What Were They Like? (Edexcel GCSE English Literature)
Revision Note
‘What Were They Like?’
Each poetry anthology in the GCSE contains 15 poems, and in the poetry question in the exam you will be given one poem on the paper – printed in full – and asked to compare this given poem to one other from the anthology. As this is a “closed book” exam, you will not have access to the other poems, so you will have to know them very well from memory. Fifteen poems is a lot to learn. However, understanding four things about each poem will enable you to produce a top-mark response:
The meaning of the poem and the story it tells
The ideas and messages the poet wanted to convey
How the poet uses poetic techniques to convey their ideas and messages
How these ideas compare and contrast with the ideas and themes of other poems in the anthology
Below is a guide to Denise Levertov’s 'What Were They Like?', from the Conflict anthology. It includes:
Overview: a breakdown of the poem, including its possible meanings and interpretations
Writer’s methods: an exploration of the poet’s techniques and methods
Context: an exploration of the context of the poem, relevant to its themes
What to compare it to: ideas about which poems to compare it to in the exam
The poem has been taken from Pearson Edexcel’s poetry anthology, the full version of which can be found here.
Examiner Tips and Tricks
Your exam question will ask you to compare 'What Were They Like?' with another poem from your Conflict anthology. Your comparison should focus on the way each writer presents their ideas about conflict. They may be depicting a personal conflict, or a social conflict, or – as in this poem – an armed conflict and its aftermath.
If the poem printed on your exam paper is 'What Were They Like?', you should start by stating which poem you’re going to compare it to. For instance, you could compare 'What Were They Like?' with another poem that focuses on the effects of an armed conflict, like Wilfred Owen’s ‘Exposure’ or Byron’s ‘The Destruction of Sennacherib’. Look at the “What to compare it to” section below for detailed suggestions about comparing 'What Were They Like?' with other poems in the anthology.
Overview
In order to answer an essay question on any poem, it is essential that you understand what it is about. This section includes:
The poem in a nutshell
An explanation of the poem, line-by-line
A commentary of each of these lines, outlining Levertov's intention and message
'What Were They Like?' in a nutshell
'What Were They Like?' is about the aftermath of a war and its effects on the people who experienced it. The poem is split into two stanzas; the first lists six questions and the second provides responses to them. This question-and-answer structure conveys the impression of a fact-finding interview conducted by a historian or a journalist. Although Levertov wrote the poem when the Vietnam War was still in progress, it is set in a future when the war has ended. The poem portrays the complete destruction of the Vietnamese people and their culture to emphasise Levertov’s clear anti-war message. The war has devastated Vietnam to such an extent that the second speaker, who tries to provide answers to the first speaker’s questions, can’t offer any solid information. Instead, a series of metaphors and repetitions evoke the terrible losses suffered by the Vietnamese people, who are “silent now”.
'What Were They Like?' breakdown
Lines 1–9
“1) Did the people of Viet Nam
use lanterns of stone?
2) Did they hold ceremonies
to reverence the opening of buds?
3) Were they inclined to quiet laughter?
4) Did they use bone and ivory,
jade and silver, for ornament?
5) Had they an epic poem?
6) Did they distinguish between speech and singing?”
Explanation
The first speaker asks a series of questions about the Vietnamese people, their culture and their beliefs
The questions focus on different aspects of Vietnamese people’s lives:
Practical: did they use stone lanterns, or items (“ornament”) made of bone, ivory, jade and silver?
Cultural: did they celebrate (“reverence”) the opening of buds in spring with ceremonies, or have an epic poem?
Personal: did they have the habit (“were they inclined”) of laughing quietly, and did they recognise the difference (“distinguish”) between speaking and singing?
