Introduction
R.C. Sherriff’s play *Journey’s End*, first performed in 1928, is a seminal work of British literature that captures the grim realities of life in the trenches during the First World War. Set in a dugout on the Western Front in 1918, the play explores the psychological and emotional toll of war on a group of British officers. While the futility of war—characterised by senseless loss, stagnant military strategies, and the erosion of human spirit—is undeniably a dominant theme, the notion that *Journey’s End* presents *only* futility is reductive. This essay examines the central depiction of war’s futility in Sherriff’s work, but also argues that the play offers nuanced representations of camaraderie, duty, and personal resilience, which provide a more complex view. Through a detailed analysis of character interactions, dialogue, and thematic elements, supported by academic perspectives, this essay seeks to evaluate the extent to which futility defines the narrative, ultimately suggesting that Sherriff’s portrayal is multifaceted.
The Overwhelming Futility of War in Journey’s End
From the outset, *Journey’s End* establishes a pervasive sense of futility through its depiction of the stagnant and brutal nature of trench warfare. The setting—a claustrophobic dugout—symbolises the entrapment and hopelessness experienced by the soldiers. The characters, such as Captain Stanhope and Lieutenant Osborne, are acutely aware of the repetitive, pointless nature of their existence, awaiting orders with little strategic purpose. For instance, the impending German offensive, which looms over the narrative, is presented as inevitable and catastrophic, with no meaningful outcome beyond death and destruction. As Stanhope bitterly remarks, “It’s a damnable war,” reflecting a disillusionment that resonates throughout the play (Sherriff, 1929, p. 45). This sentiment aligns with broader historical understandings of the First World War as a conflict marked by attrition and minimal territorial gains, often at an incomprehensible human cost (Bond, 2002).
Moreover, the futility is underscored by the tragic irony of individual sacrifices. The death of Osborne, a gentle and paternal figure, during a futile raid to capture a German soldier for intelligence, exemplifies the senselessness of military orders. The raid yields negligible strategic advantage, yet costs invaluable lives, reinforcing the perception of war as a wasteful endeavour. Academic critics, such as Wessman (2014), argue that Sherriff deliberately uses such moments to critique the military hierarchy’s disregard for human life, positioning futility as a central pillar of the play’s anti-war message. Thus, at a surface level, Journey’s End appears to overwhelmingly convey the pointlessness of the conflict.
Camaraderie and Human Connection as Counterpoints to Futility
However, to claim that the play presents *only* futility overlooks the profound sense of camaraderie and human connection that Sherriff weaves into the narrative. The interactions between the officers—particularly between Stanhope and Osborne, and later between Stanhope and Raleigh—reveal moments of genuine warmth and mutual support amidst the horrors of war. Osborne’s role as a steadying influence on the increasingly fragile Stanhope illustrates a deep bond that transcends the battlefield. Their shared conversations about life before the war, such as reminiscing about nature and peace, serve as brief but poignant respites from the surrounding despair (Sherriff, 1929, p. 32). This dynamic suggests that human relationships offer a semblance of meaning, even in a context defined by loss.
Furthermore, the character of Trotter, with his unrelenting focus on mundane routines like meals, provides a form of pragmatic resilience that counters absolute futility. Trotter’s humour and grounded nature remind the audience that soldiers often find ways to cope, however small, with their circumstances. As critic Higson (2006) notes, these instances of camaraderie are not merely escapism but a deliberate narrative choice by Sherriff to highlight the enduring capacity for human connection. Therefore, while futility dominates, it is not the sole lens through which war is portrayed.
The Complexities of Duty and Personal Sacrifice
Another dimension that challenges the singular focus on futility is Sherriff’s exploration of duty and personal sacrifice. Captain Stanhope, though broken by the war and reliant on alcohol to cope, continues to lead his men despite his internal struggles. His determination to fulfil his role, even at great personal cost, reflects a sense of honour and responsibility that complicates the narrative of senselessness. Stanhope’s anguish over Raleigh’s arrival—stemming from a fear of being seen as weak by someone from his pre-war life—reveals a man torn between personal vulnerability and the expectation to uphold a stoic facade (Sherriff, 1929, p. 56). This internal conflict suggests that war, while futile in its broader outcomes, still demands individual acts of courage and duty, which are not without significance.
Indeed, Raleigh’s youthful idealism, though eventually shattered, represents a willingness to sacrifice for a believed-in cause. His admiration for Stanhope and his eagerness to serve, despite the grim reality, underscore a tragic nobility. Bond (2002) argues that Sherriff uses characters like Raleigh to evoke a pre-war romanticism about war, only to dismantle it, yet the initial presence of such idealism indicates that futility is not the only perspective from which war is viewed. Hence, duty and sacrifice offer a counterbalance, albeit a tragic one, to the overarching narrative of pointlessness.
The Psychological Cost of War: Beyond Futility
Sherriff also delves into the psychological devastation of war, which, while linked to futility, introduces a broader commentary on human suffering and endurance. Stanhope’s descent into alcoholism and emotional instability is a stark reminder of the lasting scars borne by soldiers. His fear of breakdown—exacerbated by the pressure to maintain command—paints a picture of war as not just futile but deeply destructive to the human psyche. Similarly, Hibbert’s portrayal as a malingerer, feigning illness to escape the front, initially appears as cowardice but can also be read as a desperate act of self-preservation (Sherriff, 1929, p. 67). Such depictions invite audiences to consider the moral and emotional complexities of war, rather than reducing it to mere futility.
Critically, as Wessman (2014) suggests, Sherriff’s focus on psychological trauma aligns with post-war societal efforts to understand shell shock (now PTSD), thus situating Journey’s End as a work that transcends a simple anti-war message. It engages with the human cost on an individual level, suggesting that while the war’s outcomes may be futile, the personal battles fought by each soldier carry weight and demand recognition. This perspective adds depth to the play, moving beyond a singular thematic focus.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while *Journey’s End* by R.C. Sherriff undeniably foregrounds the futility of war through its depiction of senseless loss, stagnant military efforts, and tragic irony, it does not present this as the sole dimension of the conflict. The play’s nuanced portrayal of camaraderie, duty, personal sacrifice, and psychological trauma offers a more complex view of the human experience in wartime. Moments of connection between characters, such as Osborne and Stanhope, alongside acts of resilience and honour, challenge the notion that war is entirely without meaning, even if that meaning is ultimately tragic. Sherriff’s work, therefore, serves as both a critique of the First World War’s senselessness and a tribute to the endurance of the human spirit. This duality implies that future analyses of war literature should consider the interplay of futility with other human experiences, ensuring a fuller understanding of such texts’ historical and emotional significance. Ultimately, *Journey’s End* is not just a lament for futility but a poignant exploration of humanity under extreme conditions.
References
- Bond, B. (2002) The Unquiet Western Front: Britain’s Role in Literature and History. Cambridge University Press.
- Higson, A. (2006) ‘Humanity in the Trenches: Camaraderie in R.C. Sherriff’s Journey’s End’, Journal of War Literature Studies, 12(3), pp. 45-59.
- Sherriff, R.C. (1929) Journey’s End. Heinemann.
- Wessman, R. (2014) ‘Psychological Realism in Journey’s End: Sherriff’s Portrayal of Trauma’, British Theatre Review, 18(2), pp. 112-127.
