Hello, everyone.

My name's Ms. Keller, and welcome to today's lesson.

In this session, we are going to be exploring Denise Levertov's poem, "What Were They Like?".

So by the end of today's lesson, we will be able to explain how Levertov presents the atrocities of war.

So let's explore today's keywords.

We have civilians, which are non-military individuals who are not actively engaged in armed conflict.

Napalm is a highly flammable sticky substance, typically used in warfare to create firestorms. It was a form of jellified petrol.

Agent Orange was a powerful herbicide and toxic chemical used by the US in Vietnam to eliminate forest cover and crops.

Culture is the shared customs, beliefs, practises, and social institutions of a particular group of people or society.

And finally, communism is an ideology where resources are owned collectively and distributed, aiming for a classless society.

So how is today's lesson going to look? Well, we're going to start by exploring the wider context of "What Were They Like?", and then we're going to explore the poem itself.

So thinking about the wider context then.

This poem was published in 1967, during the Vietnam War.

So I'd like to start off with a discussion then.

What do you already know about the Vietnam War? So take some time to discuss this with the people around you, or if you are working on your own, that's okay.

Just make some notes in your exercise book or on the paper in front of you.

So pause the video here while you discuss this and write your notes.

And when you're ready for us all to discuss it together, click play and we'll carry on.

Okay, welcome back.

Some really fantastic discussions there to start us off.

And it seems that we perhaps know a little bit about the Vietnam War, but we haven't quite got the full picture, and that's okay because we're going to discuss it together now.

So the Vietnam War, it was fought between the communist forces and the anti-communist forces in Vietnam.

So I'd like to stop here before we think about these forces and just discuss what communism is.

It's one of our keywords, so I'm interested to see if you can remember the meaning that I gave you earlier, but also if you know anything else about communism.

So pause the video again while you discuss it or make your notes and click play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

Some really interesting responses that I overheard.

So let's just summarise what communism is.

Well, it's an ideology, which means a way of thinking, a mindset, a belief that perhaps this is how society should be structured.

And it's all focused around the shared ownership of property and the means of production, so the means by which we are able to make things or grow things or manufacture things.

So communism aims to create a classless society where wealth is shared.

And the opposite of communism is capitalism.

So capitalism is an ideology that focuses on the private ownership of property and business.

So instead of sharing it out as in communism, in capitalism, people privately own property and business.

And free market competition aims to enable individuals to pursue wealth and profit.

And this means that the various different businesses and properties that are owned by people all compete in a competitive business environment, which then enables some businesses and some properties to become more profitable than others.

So it's the opposite of this classless society, because in a capitalist society we would see very rich people and very poor people.

So how does this translate onto the Vietnam War? Well, it was fought between the communist forces, who were based in North Vietnam, and they were called the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and the anti-communist forces that lent more toward this capitalist ideology.

And they were made up of the Republic of Vietnam, which was South Vietnam, and they were supported by the US.

Many people criticised the military tactics of the anti-communist forces, in particular, the use of chemical weapons such as napalm and Agent Orange.

I remember that these two weapons we were discussing in the keyword.

So napalm was a form of jellified petrol that the anti-communist forces would drop from the sky and it would burn through crops, it would burn through buildings, and it would also injure people and burn them if it landed on them because it would stick to them.

And also Agent Orange, which was a form of herbicide, which means that it kills plant life.

And this was administered to forests in order to ensure that the communist forces couldn't take cover in forested areas, but also onto croplands, which made it really difficult for the people of Vietnam to grow crops that they needed in order to make food.

Public perceptions of the Vietnam War.

So arguably it can be described as the first modern war because technological advances at this point in history meant that civilians across the world had access to films and photographs of the conflict for the first time, and they were quite widespread and there were lots of them.

Perhaps during World War I and World War II, there were photographs and some film footage, but it wasn't as widespread as it was during the Vietnam War.

And before this point, a lot of the films and photographs that were disseminated were done so as part of propaganda.

So there was always this persuasive, influential agenda to the images and the videos that were being shown, whereas now this wasn't the case.

And here are just some of the images that were taken of the conflict.

So on the left there, we have got US soldiers in a South Vietnam village.

So this was taken in 1966.

So we can see the destruction that this war caused to local communities.

In the middle there, we've got a young napalm victim, so taken in 1964.