Levertov's intention
Levertov mixes questions about objects, beliefs and behaviours to demonstrate that all these aspects of pre-war Vietnamese life have been lost:
If they hadn’t been lost, the speaker would not need to ask the questions
The information about the people and their society has also been lost
The first speaker’s tone is objective and their questions are like a series of research proposals:
The numbering of the list supports this impression
The speaker refers to “Viet Nam”, an old name for the people of South Vietnam, showing that their knowledge of the country comes from books rather than direct experience
Many of the speaker’s questions suggest that they regard Vietnam as an alien culture:
The stone lanterns convey their perception of Vietnamese culture as undeveloped and superstitious
The question about distinguishing between speech and singing demonstrates their perception of Vietnamese people as being strange and odd
The focus on their verbal habits, such as laughter, singing and speaking, emphasises the silence that has replaced these habits
However, the first stanza also contains imagery evoking a gentle, beautiful, rich culture:
The “quiet laughter” and the song-like speech suggest gentleness
Bone, ivory, jade and silver are precious materials, suggesting beauty and cultural richness
The stone lanterns, the spring celebrations and the epic poem suggest ancient customs and cultural traditions
This makes the devastation depicted in the second stanza even more heart-breaking
Lines 10–12
“1) Sir, their light hearts turned to stone.
It is not remembered whether in gardens
stone lanterns illumined pleasant ways.”
Explanation
The second speaker’s response to the first question turns the word “stone” into a metaphor:
It uses the heaviness of stone to represent the way that the war has made people’s “light hearts”, or carefree happiness, turn into emotional suffering that is metaphorically heavy
The first use of the phrase “It is not remembered” emphasises something that been destroyed and therefore forgotten:
The speaker cannot say whether stone lanterns lit up (“illumined”) pleasant paths through gardens, because these things are all lost
Levertov's intention
The speaker addresses the questioner as “Sir”, implying the questioner’s authority over them:
“Sir” can also be read as sarcastic, as many of the first speaker’s questions are inappropriate
This is especially true of the question about laughter, which the second speaker refers to indirectly by describing the “light hearts” of the Vietnamese people
This first thing that is “not remembered” begins a list of what has been lost:
Levertov’s listing technique creates a cumulative sense of an entire society’s destruction
Levertov draws attention to a lack of light to convey the metaphorical darkness of lost knowledge:
The speaker can’t illuminate, or shed light on, the subject for the questioner, who remains “in the dark”
Everything “pleasant” about pre-war Vietnamese society – gardens, lovely walks – has been destroyed along with any knowledge about it
Lines 13–15
“2) Perhaps they gathered once to delight in blossom,
but after their children were killed
there were no more buds”
Explanation
In response to the second question, the speaker speculates that people used to get together to celebrate the blossom, which showed that spring was starting:
“Perhaps” signifies that this information is not certain
Spring buds, which symbolise new life, are used as a metaphor to represent the children killed in the war
Levertov's intention
This response demonstrates uncertainty about what Vietnamese customs might have been like:
This shows that seasonal celebrations are another thing that has been lost
Levertov combines the very direct, shocking description of the children being killed with a metaphor representing them as “buds”:
The natural imagery used in this metaphor promotes a sense of seasonal cycles and new growth
The fact that there are “no more buds” indicates the way that the war has destroyed the children, but also natural cycles
This depicts the war as unnatural as well as heartbreaking for the parents who have lost their children
Lines 16–18
“3) Sir, laughter is bitter to the burned mouth.
4) A dream ago, perhaps. Ornament is for joy.
All the bones were charred.”
Explanation
The metaphor of laughter having a “bitter” taste represents the bitterness of emotions in the aftermath of war:
The “burned mouth” evokes the horrific injuries inflicted on the Vietnamese people by the US Army’s practice of using napalm bombs
The speaker can’t be certain about the materials used to decorate the environment:
The repetition of “perhaps” shows that certainty isn’t possible
The speaker uses the metaphor of a dream to represent what life was like before the war:
Things before the war feel so unreal that they might as well be a dream
Ornament, or decoration, is for happy times, which no longer exist
Referring to the first speaker’s question about bone (from animals) as a material, the second speaker presents a horrific image of charred human bones:
This is the second reference to the burned bodies of the Vietnamese people
Levertov's intention
The terrible suffering of the Vietnamese people is conveyed physically and emotionally:
The references to burned mouths and charred bones evoke the physical injuries inflicted by napalm
The emotional bitterness reflects back onto the poem’s tone, making it increasingly bitter in its portrayal of the effects of the war
The caesura after “perhaps” creates a break that reflects the disconnection between the pre-war past and the the post-war present:
The two short statements that follow juxtapose decorative objects with charred human bones
Lines 19–26
“5) It is not remembered. Remember,
most were peasants; their life
was in rice and bamboo.
