Wilfred Owen’s poem “Dulce et Decorum Est” makes the reader acutely aware of the impact of war. The speaker’s experiences with war are vivid and terrible. Through the themes of the poem, his language choices, and contrasting the pleasant title preceding the disturbing content of the poem, he brings attention to his views on war while during the midst of one himself. Owen uses symbolism in form and language to illustrate the horrors the speaker and his comrades go through; and the way he describes the soldiers, as though they are distorted and damaged, parallels how the speaker’s mind is violated and haunted by war.
Chaos and drudgery are common themes throughout the poem, displayed in its form; it is nearly iambic pentameter, but not every line fits the required pattern. This is significant because the poem’s imperfect formulation is Owen making a statement about formality, the poem breaks the typical form to show that everything is not functioning satisfactorily. The poem’s stanza’s also begin short, but become longer, like the speaker’s torment and his comrades movement away from the open fire. The rhyming scheme of ABABCDCD is one constant throughout the poem, but it serves to reinforce the nature of the cadence as the soldiers tread on. The war seems to drag on longer and longer for the speaker, and represents the prolonged suffering and agony of the soldier’s death that is described as the speaker dwells on this and is torn apart emotionally and distorts his impressions of what he experiences.
The words Owen chooses to use in the poem describing the soldiers are peculiar choices. The speaker refers to them as “[b]ent double, like beggars in sacks” (line 1), very different from a typical idea of a soldier. From the beginni.
. middle of paper.
. e pleasing title.
Owen’s poem uses symbolism to bring home the harsh reality of war the speaker has experienced and forces the reader to think about the reality presented in romanticized poetry that treats war gently. He utilizes language that imparts the speakers experiences, as well as what he, his companions, and the dying man feels. People really die and suffer and live through nightmares during a war; Owen forcefully demonstrates this in “Dulce et Decorum Est”. He examines the horrific quality of World War I and transports the reader into the intense imagery of the emotion and experience of the speaker.
Griffith, George V. “Owen’s Dulce et Decorum Est”. Explicator 41.3 (1983): 37. Print.
Owen, Wilfred. “Dulce et Decorum Est”. Literature: A Pocket Anthology.
Ed. R.S. Gwynn. 4th ed. New York: Penguin-Longman, 2009. 615-616. Print.
Click the button above to view the complete essay, speech, term paper, or research paperClick the button above to view the complete essay, speech, term paper, or research paper
Anger and Injustice Described in Wilfred Owen's Poem Dulce et Decorum est - The poem "Dulce et Decorum est" was written by Wilfred Owen during World War One, and is probably the most popular war-poem ever written.The title is part of the Latin phrase 'Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori' which means 'It is sweet and right to die for your country'. Wilfred Owen saw the war first-hand and this poem is about a gas attack that he witnessed. Throughout this poem Owen gives the sense of anger and injustice through the use of many different poetic techniques. Wilfred Owen emphasises the condition of the men in order to show the reader the effect that the war had on the soldiers. [tags: Dulce et Decorum est, poetry]
Wilfred Owen's Poetry and War Essay - Wilfred Owen's Poetry and War Wilfred Owen is now seen as one of the most important of the many poets of the First World War. He was born the son of a railway worker in Shropshire, and educated at schools in Shrewsbury and Liverpool. His devoted mother encouraged his early interests in music and poetry. When he could not afford a university education, he went abroad to teach English in France. He was there when war broke out in 1914, and decided to return to England to volunteer for the army. After training, he became an officer and was sent to France at the end of 1916, seeing service first in the Somme sector. [tags: Wilfred Owen Poetry Poems War Essays]
The Harsh Realities of War Illustrated in Dulce et Decorum Est? Essays - During the course of Dulce et Decorum Est, by Wilfred Owen, the Horatian image of a glorified and idealized war is stripped away to reveal the bitter and vicious nature of a new era in the history of conflict. Language and imagery are employed to great effect in conveying this notion, in the rejection of the ‘strong and patriotic soldier’ stereotype, the description of the chlorine gas attack, the portrayal of the agonized and dying soldier, and the final scathing invective against those who exalt war, for example the intended target of the poem, Jessie Pope. [tags: poems, poetry, literary criticism]
Love Presented in Poems by Wilfred Owen Essay - Love Presented in Poems by Wilfred Owen Explore how the theme of love is presented in Birdsong and a selection of poems by Wilfred Owen. Loving attitudes, though perhaps not as prominent as themes such as violence and pride, are intimately observed and explored in Sebastian Faulks' Birdsong and in many of Wilfred Owen's War poems. Each aspect of love, as seen through the eyes of this First World War soldier and Faulks' characters, is as interesting as it is diverse, allowing an impervious insight into the psychological effects that the War had on these men. [tags: Wilfred Owen Poems Poetry Love Essays]
