War Poets: Brooke, Sassoon, and Rosenberg
War has the unique ability to bring many disparaging types of poets into the forefront. World War I, called the Great War at the time, was an unimaginably brutal war, and poets emerged from the shadows to share their views on war. Rupert Brooke was Britain’s first war poet, a patriotic favorite of the nation. His poetry set the precedent for those who came after him. Siegfried Sassoon, Brooke’s radical opposite, offered a brutally realistic portrayal of war, and influenced future war writers such as Wilfred Owen to write raw verse. Isaac Rosenberg was a poet before the war, but World War I fueled him to speak on more powerful themes. This distinction sets him apart from past writers. Despite the drastic differences in the ways these poets approach war, they all have a common trend within their writings. Brooke, Sassoon, and Rosenberg all acknowledge the idea of God in their poetry, and their individual ideas about God affect their writing in various ways. Whether is it rejecting the idea of God outright or elevating other people or things to the level of gods, these three influential writers found ways to let their ideas about God show through in their writings.
Rupert Brooke is unequivocally the most patriotic writer of his time. He is best known for his poem “The Soldier”, a glorious depiction of England. In this poem, Brooke speaks of England itself as if it is tantamount to God, evoking the idea of Mother England— a sacred place where its’ children belong. England becomes elevated to the level of God, in that it is a protector and a guardian of its people. In the final line, Brooke states “In hearts at peace, under an English heaven” (Brooke, 2186). During a time of Bri...
... middle of paper ...
...d in existence who would allow the horrors of war to occur. All three war poets had different views on the idea of God, but all agreed on one thing: war and God are inexplicably linked. War and God can not be separated, if only because individual soldiers will always let their belief in God fuel them on the battlefield. Whether it be because God is England’s justification and reason for war, or because God is obviously missing during this critical time in England’s history, these writers acknowledge the idea of a divine presence (if only to immediately reject it) and show us that though World War I was decided faithless, God was being thought about and questioned always.
Works Cited
Damrosch, David, ed. "Perspectives: The Great War: Confronting the Modern." The Longman Anthology of British Literature. New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Inc., 2003. 2183-2195.
Ward, Geoffrey C. and Burns, Ken, The War, An Intimate History 1941-1945. (New York: Knopf 2007)
The three incredible works of literature by Owen, OBrien, and Sassoon give a true sense of what fighting for ones country was really like. The battles, soldiers, and wars that most of the public see is glorified tremendously through movies and books mainly. These writers wanted a change and they went about this by giving the true and honest facts of what happened. War should be thought of as a tough obstacle that no one should ever have to go through, a sad occurrence, or a horrible burden, but not as a glorious victory. In order to reach that victory, the road is anything but sweet.
As he never actually reached the front line, Brooke’s form of idealistic imagery was fueled by the extensively patriotic propaganda of the time. Death as a theme in ‘The Soldier’ is therefore depicted simply as more of an accepted cost for the country, with Brooke envisioning dying itself, rather grandly as leaving ‘Some corner of a foreign field…forever England.’
War I. The to poems that I will be comparing are ‘England to her sons’
In conclusion, depending on the position from which one views war, the standpoint may vary ranging from being supportive of the soldiers because those who die are dying for the country or they are completely unsupportive of war activities because it is a brutal and gruesome experience involving countless unnecessary injuries and deaths. Affected by a number of factors, the authors of the two poems have chosen opposing standpoints on the issue of war where Tennyson glorified it with the main message that it is an honour to die for one's country whereas the other, Owen suppresses the idea of war by illustrating all the horrid experiences of a soldier.