When peaceful clouds were reflected in the paddies
and the water buffalo stepped surely along terraces,
maybe fathers told their sons old tales.
When bombs smashed those mirrors
there was time only to scream.”
Explanation
The speaker repeats the phrase “It is not remembered” in response to the question about an epic poem
They evoke the gentle, rural life of the pre-war Vietnamese people:
The description of “most” of the people as “peasants” isn’t meant to be insulting; it just means their way of life wasn’t technologically sophisticated
This is emphasised by reference to their lives, which revolved around growing rice and bamboo
The speaker evokes this way of life with natural imagery conveying peace and calm:
The calm water of the rice paddies (fields) reflects the “peaceful clouds”
The water buffalo walk slowly and with certainty (“surely”) along the rice terraces
Again, the speaker signals uncertainty by saying that “maybe” fathers told their sons old stories like epic poems in these pre-war days
The peaceful imagery of pre-war life is then contrasted with the image of bombs, which “smashed those mirrors”:
This refers to the bombing of the rice paddies, which had acted as mirrors to the sky
When this happened, there wasn’t any time to tell stories, only to scream
Levertov's intention
The repetition of “Remember” as a figure of speech, rather than a description of memory, creates an oxymoron: “not remembered. Remember”:
This emphasises the loss of memories associated with pre-war culture in Vietnam by focusing on the act of remembering
The description of the peaceful lives of the Vietnamese emphasises their simplicity:
It makes them seem childlike and vulnerable, especially compared with the military power of the American forces
This conveys Levertov’s implicit criticism of America as a global bully, which has “smashed” an entire nation of defenceless people
Lines 27–31
“6) There is an echo yet
of their speech which was like a song.
It was reported that their singing resembled
the flight of moths in moonlight.
Who can say? It is silent now.”
Explanation
In response to the final question, the second speaker replies that there is a still “echo” of their speech:
This description evokes something which is far away and not clear
Their speech sounded like singing:
This may explain the first speaker’s question about whether the Vietnamese people recognised a difference between speaking and singing
A further metaphor employing natural imagery is used to represent their singing:
The “flight of moths in moonlight” is an image of softness, gentleness and fragility; moonlight also represents purity
The speaker is conveying the qualities of their peaceful way of life once again
However, even this comparison is uncertain, as it is merely “reported”
The final line reinforces the lack of certainty:
The singing is silent now, either because the singers are dead, or because the survivors do not sing
Levertov’s intention
The speaker’s response to the final question reinforces the sense of loss that runs through the poem:
The echo shows how distant and faint the sounds of Vietnamese speech are now that the war has destroyed them
It also reveals how ridiculous the question is; the first speaker asks it because they can’t distinguish between Vietnamese speech and song, not because the Vietnamese didn’t do so
The second speaker corrects the questioner by saying that their speech was “like a song”
The fact that this correction is indirect reinforces the sense of a power imbalance between the two speakers
The metaphor of moths flying in the moonlight conveys the defencelessness and vulnerability of the Vietnamese against the American bombs
The caesura that splits the final line gives greater emphasis to both sentences:
The first sentence, a question, is a final expression of uncertainty, while the second is a final, poignant declaration of loss
Levertov ultimately presents the Vietnamese people as silenced by oppression:
Their losses, and the injuries inflicted on them, have left them “silent”
Writer’s methods
This section is split into three areas: form, structure and language. Instead of treating these technical areas as separate, you should demonstrate your understanding of the poem by linking them together. Think about how Levertov combines her language, structure and form to get her ideas and message across in 'What Were They Like?'.