. 4 Works Cited
Free College Essays - Imagery, Metaphors, and Diction in Dulce et Decorum Est - Imagery, Metaphors, and Diction in Dulce et Decorum Est All exceptional poetry displays a good use of figurative language, imagery, and diction. Wilfred Owen's "Dulce et Decorum Est" is a powerful antiwar poem which takes place on a battlefield during World War I. Through dramatic use of imagery, metaphors, and diction, he clearly states his theme that war is terrible and horrific. The use of compelling figurative language helps to reveal the reality of war. In the first line, "Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,"(1) shows us that the troops are so tired that they can be compared to old beggars. [tags: Dulce et Decorum Est Essays]
How Wilfred Owen Presents the Horror of War in Dulce et Decorum est Essay - How Wilfred Owen Presents the Horror of War in Dulce et Decorum est In the First World War people wanted the young men to go to war, but no-one really knew about conditions of the fighting in the war. Wilfred Owen was one of the people who wanted to tell the public what war was really was like. He tried to do that through his poetry. One of his poems "Dulce et decorum est" shows the horror of war very well. We know that Wilfred Owen really does know what he's talking about as he served through most of the war and died shortly before the armistice. [tags: Papers]
The War Poems of Wilfred Owen - Contradicting the Classical Ideas of Heroism and Romanticism - Contradicting the Classical Ideas of Heroism and Romanticism in Dulce et Decorum est, The Send Off, But I Was Looking At The Permanent Stars, The Deadbeat soldier, Counter Attack, Metal Cases and other War Poems by Wilfred Owen Owen displays the reality of war, atypically shown in 20th century literature. By divulging the secrecies and terrors of brutal warfare, he exposes the superficiality of valor and false heroism; through his vivid writing, he opens the eyelids of his readers and discloses, “the old lie (Owen, Dulce et Decorum est, 25). [tags: Dulce et Decorum est The Send Off]
. 2 Works Cited
Analysing Willfred Owen's Dulce Et Decorum Est. Essay - Analysing Willfred Owen's Dulce Et Decorum Est. ‘Dulce ET Decorum Est’ is an anti-war poem, which emphasizes the intensity of war. The meaning of the ironic title roughly translated into ‘it is good and honourable’ but is not fully established until you examine the poem. The full title ‘Dulce ET Decorum Est Pro Patria Mori’ means ‘it is good and honourable to die for your country’. However the main aspect of this poem is paradoxical to its title. This demonstrates the message Wilfred Owen’s is insinuating and his attitude towards war. [tags: English Literature]
Analysis of Dulce Et Decorum Est by Wilfred Owen Essay - Analysis of Dulce Et Decorum Est by Wilfred Owen The First World War saw the introduction of many new warfare technologies across its theatres due to industrial competition between rival nations. One of the most feared weapons amongst soldiers on both sides was gas. The usage of chlorine, phosgene and mustard gas caused the death of thousands of men by suffocation. Wilfred Owens poem 'Dulce Et Decorum Est' gives a detailed description of a soldier dying from a gas attack. It was to show his opposition to war and to show that the war was contrary to what it was being portrayed as in Britain at the time - rightful and fitting. [tags: Papers]
Dulce et Decorum Est Essay - Dulcet et Decorum Est, is probably the most famous anti-war poem by Wilfred Owen. "Dulcet et Decorum Est," is probably the most famous anti-war poem by Wilfred Owen. It has a harsh meaning and persuasive argument. The anti-war theme and serious tone are effective at portraying war as horrid and devastating. I felt overpowered by blood, guts and death. Although my reaction hasn't changed much through numerous readings, my emotional feelings become more intense with each reading. This poem makes me feel as if I am right there watching the soldier who cannot fasten his mask fast enough and suffers the full effects of deadly gas. [tags: English Literature]
Military strategy is irrevocably linked to the phenomenon of war, such that to advance an account of the concept of strategy can be said to presuppose a conceptualization of war. In other words, to rigorously formulate the notion of strategy, one must concomitantly attempt to rigorously grasp the essence of war. However, what makes this apparently lucid causal sequence essentially complicated is the ostensible fact that war itself demarcates an entire heterogeneous phenomenon. Authors such as Betts have seized on such a heterogeneity of war to denote the impossibility of strategy: the field of concern that strategy attempts to circumscribe inevitably finds its frontiers transgressed. However, perhaps this is not an indictment of strategy, but rather the call for an account of strategy that is as heterogeneous as its object. It is precisely when such a heterogeneity is not extended to strategy itself, that not only does strategy become impossible in a theoretical sense, but that poor strategies are enacted on a practical level. With an incorporation of theoretical literature and historical case studies, the following essay shall argue for a heterogeneous account of strategy that is determined by a concept of war that is defined by an equal heterogeneity, that is, by phenomena such as randomness, contingency and unpredictability.
