who begs for forgiveness claiming that his urges are out of his control.  The audience is torn between two possible werewolves and the uncertainty at the heart of the play is developed further.

The song is made the more powerful for the fact that Phaedra sings alone.  The song is in the First Person, thus identifying the singer with the unspeakable acts described and the plea for forgiveness.  The first person narrator both witnesses the werewolf and also becomes identified with him “When I see that moon moving through the clouds in the sky
I get a crazy feeling”.  We are told that Phaedra has gone missing before “gone off again.  She ain’t been seen since Monday night” (p41) and I want students to consider what implication this might have for Phaedra.  Is she in hiding because of a dark secret about which she can do nothing?  It is worth looking into some discussions about werewolves and the links to the cycle of the moon and thus to menstruation.  Female werewolves were often seen in folklore as the manifestation of “wanton” women – is it too far fetched to see the line: “…How much I love the maiden as I tear off her clothes”, as referring back to Phaedra herself – some form of divesting of the virginal once a month?

Probably.  At this moment the line between Innocence and Experience is blurred, and the audience is forced, again, to adjust their perspective and their moral compass as the play moves on.

Two more songs are relevant, if not actually cited in the text:  Scallywag by Jake Thackeray and the link material from a Tom Waits concert found here . Both (YouTube periodically blocks this- search for the song Train Song on the album Big Time- Spotify is your friend!) are also linked on this blog: https://jwpblog.wordpress.com/2015/03/30/links-to-articles-about-urbanisation-relative-to-jerusalem-butterworth/

Scallywag seems to be an exact fit for Rooster:

Scallywag: Jake Thackeray

Village scallywag, blackguard of the neighbourhood,
No good, you scandalise, your name is mud,
But it’s no surprise.
They say you nick their chickens and you fish their pools,
Poor fools, if they but knew the half that you do
They’d be rather surprised.

Though your muddy boots flap, though your britches let the sunshine inside,
Susan, the parson’s eldest, seems to find them irresistible.
She’s only got to give you the eye, eye, eye and in the by and by
You’ll be around after evensong on tippy-toe,
Tapping at her window when it gets dark.

You smoke your evil-smelling shag, and you get drunk as a newt
To boot, and this mortifies the Ladies’ Institute,
Which is no surprise.
And they say you plunder their washing lines for your clothes.
God knows! If they realised what you filch besides
They’d be rather surprised.

You, your bold brown eyes, your whippy hips, your melting smile.
Winifred, the teacher at the school is not as snooty as she’d like to make out.
She knows that if she gives you the eye, eye, eye that in the by and by
You’ll come early from the Pack Horse taproom on tippy-toe,
Tapping at her window when it gets dark.

You were rowdy, you were ribald at the Cricket Tea.
Dear me! By jingo! By Gad! The fella’s a cad!
Well, it’s no surprise.
And you’ve been seen to spit upon the magistrate’s car!
His motor car! You’ll be chastised, you go too far.
But it’s no surprise.

For although Rosie, the greengrocer’s girl curls her nose up as you swagger by,
Shy little slyboots, she peeps when her old man’s back is turned.
She knows that if she gives you the eye, eye, eye that in the by and by,
You’ll come tripping through her daddy’s curly kale on tippy-toe,
Tapping at her window when it gets dark.

So don’t give a toss for the gossip and the tit-for-tat
Chit-chat, they’re only upset that you’re not dead yet,
Which is no surprise.
And you can let them cock their snooks at you
and pooh-pooh, for, as I surmise, they envy you
And I’m not surprised.

It’s no wonder when you wash your back down by the riverside
Even the local countess finds it hard to look away as you scrub.
She’s only got to give you the eye, eye, eye, and in the by and by,
You’ll pussyfoot through the squire’s rhododendrons on tippy-toe,
Tapping at her window when it gets dark.
Ever so dark.
Right dark.
Scallywag.

It catches the sense of envy and inverted snobbery at the heart of Little England perfectly whilst also hinting at something darkly sinister lying beneath the surface of the “scallywag” and rewards study alongside your reading of the text.  The Waits link passage is the evident genesis of Johnny’s virgin birth myth in Act 2.  To me this adds to the depth of Johnny – it is not relevant that the material is not original to Butterworth.  I love it that Johnny has knowledge not just of the dark and arcane, but also of the peripheries of the popular music industry.  No chance any of these children will have heard Waits, so Johnny has free rein to improvise or riff on the material,  Like so much more that he says, the story can be shown to be invented, yet once again, the acolytes eventually believe him, or at least recognise the possibility of truth in his tale.  The audience is left in a condition of doubt, however.  We are fascinated by Johnny’s myths and the legends that are created.  With this one, we want his verbal bravado to be true, however we may well recognise the Waits story – a lovely double layer of response is thus sown.

