Compare how the poems What Were They Like and Vultures present the cruelty of war.

Authors Avatar

Compare how the poems “What Were They Like” and “Vultures” present the cruelty of war.

Both poems, “What Were They Like” (WWTL) and “Vultures” has conflict as a common theme. “WWTL” is about the Vietnam war and the lasting effect of war on the culture, whereas “Vultures” is loosely about WWII and the conflict between good and evil.

One of the ways that Levertov presents the cruelty of war in “WWTL” is through the ignorance of those in conflict. The structure of the poem takes the form of question and answer, which could perhaps be seen as a soldier asking a person of a higher status, because of the use of ‘sir’. By asking about the past, the soldier is ignorant of the effect that he has on the ‘people of Viet Nam’. In the same way the ‘Daddy’ in “Vultures” ignores the ‘fumes of human roast’; but action cannot be without consequence, which causes the experience ‘clinging rebelliously’. Here both poets imply that not knowing the consequences of war is the cruellest act of all, otherwise lives and culture would not be lost.

Join now!

In “Vultures”, the cruelty of war is also shown through the conflict of good and evil. Achebe contrasts the beauty of ‘love’ to the ugliness of vultures; this shows that those at conflict can unite even with their differences. He admires the ‘pebble on a stem’ as well designed, similar to that of a tank, but at the same time well designed machines could also be cruel. The father in the poem is similar to the vultures. He would carry out horrific tasks at ‘Belson Camp’, yet afterwards he could treat his children to  chocolates. The use of ‘tender ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Here's what a star student thought of this essay


The grammar and spelling are mostly correct throughout the essay, except a few small instances, including the last sentence of the second paragraph, which is quite confusing and muddles the point. The essay could be longer, and more points could be made or developed further to make sure all areas of structure and language are covered, but time constraints in exam condiitions may limit this.

The essay is limited and held back by it's lack of expected terminology. Only a couple of terms are used (ellipsis, imagery, rule of 3- try to write numbers out in essays- etc), and by using them related to quotes (for example, labelling the 'a tiny glow worm' a metaphor would complete the point, and make it easier to discuss the effect this has. The comments on effect and attitude are developed well and clearly across both poems, and are usually linked back to the question again. Short, snappy quotes are used frequently, which show an expanse of understanding about the texts and proves to the examiner that the candidate does know what he/she is talking about. The short introduction and conclusion begin and end a well structured essay and make a general summary about the presentation of cruelty in war in both poems, as well as a personal interpretation.

One of the aspects of the answer which the candidate has done well is focusing around the question. This is clearly done by referencing the cruelty of war at the start of every paragraph, to show the examiner that the student knows exactly what is being asked and structuring their answer around it. The candidate also compares well; when they make a point they always make a direct comparison across the texts to link the ideas, as well as involving attitudes in their comments, for example "soldier is ignorant...'Daddy'.. would be lost" in the second paragrapn.