You will gain far more marks by focusing on Levertov's themes than on individual poetic techniques. Therefore, the analysis in the following sections is arranged by theme, and explores Levertov's use of:
Form
Structure
Language
Examiner Tips and Tricks
Think about how Levertov uses poetic methods to make her meaning clearer and more effective. You should avoid identifying poetic techniques without linking them to the themes of 'What Were They Like?'. So, instead of writing “Levertov uses nature imagery”, you could state that “Levertov’s use of natural imagery emphasises the unnatural destruction caused by war”; then, analyse some imagery to make your point convincing.
Form
'What Were They Like?' employs a very unusual form, in which the first stanza is presented as a series of spoken questions and the second presents the responses to them. The free verse form of the poem makes the speech sound natural and direct. The first speaker, who asks the questions, demonstrates their ignorance of the Vietnamese people and their lives; the second speaker describes the terrible losses suffered by Vietnam as a consequence of the war. The questions themselves illustrate the devastation of the war; the first speaker wouldn’t need to ask them if any evidence was available.
Theme | Evidence | Poet’s intention |
Conflict and loss | The title of the poem sets up the theme of loss due to conflict:
| Asking “what were they like?” demonstrates the absence of knowledge about the people and their way of life:
|
The question and answer form of the poem demonstrates the totality of the loss:
| The questions themselves demonstrate the absence of knowledge about the pre-war Vietnamese people:
|
Structure
Levertov uses enjambment extensively in the poem, as each question and response is usually presented as a single sentence that runs over two or more lines. When she uses caesuras to create pauses or breaks in these sentences, she draws attention to certain words or phrases for dramatic or thematic effect. The poem also employs repetition and metaphors to unify the poem around the themes of loss and the horror of war.
Theme | Evidence | Poet’s intention |
Conflict and loss | The poem uses repetition to emphasise the theme of loss:
| This emphasises the loss of memories associated with pre-war culture in Vietnam:
|
The second speaker employs a series of metaphors using natural imagery to describe the effects of the Vietnamese people’s losses:
| Using natural imagery in this way emphasises the way the pre-war Vietnamese people lived in harmony with nature:
| |
The horror of war | Levertov uses enjambment in sentences that often run across the ends of lines:
| The enjambment of long sentences enables Levertov to change the focus and tone of the statement:
|
Caesuras are employed to break up some lines:
| The effect of short, sharp phrases appearing in the context of long, descriptive sentences draws attention to them:
|
Language
The vivid, often shocking imagery in the poem is both visual and metaphorical. Levertov’s imagery often blends gentle, allusive descriptions with graphic representations of injury and loss. The language of conjecture is woven through the poem, emphasising the speakers’ uncertainty about pre-war Vietnamese life, while patterns of individual words are employed for emphasis and contrast.
Theme | Evidence | Poet's intention |
Conflict and loss | The second speaker takes the “stone” of the first speaker’s question and turns it into a metaphor:
| The metaphor transforms the “stone” lanterns into hearts that are as heavy as stone to emphasise the grief and loss of the Vietnamese people:
|
Patterns of language evoke the pre-war life of the Vietnamese people:
| These language patterns create a tone and atmosphere that evokes the peaceful life before the war:
| |
The horror of war | The second speaker’s responses often juxtapose beautiful images with horrific ones:
| The contrast produced by juxtaposing images of peace and happiness with images of war and destruction emphasises the shock and horror:
|
As with descriptions of the pre-war life of the Vietnamese people, Levertov uses language to create patterns evoking violence and conflict:
| This language is woven through the poem to illustrate the real, physical injuries inflicted on the Vietnamese people:
|
Context
Context is important, but examiners don’t want to see random chunks of information about Levertov's life or the historical context of the Vietnam War, because those don’t demonstrate your understanding of the poem itself. Instead, aim to use contextual information in combination with your analysis of Levertov’s message and ideas. In 'What Were They Like?' Levertov focuses on the loss and horror of war; therefore, the following section is bullet-pointed under these themes:
Conflict and loss
The horror of war
Conflict and loss
Denise Levertov (1923–1997) was born in England and moved to America in 1946:
In the 1960s and 70s she was active in the protest movement against America’s involvement in the Vietnam War
She jointly formed the Writers and Artists Protest against the War in Vietnam group, which staged protests and exhibitions against American involvement in the war
Her anti-war activism led to her publishing poetry that focused on war and its effects, including ‘What Were They Like?’ in 1967
More than two million people died in the Vietnam War:
When Levertov writes that “their children were killed”, she is simply reflecting the facts about what was happening to the Vietnamese people when she wrote ‘What Were They Like?’
