Jessie Popes’ use of colloquial language is both persuasive and at the same time quite amusing as she portrays war as a game, and this is almost laughable in its own right as everyone knows that war is most definitely not a game and I pity the people who enlisted after being inspired by this poem as they were seriously mislead! The poem has good rhythmic quality and is easy to read so it would appeal to any person of any age or class. I think Jessie Pope aimed the poem at the younger generation who could be easily influenced by war being portrayed as a game. They would not know any better as they would most probably never experienced war or know anyone who had so they were relying on a naïve and ironically minded woman who had as much knowledge on war, if not less than they already did! This a very optimistic poem that could very easily have a great effect on a mans ego by making them think about how they would feel if they had a seat in the stand or didn’t have the chance to come back from war as a glorified hero and were made to feel like a coward by their families and friends.
“Dulce et Decorum est” portrays a very pessimistic yet more realistic view of war by describing how “Bent double, like old beggars under sacks, knock- kneed, coughing like hags” they trudged through the sludge. I feel that Wilfred Owens account of what war was like is a far more reliable source than “Who’s for the Game?” as Owen actually fought in the war so he would have known what it was like more then anyone. Wilfred Owen is famous for his disapproval of poets such as Jessie Pope who glamorised war by making it seem trivial and making people feel guilty and a disappointment to their country for not wanting to fight.
Owen produced a more realistic portrayal of the injuries that could be obtained during war. He informs his readers that death during war is not glamorous or heroic. He talks of the man who “[drowned] under a green sea” of gas. His death was by no means glamorous as it was slow, painful and humiliating. He seems to be putting people off the idea of fighting in a war by describing all of what seems to be the worst parts instead of the best. He also mocks the idea that it is sweet and wonderful to die for your country.
The poet describes war to be as “obscene as cancer.” This is a far cry from the fun game that war seemed to be insinuating by Jessie Pope. Owen uses adjectives to express his views on war and seemed to be greatly influenced by all the death he experienced during his time as a soldier. This is the completely opposite approach tothe one taken by Jessie Pope who seems to think that the worst injury to be sustained during war would be to break a few bones and need a crutch. She seemed to have no concept of the seriousness of war where as Owen did. I think a lot of soldiers who have experienced the reality of war can relate to “Dulce et Decorum est” as it is based on fact not fiction.
Wilfred Owens use of language had a great impact on me, the reader when I read this poem as his use of vocabulary is shockingly bitter and blunt. Even though I had no idea of what it would be like to experience war, I already knew I did not want to when I read it. Owen uses very negative words such as obscene, cancer, old beggars, hags and many more to describe how he feels about war. The poem has less rhythm than “Who’s for the Game?” which immediately makes the poem more serious and even though it does not rhyme, some of the lines are very memorable for what they say, not how they are said.
Wilfred Owens use of emotive language is portrayed in a different context to the emotive language used by Jessie Pope. I do not feel he uses it to manipulate his readers the way Pope does; he is more of an informative poet and does not manipulate his readers to make them think the same as him.
“Icarus Allsorts” had a very modern approach to war favoured by activists who demonstrated against nuclear war in the nineteen- sixties. It has a strong rhythm and adopts the style of a nursery rhyme which proves to be effective. The way in which the poet expresses the true devastation and reality of nuclear war through a nursery rhyme style had a great impact on me as a reader as it made me realise that all our problems and woes seem so trivial compared to nuclear war as it affects everyone on the planet no matter what gender, nationality or religion. I like the way the poem describes how “the king was in the counting house counting all his money, the queen was in the parlour eating bread and honey” when the bomb hit and made them all go “funny” and when it says,” in the time it takes to draw a breath.” This proved to be most effective as again it shows how quickly a bomb can hit letting no one escape. It also had a very worthwhile and effective ending when it described how many people would have been killed due to the bomb being set of at the touch of a button!
This poem differentiates immensely from “Who’s for the Game?” as it has a totally different viewpoint on war. The fact that both poems were written at different times and about different aspects of war also made it difficult to trace any similarities between the two! One similarity I did discover between the two was that both poems have titles that lack seriousness and fail to have any link to war in the slightest. Icarus Allsorts was a man who built a wax aeroplane that melted when he flew too near the sun, and everyone knew that war was most definitely not a game. “Who’s for the Game?” expresses an optimistic and more idealistic view to war than “Icarus Allsorts” but the rhythmic language i similar between the two. Pope’s poem encouraged people to enlist where as “Icarus Allsorts” stressed how the world could end in the event of a nuclear attack. They are different in a sense that “Who’s for the Game?” strongly favoured war when “Icarus Allsorts” was strongly against it. Both poets used very different styles of writing to portray their views to the readers; Roger McGough used strong colloquial language and a “flowery” style to express his anti nuclear war views, where as Jessie Pope used less colloquial language and a more idealistic style to describe her optimistically minded views on enlistment.
I find “Icarus Allsorts” extremely ironic due to the misinterpretation of the bomb being set off when it was actually a meteorite. It is also very superficial compared to “Dulce et Decorum est” as it lacked seriousness and fulfilment when compared to a poem written by Wilfred Owen. “Icarus Allsorts” and “Dulce et Decorum est” have slightly different contexts as Owens’ is written about first hand experience in fighting in a war where as McGough’s is about the effects of nuclear war from an activists view point. Both poets use of language and structure of their poems are very different. “Dulce et Decorum est” has less rhythm than “Icarus Allsorts” and stronger, more hard- hitting adjectives are used to portray the image where as McGough uses rhymes to make his poem more memorable. Owens more realistic portrayal of war is opposed by McGough’s nursery- rhyme style as it seems a very trivial and disrespectful way to describe a far more serious matter such as nuclear war as at least with a war such as World War two. It is awful that so many soldiers died but the war itself did not wipe out every living thing on the planet!
Overall, I feel I have benefited from my experience in studying war poetry as it has made me more aware of the different styles and ways in which poetry can be written and how poets can get their views across by using methods such as making it sound like a nursery rhyme in the style of Roger McGough or disillusioning the reader by saying that war is one thing when it is actually another in the style of Jessie Pope. I have a deeper understanding of this style of poetry and wish to extend this knowledge further in the future!
Charlotte Vines
10C
