"I hated the bangs in the war: I always felt a silent war would be more tolerable"

In Pamela Hansford Johnson's quote, "I disliked the bangs in the war: I constantly felt a quiet war would be more bearable", there is an extensive reflection on the auditory injury and turmoil intrinsic in warfare. The phrase "the bangs in the war" can be analyzed as a recommendation to the loud, jarring noises of explosions, shooting, and other wartime cacophonies. Such noises not only represent physical destruction but also stimulate extreme mental distress. The auditory element of war can be particularly unsettling, adding to an environment of unpredictability and worry.

Johnson's longing for a "quiet war" recommends a desire for a type of conflict that is less invasive and terrifying on the senses. A quiet war might appear more bearable because it omits the intense, shocking interruptions brought on by loud sounds that can lead to a visceral, immediate response of worry and anxiety. Historically, sound in warfare has actually been related to mental effects such as shell shock or what is known today as PTSD among soldiers and civilians alike. These auditory components act as consistent tips of danger and death, making the wartime experience even more harrowing.

Her recommendation that silence might be more bearable likewise implicitly critiques the nature of war itself. The notion of a "quiet war" is practically paradoxical, as dispute naturally involves destruction and disruption, whether or not it is marked by loud noises. Johnson's declaration might be interpreted as a wish for a more strategic, maybe diplomatic way of fixing disagreements-- highlighting the futility and brutality of warfare as it is generally waged.

Furthermore, the quote can be considered as an exploration of how humans procedure injury. Noise, being an instant and penetrating sense, forces individuals to confront the scaries of war more straight. In contrast, a "quiet war" might suggest more space for introspection and less immediate engagement with the disorderly components of dispute. Through this lens, Johnson's quote not just critiques the physicality and sensory assault of war but also raises concerns about its psychological impacts and possibilities for alternative resolutions.