Levertov’s poem imagines a post-war Vietnam that has been completely destroyed by American bombs:
In reality, American troops were eventually withdrawn from Vietnam in 1975, leaving behind a country devastated by the war
Vietnam has since recovered
The horror of war
During the Vietnam War, Vietnam became the most heavily bombed country in history:
In 1972, a massive “carpet bombing” campaign in Northern Vietnam lasted for eleven days
More than 20,000 tons of explosives were dropped on military targets and civilians alike
The American Army and Airforce used napalm bombs against the Vietnamese:
Napalm, a jellied gas, has become a symbol of the Vietnam War
Napalm burns at immensely high temperatures and is designed to stick to anything it touches, including skin
The effects of napalm were psychological as well as physical, because the horror of its effects created terror and panic
This contextualises the statement in ‘What Were They Like?’ that “Laughter is bitter to the burned mouth”
US forces also used chemical weapons in Vietnam:
Agent Orange, a powerful herbicide, was sprayed over the rural landscape in Vietnam from 1961 to 1971
It killed off trees, shrubs and food crops that were providing cover and food to the opposing army, caused horrific diseases in survivors who lived in contaminated areas, and resulted in massive displacement of people who could no longer provide for themselves
The bombing of the rice paddies in ‘What Were They Like?’ is a reflection of this large-scale destruction
Examiner Tips and Tricks
You can use your knowledge of contexts to enrich your analysis of the themes and ideas Levertov presents in 'What Were They Like?'. However, in your response, you should show how the context is relevant to the ideas in the poem.
The key word in the task will identify the relevant context. Levertov’s themes, such as the loss caused by conflict or the horror of war, should be central to your argument. You should only use contextual information to support the points you make in your analysis.
What to compare it to
In your exam, you will be asked to compare the ideas and themes explored in two of your anthology poems. That means it’s a good idea to revise pairs of poems together, in order to understand how each poet presents their ideas about conflict. This will enable you to write a thorough analysis of their similarities and differences. In 'What Were They Like?', the writer's main themes are conflict and loss and the horror of war, so the following comparisons would be a good starting point:
'What Were They Like?' and 'The Destruction of Sennacherib’
'What Were They Like?' and 'Exposure’
For each pair of poems, you will find:
The comparison in a nutshell
Similarities between the ideas presented in each poem
Differences between the ideas presented in each poem
Evidence and analysis of these similarities and differences
Examiner Tips and Tricks
Your comparison of 'What Were They Like?' with another poem from the anthology should show your in-depth understanding of both poems. You will need to compare how Levertov uses language, form and structure to present her themes with the methods used by other writers. Therefore, it’s important that you have a thorough knowledge of all the poems, rather than just memorising a series of quotations.
Make sure your response is a comparison of the named poem and one other poem in the anthology. If you only write about the poem given on the paper, you will only achieve half the marks available. Writing a comparison of two poems that demonstrates your thorough understanding of both of them will achieve the highest marks. For instance, you could compare Levertov's and Byron’s portrayals of conflict, or how Wilfred Owen and Levertov present the horror of war.
'What Were They Like?' and 'The Destruction of Sennacherib'
Comparison in a nutshell:
Both poems address the devastating impact of an armed conflict using direct and indirect descriptions to evoke pity and regret. In both poems, the scale of destruction is total. However, Levertov’s poem is anti-war, while Byron celebrates the victory over the Assyrian army.