As Manabrata Guha observes in his magisterial 2010 study, Reimagining War in the 21cent century: from Clausewitz to Network-centric Warfare. “The etymological roots of the word “war” – said to have evolved from Old English (c. 1050) words wyrre and were ; from the Frankish word *werra ; from the Proto-Germanic word, *werso (cf. O.S. werran. O.H.G. werran. Ger. Verwirren ) – convey a sense of confusion, strife, discord, struggle, and violence.” For Guha, the etymology of war is not merely a dry philological exercise, but indices the very problematic of conceptualizing war, insofar as “in its modern sense, the word “war” appears to perform both a descriptive function and a conceptual one.” Accordingly, “war” can be descriptively applied to the disarray of a conflict as a designator of a particularly violent chaos following such etymologies; at the same time, the conceptualization of war marks a radical turn in the approach to this phenomenon, as the very act of conceptualization demarcates an attempt to define, delineate, and order a phenomenon that is, in its very essence, chaotic. As Guha summarizes this problem, “How, when, and for what reasons did a phenomenon – marked by violence, strife, discord, belligerence, and defiance – become a concept?” What makes this gesture paradoxical is that it attempts to homogenize that which is apparently heterogeneous; however, such an attempt in itself serves an apparent teleological objective. That is, one must formalize and conceptualize war to control this very homogeneous phenomenon, namely, to calculate its movements and its probability. But this is not a calculating analogous to a form of scientific and distanced mapping, but rather a fully immanent calculation, one that is embedded within the very reality of war as a political reality. Guha suggests that “war, as a concept, became inextricably associated – in a primarily subservient role – with the State”, which means that war “gradually came to be circumscribed within the purview of Reason, thereby allowing for it to be, in the first instance, rationalized, controlled, and regulated.” In this reading, the classical Clausewitzian definition of “war as policy by other means” holds true, as war becomes a phenomenon controlled by policy: however, this policy, as a policy of war, is defined by the aforementioned “confusion, strife, discord, struggle.” Such a form of what Guha terms “control” can thus be equated with the basic essence of strategy: an attempt to understand and rein in the heterogeneity of war.Need custom paper on Other? We Deliver Top Quality On Time As Promised!
Ready to get started? Just click the button to be directed to a secure page so you can enter the details of your paper
Top reasons to choose our writing service
Before being able to usefully occupy oneself with combating an evil, one must know its cause.
Thus, seeking the primary cause of war is the first step in preventing it.
So if we go back over the chain of causes and effects scientifically that result in the outbreak of a war we finally find a primordial cause from which all others flow: overpopulation, i.e. the excess of population in one or several territories, each subject to a different national solidarity.
Undertaking in this way an investigation of the causes of wars, working back from the final physical cause to the original, natural cause and logically drawing a preventive system from it, is what I call “scientific pacifism” (it is only after doing this that one can indulge in metaphysical divagations). This is in opposition to the pacifism of sentimental or mystical pacifists, who think that they will transform their wishes into realities with beautiful and noble words. This is also in opposition to the pacifism of incomplete pacifists who, while being animated by a spirit more realist than those previously mentioned, stop at a certain point in their search for the causes of war.
Unfortunately, until now there have been few scientific pacifists who have noted or admitted the existence of overpopulation as the primary cause of war.
The others, men of good will, though insufficiently enlightened, by attributing an exclusive or exaggerated importance to secondary facts, hinder rather than accelerate the solution to the problem of universal peace. For example, they account for the evil of war by the natural pugnacity of man, i.e. his combative instinct; by his contempt for the lives of others, i.e. a vulgar and poorly understood egoism; by the patriotic sentiment, by nationalist doctrines, by the authoritarian basis of society, by the capitalist regime, etc. factors which certainly contribute to a greater or lesser extent to the blossoming of war, but none of which are the fundamental cause.