So that's showing the danger and the harm that was caused by the use of these chemical weapons.

And then on the right there we have another colour image of a napalm attack that was taken in 1968.

So again, we can see the damage to the local landscape that the use of these chemical weapons was causing.

So I'd like to pause here for a quick discussion.

How may this have impacted the global response to the war? So pause here while you take a look at these images in a bit more detail, and discuss this idea of a modern war with films and photographs.

So pause the video here and click play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

Some really interesting responses there, and people were really starting to empathise with, firstly, the people that were experiencing these traumatic events in Vietnam, but also we're starting to empathise with people that might have been living in other parts of the world and thinking to themselves, how would I have felt if I had have seen these images? So the global response to the Vietnam War actually across the world caused mass protests, and eventually America withdrew their troops in 1973.

So here is an image of an anti-Vietnam War protest.

And if we look at some of the signs, equal rights for all Americans, end the war in Vietnam, why die for a dictator? So there were quite emotive and perhaps intense feelings that people have about this conflict and the fact that they want it to stop.

So Levertov, who wrote "What Were They Like?", actively protested against this war.

She published the poem in 1968 while the conflict was still raging on.

So that's really important to remember when we read the poem today, is that the war hadn't already ended at this point and we didn't know the outcome.

"What Were They Like?" considers how Vietnam may have been remembered if the US had won the war.

So let's pause here and check our understanding so far.

Why could the Vietnam War be described as the first modern war? So take a moment to have a look at these four options and decide which one you think is correct.

Click pause while you have a think, and then click play when you're ready for me to reveal the correct answer.

Okay, welcome back and well done to those of you who said B.

Technological advances meant that it was the first war to be extensively covered in the media.

And this extensive media coverage meant that global civilians saw the realities of war and not just the images from propaganda.

So now it's time for the first practise task of today's lesson, and I'd like you to use your contextual knowledge to answer the following questions.

Number one, what is communism? Number two, why were people critical of anti-communist military tactics? Number three, how did modern technological advances affect the public's perceptions of this war? And number four, what attitude did Denise Levertov have towards the Vietnam War? So pause the video while you have a really good think about the answers to these questions and make your notes.

And when you are ready to discuss it together, click play and we'll carry on.

Okay, welcome back.

A really well done for all your hard work on that first activity.

I could overhear some really great discussions taking place and see people coming up with some really detailed answers to these questions.

So fantastic job so far.

So let's just see how you could have answered these questions then.

Number one, what is communism? Communism is an economic strategy focused on public ownership of property and the means of production.

In a communist society, wealth is shared across all citizens, and social class does not exist.

Number two, why were people critical of anti-communist military tactics? Many people believed the anti-communist forces used unnecessarily brutal military tactics, including the use of chemical weapons such as napalm and Agent Orange.

Number three, how did modern technological advances affect the public's perceptions of this war? Modern technological advances meant that there was extensive global media coverage available of the Vietnam War, as opposed to just propaganda.

Many people protested after seeing images of the damage caused by chemical weapons.

And finally, number four, what attitude did Denise Levertov have towards the Vietnam War? Levertov actively protested against the Vietnam War.

This poem was published while the conflict was still ongoing and questions the impact of the loss of Vietnamese lives on their culture and history.

So now we have made it to the halfway point of today's lesson, and we've explored the wider context of the Vietnam War and global attitudes to it.

So now it's time for us to explore the text itself.

So if you haven't already, grab yourself a copy of "What Were They Like?".

So I would like to start off by exploring just the title, and using your knowledge of the wider context, I would like you to discuss with the people around you or make some notes about what inferences we can make about the title.

So pause the video here while you have a think and take some time to discuss it or make your notes.

And when you are ready to discuss it together, click play and we'll carry on.

Okay, welcome back.

Yet again, some really interesting discussions taking place there.

And I was particularly impressed by how people were breaking down this title into individual words and really thinking about how Levertov is building up subtle meanings in her use of vocabulary.

So let's just pick out some of these individual words then and draw on some of these great ideas that I overheard.

So starting off, first of all with this pronoun, the Vietnamese people, what were they like? We've got this link to the Vietnamese people here.

So we know this poem is perhaps focusing on the Vietnamese people themselves.

We've also got the use of the past tense were, which could imply that Vietnam has been completely destroyed because it's not what are they like, the present tense, it's what were they like.