Similarities:
Topic sentence | Both poems illustrate the impact and scale of the conflicts, and the resulting suffering and loss of life | |
Evidence and analysis | 'What Were They Like?' | 'The Destruction of Sennacherib' |
Levertov shows the impact of war in her descriptions of the devastation of Vietnam and its people | Byron also shows the impact of war in his descriptions of the devastation of the Assyrian army | |
The tragic scale of the destruction is conveyed by the fact that all the people have gone:
| The massive scale of the destruction is conveyed in the poem’s initial focus on the huge size and power of the Assyrian army:
| |
The poem provides direct, emotive details of death, suffering and loss:
| The poem also provides direct details of death, suffering and loss:
| |
Levertov demonstrates sympathy for the lost Vietnamese culture and people:
| Byron demonstrates sympathy for the people of Jerusalem:
| |
The aftermath of the war is presented in terms of its stillness and silence:
| Byron also focuses on the stillness and extreme silence in the aftermath of the battle:
| |
Levertov and Byron both present the way in which an overwhelming force can create destruction, suffering and, ultimately, silence | ||
Differences:
Topic sentence | Levertov uses delicate, indirect imagery to allude to loss, while Byron employs powerful imagery to evoke the scale of Jerusalem’s victory | |
Evidence and analysis | 'What Were They Like?' | 'The Destruction of Sennacherib' |
Levertov employs a free verse form that allows her to alter the tone and rhythm of the poem to reflect its focus:
| Byron uses a strict rhyming scheme that employs rhyming couplets in equal quatrains:
| |
The poem’s imagery is either natural or direct:
| The poem’s imagery is elaborate and vivid:
| |
Levertov’s use of metaphor is indirect and suggestive:
| Byron uses the extended metaphor of the sea in a more direct and focused way:
| |
The poem focuses on a real conflict:
| The poem focuses on a Biblical account of a conflict:
| |
Levertov’s poem is anti-war and mourns the losses of the Vietnamese people | Byron’s poem is partisan and celebrates the victory of Jerusalem over the Assyrians | |
Levertov portrays a real war and its effects, and her tone is sad and reflective, while Byron depicts a supernatural victory and celebrates the destruction of the invading army | ||
'What Were They Like?' and ‘Exposure’
Comparison in a nutshell:
Levertov and Owen both address the horror of war and its physical and psychological effects on those who experience it. Both poems use direct description and juxtaposition to convey the suffering caused by warfare. However, Owen’s graphic descriptions of conflict are the result of his direct experience, while Levertov’s speculative poem draws on her anti-war feelings and indirect exposure to the Vietnam War.
Similarities:
Topic sentence | The horror of war is the focus in both poems, and Levertov and Owen use similar techniques to present their subjects | |
Evidence and analysis | 'What Were They Like?' | 'Exposure' |
Levertov explores the horror of war and its effects on the people who have been destroyed | Owen explores the horror of war and its effects on the soldiers who are fighting in it | |
The poem uses direct, emotive description to convey the horror of war:
| The poem also uses direct, emotive description to convey the horror of trench warfare:
| |
Levertov juxtaposes peaceful, natural imagery with horrific, violent images:
| Owen also juxtaposes peaceful, natural imagery with horrific, violent images:
| |
The poem addresses the psychological effects of the horror of war as well as its physical effects:
| The poem also presents the psychological effects of the horror of war:
| |
Levertov and Owen both juxtapose emotive description with peaceful imagery to emphasise the physical and psychological effects of war | ||
Differences:
Topic sentence | While both poems depict the horror of war, Levertov’s approach is speculative, while Owen’s presents the real experiences of the soldiers | |
Evidence and analysis | 'What Were They Like?' | 'Exposure' |
Levertov employs a free verse form to create tone and tension in the poem:
| Owen uses a regular form and structure to create the effect of continuous horror:
| |
The poem presents an imagined future in which the Vietnamese civilisation has been wiped out:
| The poem is set in the present, where a group of soldiers are experiencing the horror of war close up:
| |
Levertov uses a tone of conjecture to convey the loss of knowledge in the war’s aftermath:
| Owen conveys uncertainty about the outcome of the war, but the poem’s tone is direct and factual:
| |
The form and voice of Levertov’s poem create a sense of uncertainty to emphasise what has been lost, while Owen uses form and structure to convey the reality of the soldiers’ continuing suffering | ||
Last updated:
You've read 0 of your 10 free revision notes
Unlock more, it's free!
Did this page help you?