The lack of understanding is even worse if we take simple souls into consideration. They take apparent and superficial causes of wars for their real causes. An example: The war that resulted in the conquest of Algeria by France was declared following a blow with a fan delivered to the French consul by the dey of Algiers. There are those who believe that this was the cause of that war and that if France took control of Algeria it was to punish the dey. History as it is taught in schools is a method for inculcating similar ideas on the causes of past wars. But what clear-sighted man doesn’t realize that this insult, likely provoked, was only the pretext and the occasion for the declaration of war, and that the wish to convert Algeria into a colony was the real reason?
The reason given by Pascal in a famous witticism does little more to explain the true cause of war: “Why do you want to kill that man?” — “He is my enemy: he lives on the other side of the river.” In truth, this is a very superficial reason. The potential hatred between two peoples is the consequence of something other than the geographic location of their countries.
Who thinks that the Sarajevo affair was the real cause of World War I? It was a moment in time which it is convenient to stake as the starting point in writing a history of that war, but a simple examination of the reasons for the assassination of the Archduke of Austria shows that that event was the effect of the rivalry between a Germanic and a Slavic nation in the Balkans, a primary rivalry which, once resolved in war, dragged in other rivalries. And what were the reasons for these rivalries? Economic reasons, obviously: these no longer need be proved. And it is here that the most advanced of incomplete pacifists I spoke of above stop.
But economic rivalry does nothing but translate the antagonisms in the vital needs of peoples. Behind the economic fact there lies the biological fact: the reproduction and multiplication of humans and their need for food.
Behind World War I there lay European overpopulation.
The Sarajevo affair was the push that set in motion a machine that was ready to roll.
We could proceed to an analysis of the determinism of all wars. We would first discover in them the economic reasons, and then the biological ones. And finally we would find the phenomenon of overpopulation as the primordial cause of war.
What then is overpopulation?
Before giving the definition I must say a few words on that natural law that is called the law of population or Malthus’ Law, from the economist who discovered and formulated it.
It consists in this: that the population, if no obstacle prevents it, indefinitely increases geometrically, while the quantity of subsistence goods that a given amount of land can produce is necessarily limited. In order to make clearer the contrast that exists between the principles of reproduction of humans and that of the production of their foodstuffs, Malthus said that produce can only increase arithmetically. The increase in subsistence goods can no longer be so rigorously calculated, because of the application of science to agriculture, but this has very little importance and has no influence on the truth of the law of population, whose formula is the following: The population has a consistent tendency to grow beyond the means of subsistence.
So there is, in principle, a natural disequilibrium between the reproduction of humans and the production of their foodstuffs.
Nevertheless, in the end a relative equilibrium establishes itself as best it can by means of what Malthus called brakes to population. They can occur in a way favorable to man, but until now it is in an unfavorable way that this has occurred, i.e. this equilibrium has until now been more apparent than real.
Malthus distinguished two kinds of brakes: first, the preventive (celibacy and continence) which he considered good because according to him they were moral, and prostitution and procreative prudence, which he considered evil, because according to him they were immoral; second, the repressive (all the causes of premature death).
If we part from Malthus in his appreciation and classification of brakes — as I personally do — it is because they no longer correspond to the scientific wisdom and ethics of our times. We can say that there exists but one preventive brake, because there is only one that is admissible: procreative prudence, or the limitation of births, while there exist many preventive brakes, all of which can be determined. The preventive brake procures an equilibrium of wealth and happiness; the repressive brakes give an equilibrium of misery: poverty and suffering.
The preventive brake, that which foresighted humans carry out in order to avoid the arrival of new beings whose food is not assured, is of fundamental importance in the prevention of war. But the foresighted are a tiny minority of humanity, and so war rages frequently.
The repressive brakes are those used by nature when man fails to put into effect the preventive brake. And among them can be found the one that occupies us at this moment: war.
The choice offered to humanity is thus clear: either war or the limitation of births.
If wisdom has manifested itself in the matter of procreation in a given country the population finds itself exactly limited to the food capacities of its own soil. But this country only exists in theory. As soon as this country exceeds this limit it is in a state of agricultural overpopulation.
Its population continuing to grow, what then is it forced to do in order to preserve its mode of existence? It is forced to give itself over to industrial production in order to engage in commerce with foreign countries, i.e. to deliver manufactured products to them in exchange for their produce.