Leave a comment

Filed under jerusalem, music inb literature, OCR NEW English Literature

That’s how we speak: Jerusalem and Shakespeare. Language in drama and other musings.

Caution: Explicit text!

MALVOLIO
By my life, this is my lady’s hand these be her
very C’s, her U’s and her T’s and thus makes she her
great P’s.

or:
HAMLET
Lady, shall I lie in your lap?
OPHELIA
No, my lord.
HAMLET
I mean, my head upon your lap?
OPHELIA
Ay, my lord.
HAMLET
Do you think I meant country matters?
OPHELIA
I think nothing, my lord.
HAMLET
That’s a fair thought to lie between maids’ legs.
OPHELIA
What is, my lord?
HAMLET
Nothing.

or:
BENEDICK
I will live in thy heart, die in thy lap, and be
buried in thy eyes.

and I have not even begun to explore the nurse… (ooh matron!)

All of the above are pleasingly filthy yet most students pass them with hardly a second glance. Depending on age we may discuss the double entendres, but the impression is that this is Shakespeare indulging in literary games for his own pleasure and to allow school children 400 years on to write essays about metaphor and Elisabethan puns. This misses the point, surely. For these jokes to work they must be recognisable to the audience and for any play to “work” the dialogue must needs reflect the common speech patterns of the audience to enable easy assimilation.

What we have here is filth, but recognisable filth from everyday parlance. Malvolio gives Shakespeare’s version of the coy “see you next Tuesday” gloss on the biggest taboo word in our language (though Chaucer of course knew no such taboo when he allowed Alisoun to be grabbed by the “queynt” -fashions change.); Hamlet repeats the same joke in his “country matters” and then employs the common reference to Nothing as representing the vagina – no “thing” -ha ha ha – which leads neatly to Much Ado About Vagina or Nothing and the common use of the verb to die to mean orgasm. Benedick’s offer to “die in Beatrice’s lap is not really the romantic gesture that it sounds.

One could go on and on and on. Shakespeare is writing in the language of the day for people of the day and it is this which i want to consider in terms of Jerusalem, which I am teaching in the Lower 6th this term.

At the recent English Association conference I heard David Hahn and Gordon McMullen speaking variously on “Language and Literature -a perfect match” and “Shakespeare today”. Both were engaging and thought provoking and this discussion was prompted by the talks. It is not an attempt to precis their presentations in any way, but rather is a riff on the ideas I heard as applied to my current teaching.

First then, to the aspect of language that many may find off-putting when bringing Jerusalem into the classroom. The first pages contain several “bollocks”, ‘fucks’, ‘fuckings’ and even a “cunt”, alongside the minor oaths – “bloody” and so on. The action depicts a feral outsider taking drugs and trying to humiliate authority figures in the shape of Parsons and Fawcett. But when the other day I suggested to my class that this was Shakespearian, they were surprised. I would argue that we don’t recognise Shakespeare’s oath strewn vernacular for what it is – everyday speech. All those “by’r’lady” or “God’s Wounds” no longer carry any cultural capital designed to shock.. and Falstaff is seen as a loveable old sot who, despite his appalling debauchery, is looked on with pleasure by theatre goers today. My point is this: if you record an evening in any pub across the land, the language is that of Rooster. If you record any group of schoolboys relaxing and engaging in “banter”, the language is that of Rooster. There is nothing intrinsically offensive in any word in the language other than society makes it so – and fashions change. Chaucer can write “queynt” quite happily, it seems, and Shakespeare can scatter sexual slang and blasphemy in the mouths of his characters. Interestingly, the sexual slang is now considered too graphic for many classrooms but the blasphemy has lost its potency. Drama must reflect the language of the day. Perhaps a good example would by to imagine Alan Bleasdale’s Boys’ from the Blackstuff with the language of the Liverpool streets removed:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6I8-0eDxaY Indeed, I suppose that a post on Yosser and Byron as characters might be interesting to write…

Everyone swears in the play. But the language is needed if we are to believe in the authenticity of the characters. What I love is the inventiveness of the swearing and Rooster’s way with alliteration and use of animal imagery. There is genuine flair in his language once we move beyond the initial hurdle of allowing our students to say “rude words” in the classroom.