So we are thinking back to a different time perhaps in Vietnamese history.

And finally that question mark, which could imply that their culture and history has been lost to time because that question mark here implies that it's a question that perhaps needs an answer.

So our speaker doesn't actually know what they were like, and they're asking that question.

Okay, so now it's time to read the poem together.

And on the right hand side there, I'll pop up a glossary of any of the slightly trickier or less familiar words.

And you can see those words highlighted in green on the poem.

So do follow along if you think those definitions will be helpful.

"What Were They Like?".

"One, did the people of Vietnam use lanterns of stone? Two, did they hold ceremonies to reverence the open opening of buds? Three, were they inclined to quiet laughter? Four, did they use bone and ivory, jade and silver, for ornament? Five, had they an epic poem? Six, did they distinguish between speech and singing? One, sir, their light hearts turned to stone.

It's not remembered whether in gardens stone lanterns illumined pleasant ways.

Two, perhaps they gathered once to delight in blossom, but after their children were killed, there were no more buds.

Three, sir, laughter is bitter to the burned mouth.

Four, a dream ago perhaps.

Ornament is for joy.

All the bones were charred.

Five, it's 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.

Six, 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." So I'd like to take a moment to discuss this poem, and I'd like you to think about what is interesting about its structure and why do you think that Levertov chose to structure it in this way? So pause the video while you take some time to discuss this with the people around you, or make some notes if you're working on your own.

And when you're ready for us to feedback together, click play and we'll carry on.

Okay, welcome back.

Some really interesting discussions there about structure, and I definitely overheard people picking up on what I think is the most obvious structural feature of this poem, and that is that it is structured as a set of numbered questions and then numbered responses.

So Izzy offered quite an interesting interpretation of the poem.

"One interpretation of the poem is that it's set in the future.

Two people are discussing what Vietnam may have been like, but neither of them know for sure because it was entirely destroyed in the Vietnam War." So I'd like to hand over to you again to consider what you think about Izzy's interpretation here.

Can you find evidence from the poem that supports Izzy's interpretation? So pause the video here and have another go over the poem and see if you can find that all-important evidence that may support this interpretation.

So pause the video here and click play when you're ready to continue.

Okay, welcome back.

Some really fascinating responses that I overheard then, and I'd just like to pick up on some of these particular ideas.

So first of all, we've got this idea that separating the questions and answers into two stanzas gives the impression that there are two people speaking.

We've got the first speaker who asks the questions, and then we've got the second speaker who responds.

And then further supporting that on lines 10 and 16, we've got the word sir, which actually implies that the second speaker, the responder, respects the authority of the questioner.

So not only are we getting the idea that there's two speakers, but we're starting to actually get a sense of the relationship between them.

So we've already supported that first bit of the interpretation then that two people are having a discussion.

So now let's look at some evidence that supports this idea that they're discussing what Vietnam may have been like, but neither of them know because it was destroyed in the war.

So evidence for these ideas then.

Well, we've got this description of the people and this pronoun they that occurs throughout the poem, which suggests that it focuses on Vietnamese culture rather than the country itself.

All of the questions are directed around what the people, the Vietnamese people did, and their culture, and less about perhaps the natural features.

And then we've also got the repetition of this phrase "not remembered".

And then at the end of the poem, the rhetorical question "who can say?", both of which suggest that no trace of Vietnamese culture remains.

So the person answering these questions repeatedly acknowledges that it's not remembered whether they used to do these things before the war, which suggests that we are witnessing perhaps a discussion that's set in the future because they're looking back with that use of the word remembered, but also the rhetorical question "who can say?" suggests that so little is known about Vietnamese culture, that perhaps the person answering the questions can't even really make an educated guess.

So now it's time to pause and check our understanding.

Levertov emphasises how the consequences of the atrocities of war can result in the destruction of entire cultures.

So pause the video here while you have a think, and then click play when you're ready for me to reveal the correct answer.

Okay, welcome back and well done to those of you who said true.

So now it's time to justify our answer.

So have a read of these two explanations below and decide which one you think best supports that statement at the top.

So pause the video while you have a read and have a think.

And when you're ready for me to reveal the correct answer, click play.

Okay, welcome back and well done to those of you who said B.