But this evolution of agriculture towards industrialism is not limited to one country. It is occurring with greater or lesser speed in all the old countries, as Malthus said, in all the countries with old civilizations, especially in Europe. In Asia countries like India, China, and Japan, which are extremely overpopulated, are on the road to industrialization. The United States, which is, despite it all, a new country, began to industrialize a long time ago, as well as to seriously limit immigration, going so far as to ostracize one of the most prolific or peoples: the Japanese.
The industrial countries thus enter into competition for the placing of their products. Generally this commercial struggle becomes envenomed and engenders hatred among peoples. In order to have greater opportunities to sell their merchandise nations naturally desire privileged markets. Commercial treaties granting preferences to more favored nations bring in their train the enmity of others. But the privileged markets par excellence are colonies, which are obtained through wars, and are powerful causes of international jealousy, the mother of war. For example: the Franco-German disagreement on the subject of Morocco. What is more, in their colonies the old countries obtain at a better price than elsewhere products that they lack as well as primary matter necessary for their industry. They find in them an issue for a portion of their excess population. Often, they also find the cannon fodder in them needed to confront the wars their colonization is likely to give birth to.
As we see, these commercial rivalries are in the end nothing but struggles for food and the preservation of a certain type of existence. Well then, it is these commercial rivalries, these struggles for food which engender war. In the first place they create in peoples a mood favorable to the declaration of war, as was verified in 1914. And they unleash war so to speak naturally.
In ancient times wars, as is the case today due to overpopulation, took on the aspect of rapid invasions of territories accompanied by pillaging and the reduction of the inhabitants to slavery. Things were clear and simple. Today their determinism is formed by a series of phenomena far more complex and tangled, and they are masked in hypocrisy. But the two determinant reasons have not changed: reproduction without hindrance and food.
All of this is obviously hardly poetic, but it’s the truth and it must be told.
World War I was nothing but a vast war of overpopulation, dissimulated in order to capture and sustain the sympathy of the peoples fighting in each camp under great idealistic words: war of right on one side, war of kultur on the other. In reality, a struggle for existence between over-populated nations of various degrees. In the future, when this conception of the causes of war will be shared by greater and ever growing number of people, the responsibility of belligerents in a war will be measure by their over-population.
It goes without saying that a rationally normal society is one in which there is no over-population, thus where an equilibrium of wealth and happiness reigns between the people and its subsistence goods. This is what the German economist List called a “normal nation. ”
This then is the formula for economic autonomy for a nation. It is clear that a nation that sticks with this reduces the risks of war to a minimum. In fact, it will never engage in any war of aggression; it will have no designs for conquest or colonization. What is more, it will not contribute to over-populating another country through an emigration which, however peaceful it might be in appearance, always creates ascertain hostility. All that will remain for a “normal nation” is the danger of an invasion of its territory, either by immigration or by war, on the part of one or several other over-populated nations.
But if all countries imitated it the danger of war would be averted.
If we extend this idea of the “normal nation” to the entire planet we obtain the idea of world-wide economic harmony.
When this harmony is realized — which we are far from obtaining — and only then can the mystical pacifists, Christian and others, say to peoples and individuals: “Love each other,” or “Thou shalt not kill” without repeating vain words. In truth, they will not need to say anything: their speeches will have no object. In any case, they won’t have made this possibility a reality: it will have been born of the labor — in thought and deed — of scientific pacifists.
In summary, the maximum population each country is allowed to reach without its inhabitants suffering and without causing suffering to other countries, is the number of human beings who would be assured the ration of subsistence goods necessary to normal human existence by the soil of that country.
Over-population begins beyond this figure.
And so, overpopulation is the primordial cause of war.
This fact indicates to us the preventive remedy for this ill: suppressing or preventing overpopulation in each country.
Phrased differently: establishing a true equilibrium between the population and subsistence goods.
The sole method: the limitation of births.
Governments dispose, in fact, of means of encouraging and discouraging overpopulation. What is more, among human beings reproduction is entirely under the control of this will. Which is to say that both governments and individuals, having the necessary powers at their disposal, war could be abolished if they truly wanted it.
Consequently, we scientific pacifists demand a world-wide limitation on births, affected by all nations leagued together in a desire for peace under the leadership of the League of Nations.
This is the primary propaganda to be done by pacifists, for humanity’s salvation resides in this solution.
London. April 1925