One of Dahn’s comments reflecting the work of Lakoff and Johnson explored briefly the idea that metaphor is a vital thought process in life and considered how common metaphor is in our life-journey (see?). Again there are links between the idea and the writers here – metaphors of travel – often sea travel- fill Shakespeare alongside metaphors of health, food and animals – hardly surprising that this should be so, given the society of the time and the main concerns of life in Tudor England. The point is that they are not somehow the magical choices of a unique writer, but rather the common ideas of the street, interpreted and raised by one writer amongst many writing for the stage in London at this time. They are the cultural currency of everyday speech – albeit recoined often as little sparkling gems. So, can we find the same thing in the Butterworth?

Certainly there is much to enjoy in the animal imagery abounding in the play – I want students to find their own, so no lists, but so much is made of cats, dogs, rats and so on in relation to young people that it is not hard to find. What Butterworth can do, when necessary is convey the “something special” about Johnny by his use of metaphor which deepens thought. In act 2, in his glorious challenge to society, he calls on his “beserkers” to rise “snout by jowl”. Given the common use of “cheek by jowl” and Rooster’s avoidance of the idiom in favour of the altogether more interesting and somehow darker use of “snout”, immediately implying hunting dogs or even pigs, we can begin to feel the extra depth and mystery which the character is required to convey. This is set in contrast to his acolyte Ginger, whose entire speech patterns seem to be based on what other people say – usually by referencing film and TV or the patter of those DJs so much more capable than he. This disparity of imagination in their individual narrative voices is an immediate indicator of their respective powers and depths – just as it is in poor Lee, whose narrative seems to consist of rare moments of lucidity amongst an utter inability to communicate at all.

The final idea to present here comes from a discussion that McMullan presented relating to Shakespeare’s “woods”. He covered ecocriticism and the need to see Shakespeare as part of a whole, when considering Elisabethan and Jacobean England. Again I shifted on to Butterworth and began to formulate ideas about woods and about the play being seen as part of a tradition starting with Chaucer and moving through Shakespeare and Bleasdale (and others) onto Butterworth and our world today. This is realism and is not therefore the stylised language world of Brecht or Absurdists, for example, and because of that we must recognise and value it for what is presented. Since Jerusalem seems to hark back to a “time before” throughout, both in content and in Johnny’s speech patterns, we must see the wood in this light. For Shakespeare the Wood was frightening even when being used as a Pastoral retreat, and this echoes the ideas from legend such as Robin Hood, where the hero creates his pastoral idyll in the very place which all fear because of highway murder and robbery- by Robin Hood… England has never had the fear of woodland of our North European neighbours, possibly because of the deciduous nature of our trees – much better at producing fertility figures and green Man than wolves and lonely grannies being devoured by predators… But here, the wood is frightening – not to Johnny and his nymphs and satyrs, but to the villagers 450 yards away across the stream (such liminal boundaries being common in all good stories of this kind). All those visiting Johnny have, therefore chosen to cross a boundary between society and the wood – they have entered an older and much darker place by doing so. For Shakespeare, wood was a prime building material and would later save the nation by being made into ships for Nelson’s navy- thus there was an intrinsic value to the woods which is recognised in plays like As You Like It, where Arden is such a positive place. For 21st Century readers, we wonder “what the fuck an English forest is for” – they provide little in the way of raw materials and are no longer the pleasure parks of Royalty that Chaucer would have known. For urban dwellers they are sanitised places of “nature” without danger and children being allowed to “Go Ape”. No wonder that modern society has few qualms about removing Rooster’s Wood to build houses – it adds nothing in our materialistic view of society. For Johnny, and his heritage through Falstaff or oberon all the way back to Pan and Dionysus, it is vital and integral to the world at large – a place of danger and safety, or life and death. A place in which Nature is presented in all its glory -red in tooth and claw. Closer to Ted Hughes than Wordsworth, perhaps… but that’s another post for another day.

11 Comments

Filed under AQA LitB 4, jerusalem, ks5, OCR A level, OCR NEW English Literature, Paedagogy