War and its ramifications for those who are unfortunately entangled in it, is an issue that has fueled both political discussion and literary exploration throughout the previous century. Underived, authentic accounts of the experience and effects of war, from those who have served in it, can be especially enlightening for the majority of society who have had the fortune of not being intimately familiar with war. Through the examination of poems and stories written by soldiers, who were inspired by their involvement in conflict, one can obtain a greater understanding of this gruesome aspect of life, without having to directly experience it. Similarly, soldier turned poet, Bruce Weigl, has contributed his perspective on war through his literary
A Comparison Of Differing Views/Attitudes To War With Reference To Regeneration, Strange Meeting, Selected Poetry and A Journeys End
“When the rich wage war it’s the poor who die”, Jean-Paul Sartre, a prominent Marxist literary critic, existentialist philosopher and author stated in his 1951 drama, The Devil and the Good Lord. Wilfred Owen’s poetry is a profound protest at this fact. Owens poetry was shaped by the horrors of the first world war, he enlisted as a naïve young man with dreams of heroic deeds and “desperate glory” only to be exposed to the realities of what war really entailed. War opened his eyes to the “truth” of the world if looked at through a Marxist lens. He abhorred the patriotic poetry that gave a warped view of the war and wrote many poems depicting the horror and helplessness, he aimed to capture the pity of war in his poetry. Through this we can
It is evident that the socio-cultural context in which Wilfred Owen operated had a powerful impact upon his poetic motivation and the messages he conveyed through his work. Before exploring Wilfred Owen’s work we first must understand the society that Wilfred Owen lived in, to be able to really understand appreciate his poems and their impact on society. At the time in which he operated, Britain’s public opinion on warfare and conflicts were astonishingly positive, especially in the early stages of WW1. These false perception on war led the vast majority of male citizens to perceive war recruitment as an opportunity to set off on ‘terrific adventures’ and earn immense amounts of honour for their families and nation. Government propaganda meant that soldiers believed that they were gathering fame and fortune in the name of Great Britain. This cruel and false perception of warfare which in turn led to a steady rate of volunteers for the war and included Wilfred Owen himself. The men who did not go and fight for their nations were perceived by society as cowards as
Ultimately, we have two poems which can be compared on the grounds of their subject, but are poles apart regarding their message. The structure of these poems is not what would be typically expected from a war poem, but are structured on the basis of these typical structures in order to create some sense of familiarity. Brooke’s poem expands on this familiarity while Owen attempts to deliberately sabotage it. In regards to content, Brooke shows throughout his perception of the nobility of dying for one’s country, whilst Owen uses all of his poetic techniques to show the opposite.
Wilfred Owen joined the war at the age of twenty-two. During the war, he saw the worst of the battlefield and often wrote poetry to document his perspective on the war. In 1917, he was affected by an explosion and after he healed, he returned to service and died in battle in 1918. His biographical context is important to understand Owen’s point of view for this poem.
World War One had an inevitable effect on the lives of many young and naive individuals, including Wilfred Owen, who, like many others, joined the military effort with the belief that he would find honour, wealth and adventure. The optimism which Owen initially had toward the conflict is emphasised in the excerpt, in which he is described as “a young poet…with a romantic view of war common among the young” (narrator), a view which rapidly changed upon reaching the front. Owen presents responders with an overwhelming exploration of human cruelty on other individuals through acts of war and the clash of individual’s opposed feelings influenced by the experiences of human cruelty. This is presented through the horrific nature of war which the
Whereas, in The Soldier the reader can clearly see that Brooke has a patriotic and proud approach towards the war. He thinks of England as pure and perfect country. ‘In that rich earth a richer dust concealed;’ Brooke is arrogant and pompous that if he dies in the war he will
World War one and two. Both these wars stole many young men’s lives from them. Stole sons from their mothers. Stole brothers from their sister but also stole many innocent lives in the process. An estimated 60 million lives lost and for what? For land, for power, wealth. War is brutal, gruesome, costly and pointless. What good could possibly come from a war? The truth is without these wars, the world of literature wouldn’t be the same. These wars bought rise to names such as Rupert Brooke, Wilfred Owen, and Edward Thomas. Among all that death, destruction, and calamity; somehow great poets were born.
Throughout history, tragedy and suffering have inspired great works of art and literature; and Poetry is no exception. The Great War spawned an entire new age of poets and poems, all sharing views, opinions or experiences related to World War I. The poets who touched on the topic of World War 1 became known as “War Poets”. One of the most famous of these poets is Wilfred Owen and his famous and highly scrutinized Poem “Dulce et Decorum Est”. Many critics agree that Wilfred Owen’s famous poem “Dulce et Decorum Est” showed an accurate account of wartime conditions and hardships while criticizing the glorification of war, all through his own experiences and hardships.