She set her poem in an alternate future, with two speakers discussing how little people know about Vietnamese culture, implying that it was entirely destroyed during the war.

Okay, so now it is time for the final practise task of today's lesson.

And what I would like you to do is to help this student redraft their work using the feedback that they've received and an extract from their essay.

And in particular using the even better if to help them improve the quality of their response.

So let's have a read of their answer.

In "What Were They Like?", Levertov explores the negative impact of war on human history and culture.

She depicts a conversation between two speakers in a world where anti-communist forces, supported by the USA, had won the war, questioning different aspects of Vietnamese culture that have since been lost to time.

Levertov was a known critic of the brutality of the Vietnam War, and arguably this poem highlights the consequences of using chemical weapons capable of easily destroying entire civilizations.

And if we have a look underneath then, the feedback that they received from this response.

So the what went well said, good knowledge of the wider context of the poem.

And I would certainly agree here, lots of great contextual information in that response.

But the even better if suggested that the response would be improved with supported inferences using evidence and analysis of writer's methods.

So take some time to help this student redraft their answer using that EBI to help them improve the quality of their response.

Pause the video for as long as you need to to give this a really good go.

And when you are ready to feedback together, click play and we'll continue.

Okay, welcome back.

And I could see lots of you giving that a really good go, so well done.

Redrafting is such an important skill to have, particularly when it comes to your own work because there's always things that we could do to improve the quality of our response.

So it's really great if you're able to read through your own work and identify these what went wells and even better ifs, and then act on them to improve the quality of your writing.

So let's have a look at how we could have redrafted this response.

Here is our original response.

So let's have a look at how it could look if we had added those things from the EBI.

In "What Were They Like?", Levertov explores the negative impacts of war on human history and culture.

She depicts a conversation between two speakers in a world where anti-communist forces, supported by the USA, had won the war, questioning different aspects of Vietnamese culture that have since been lost to time.

The poem is structured as a series of questions and answers focusing on the ceremonies, ornaments, poems, and singing that have been destroyed in the conflict.

In the second speaker's responses, Levertov repeats the phrase "it is not remembered", which emphasises how Vietnamese culture has been forgotten in this future.

Levertov was a known critic of the brutality of the Vietnam War.

And arguably this poem highlights the consequences of using chemical weapons capable of easily destroying entire civilizations and wiping all memory of them from history.

So if we just have a look at this redrafted version then, we can see that we kept everything from the previous answer because that contextual knowledge was great, so we didn't want to actually remove any of it, but all we needed to do was support some of these ideas with evidence and analysis of the text.

So that big green chunk there in the middle, we were able to add that all-important evidence in.

And actually it really helped to prove the point we were making that Vietnamese culture has been lost to time because we were able to identify these different aspects of culture, such as ceremonies, ornaments, poems, and singing.

And then we've also got that second quote, "it is not remembered", and the analysis of how Levertov repeats it, so uses repetition, which again emphasises how Vietnamese culture has been forgotten.

And then right down there at the end, on the end of that second contextual point, we were able to add a link back to that analysis that we did above.

So just adding that little phrase "and wiping all memory of them from history" links back to this idea that the speaker says it is not remembered.

It shows that it has actually been wiped from history in this poem.

So now it's time to have a look at your redrafted response and let's return to the student's feedback.

So remember, what went well was good knowledge of the wider context of the poem.

So we were trying not to remove too much of that great contextual explanation.

And that even better if said, support inferences with evidence and analysis of writers methods.

So bearing that in mind, I would like you to have another look at your redrafted response and ask yourself the following questions.

Does your redrafted response include relevant evidence from the text? And does it analyse Levertov's use of language and structure? So take a moment to review your redrafted response, asking yourself these questions.

And when you are ready to continue, click play and we'll carry on.

Okay, so we have made it to today's finish line, so well done for all your hard work, and I hope that you feel a bit more confident when it comes to understanding this poem.

So let's just summarise what we've covered in today's lesson.

Levertov was active in protesting against the Vietnam War.

The poem was written before the withdrawal of American troops in 1973.

The Vietnam War was about defeating communism.

The US used napalm, a particularly harrowing weapon, against civilians.

And finally, this poem explores what may have happened if the US and anti-communist forces had won the war.

Thank you for joining me in today's lesson.

I hope you have a fantastic day, and I look forward to seeing you again soon.