War Poetry

 War Poetry

This blog task is assigned by Prakruti Bhatt Ma'am (Department of English, MKBU).  

Choose one poem from the English literary cannon which deals with the theme of war and compare it with any one of the five war poems you have studied in this unit. [Discuss aspects like the style of the poems, language employed, treatment of the theme of war, etc.] How are they different? Are there any similarities?

I have chosen Alfred Lord Tennyson’s The Charge of the Light Brigade from the English literary canon and compared it with Wilfred Owen’s Dulce et Decorum Est, one of the five World War I poems studied in this unit.

Tennyson’s The Charge of the Light Brigade, written in 1854, commemorates the infamous and tragic charge of British cavalry during the Battle of Balaclava in the Crimean War. Despite the strategic blunder that led to high casualties, the poem celebrates the bravery and loyalty of the soldiers. Wilfred Owen’s Dulce et Decorum Est, composed during World War I, offers a starkly different portrayal. It dismantles the romanticised narrative of war, exposing the horrific physical and emotional toll on soldiers. While Tennyson’s poem glorifies sacrifice, Owen’s poem condemns the glorification itself.

Stylistically, the two poems differ greatly. Tennyson uses a dactylic rhythm that mimics the galloping of horses and creates a sense of urgency and movement. His frequent use of repetition—“Cannon to right of them, / Cannon to left of them, / Cannon in front of them”—amplifies the chaos of the battlefield while underscoring the soldiers’ unquestioning obedience. The poem reads like a martial anthem, praising duty and courage even in the face of inevitable death.

In contrast, Owen's poem is written in a more conversational and irregular rhythm, reflecting the fragmented and jarring experience of modern warfare. He employs brutal imagery and similes to portray the exhausted soldiers—“Bent double, like old beggars under sacks”—and the traumatic impact of a gas attack—“And watch the white eyes writhing in his face.” These visual horrors serve as an indictment of the lie that “it is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country.”

Thematically, both poems deal with war, but from opposite perspectives. Tennyson’s portrayal aligns with traditional notions of honour, sacrifice, and national pride. The soldiers are idealised figures, who “theirs not to reason why, / Theirs but to do and die.” Owen, however, positions the soldier as a victim—of war, propaganda, and societal expectations. His tone is not only mournful but also accusatory, especially toward those who perpetuate the idea that dying for one's country is noble.

Despite these differences, both poems seek to stir strong emotional reactions in the reader. Tennyson’s tone inspires admiration and solemn respect, while Owen’s provokes outrage and pity. Together, they represent the evolution of war poetry—from the glorification of noble sacrifice to the revelation of war’s grim reality.

"War poetry is not necessarily ‘anti-war’. It is, however, about the very large questions of life: identity, innocence, guilt, loyalty, courage, compassion, humanity, duty, desire, death." Discuss this statement in the context of any two of the war poems you have studied.

The statement, “War poetry is not necessarily ‘anti-war’. It is, however, about the very large questions of life: identity, innocence, guilt, loyalty, courage, compassion, humanity, duty, desire, death,”

Sassoon’s Glory of Women is an ironic and bitter critique of how women on the home front romanticise war. The poem juxtaposes the idealised image of the heroic soldier with the brutal reality of the battlefield. Sassoon accuses women of being complicit in the perpetuation of war myths, writing, “You love us when we’re heroes, home on leave, / Or wounded in a mentionable place.” The sarcasm is sharp, and the final lines—“You can’t believe that British troops ‘retire’ / When hell’s last horror breaks them, and they run”—reveal Sassoon’s contempt for blind patriotism and societal delusions.

This poem does not simply oppose war; rather, it interrogates identity, gender roles, and moral blindness. The speaker struggles with being reduced to a symbol of honour while enduring mental and physical torment. The poem forces readers to question who benefits from war and how distant observers, even with good intentions, may reinforce harmful ideals.

In contrast, Gurney’s The Target presents a quiet, introspective monologue from a soldier who has killed in combat and now wrestles with the emotional aftermath. “I shot him, and it had to be,” he admits, yet the declaration lacks triumph; it is fraught with unease. Gurney humanises both the speaker and his victim, suggesting that both are casualties in different ways. The “target” becomes a metaphor not only for the enemy but also for the soldier’s own conscience and loss of innocence.

The poem does not declare war to be evil, but it reflects deeply on the cost of duty and the erosion of compassion and humanity. The speaker clings to the hope that his father, who understands such moral burdens, “would not blame me, but would rather see / I had done my best.” This need for understanding highlights a yearning for moral clarity amidst the ethical ambiguity of war.

Both poems address life’s “very large questions” by examining the personal experiences of individuals caught in the machinery of war. Rather than being polemical, they are psychological and philosophical explorations of what it means to be human in inhuman circumstances.

 Comparison of Ivor Gurney’s The Target and Wilfred Owen’s Dulce et Decorum Est

Ivor Gurney and Wilfred Owen were not only contemporaries during World War I but also deeply reflective poets who used verse to process trauma. Though they share similar themes—disillusionment, suffering, and inner conflict—their tone, style, and focus reveal significant differences.

Both The Target and Dulce et Decorum Est revolve around the individual’s experience of war, focusing less on grand battles and more on personal anguish. In The Target, Gurney’s speaker directly addresses the moral consequence of taking a life. His confession is gentle, tinged with sorrow, and seeks emotional resolution. In contrast, Owen’s poem offers no such comfort. The speaker is haunted by the image of a fellow soldier dying from a gas attack—“guttering, choking, drowning”—a moment that remains fixed in his nightmares.

In terms of tone, Gurney’s poem is restrained and pensive. The voice is contemplative, as though trying to reason through the emotional aftermath. Owen’s tone, however, is confrontational and emotionally charged. The final lines—“My friend, you would not tell with such high zest / To children ardent for some desperate glory…”—are accusatory and directed at the propagandists who perpetuate patriotic falsehoods.

Both poets employ vivid imagery but with different intentions. Gurney uses the quiet metaphor of being “a man who saw too much” to convey the psychological scars of war. Owen’s imagery is explosive and brutal, forcing the reader to see what most prefer to ignore. While Gurney seeks empathy and understanding, Owen demands that illusions be shattered.

Their differences also reflect their respective post-war trajectories. Owen died in battle in 1918, and his poetry remained frozen in the immediacy of the trenches. Gurney, who survived, struggled with mental illness and was institutionalised. His poetry is shaped not only by wartime experiences but also by a long, internal battle for peace.

Ultimately, both poets remind us that war’s impact lingers far beyond the battlefield. Owen reveals the horror of physical destruction and societal deceit, while Gurney exposes the quiet devastation of the soul. Their works underscore that true bravery lies not only in facing enemy fire but also in confronting the emotional wreckage that follows.

Conclusion

War poetry, as these examples show, is not easily classified. It is rarely just patriotic or anti-war; rather, it offers profound insights into the emotional, moral, and philosophical complexities of conflict. From Tennyson’s heroic idealism to Owen’s raw realism, from Sassoon’s bitter satire to Gurney’s wounded introspection, war poetry invites readers to look beyond the headlines and heroics, and into the hearts of those who endure it. These poems challenge us not only to understand war but also to remember its human cost.