War on Discourse

 Good morning/afternoon ladies and gentlemen. I am very honoured to speak today and thank-you, very much, for inviting me to be here.

“An unjust peace is better than a just war.” Marcus Tullius Cicero

“We are going to have peace, even if we have to fight for it.” Dwight D. Eisenhower

These two quotes mention both peace and fighting; they have, however, completely contrasting, even contradictory meanings. One emphasises that any type or form of peace is preferable to war whereas the other foregrounds, even encourages, the need for fighting in order to achieve peace.
These distinct discourses are seen throughout war literature as it seems that under the pressure of war people are more capable than ever to express their beliefs, feelings and opinions through poetry. By contrasting poems with a shared discourse of war it is possible to identify the ideologies and beliefs of the poet surrounding the importance of peace and the true meaning of honour, pride and warfare.

Vitaï Lampada, written by Sir Henry Newbolt during the First World War, invites the audience to accept the act of war as honourable and necessary through the existing discourses. It is a highly persuasive and purposive poem that aimed to provide a guiding principle for the conduct of life in particular relation to warfare and enlistment. Through the use of poetic techniques, relevant and influential metaphors and language specifically related to a pro war discourse, Sir Henry Newbolt clearly illustrates his beliefs. He uses a game of cricket as a metaphor for war and the importance of enlistment.  The first stanza, in particular, illustrates his perspective of war through the use of the imagery of soldiers being like batsmen on a cricket team. It promotes the idea that learning to be a team player is better than thinking of personal gain through the phrase ‘And it’s not for the sake of a ribboned coat, or the selfish hope of a season’s fame, but his captain’s hand on his shoulder smote’. In this, the poet has established a moral connection with the audience, capturing their attention. He encourages the belief that the values needed to play sport are identical to those needed at war. Unlike most poets who also wrote about the honour and pride involved in going to war, Newbolt has not disguised the bloodshed and carnage in his poem. Despite illustrating the mayhem, death and slaughter of war in the lines “The river of death has brimmed his banks,” and “The sand of the desert is sodden red,” the audience is still positioned to view his writing as pro war. This is due to the tone, rhythm and structure of the poem which further emphasises the belief that war is right and principled. The poem has a definite positive air about it and is written with a fast tempo and quick rhythm. Newbolt uses short lines with very few syllables so it is read with an upbeat tempo, inspiring the audience to feel encouraged and optimistic about war. Newbolt concludes his poem with a plea for values of continuity, tradition and discipline. This plea appeals to his audience and persuades them to support his pro war discourse.  “And falling fling to the host behind – “Play up! Play up! And play the game!” While revealing a pro war discourse, Newbolt appeals to the audience through discourses of selflessness, sacrifice and tradition.

Keith Douglas’s poem ‘How to Kill’, also written during the First World War, presents a great contrast in discourse, intention and subject matter to Vitaï Lampada and this contrast shows a clear anti war propensity. The language, theme and use of metaphors all contribute to the influence the poem has on an audience.  In the poem, Douglas has also used a child’s game as a metaphor for war. In this instance, however, the metaphor achieves a completely different purpose. The poet uses the lines “Under the parabola of a ball, a child turning into a man,” to indicate a considerable change in a person. As a child, one throws a ball for fun and as a soldier there’s a dreadful echo of that pleasure in killing, or aiming a missile or gun. In exposing the loss of innocence involved in war, through this metaphor, he encourages the importance of peace. The poem goes on to talk about the enemy as a real person and this further conveys the poet’s anti war message. Through the lines, “He smiles, and moves about in ways his mother knows, habits of his,” the poet identifies the individual and gives him character. By giving the man personality, he positions the audience to feel sympathy, regret and sorrow. This device is seen in movies, television shows and books and is effective in connecting and influencing the audience in the same way. The poet further stimulates the emotions of the reader by depicting the act of killing as easy and effortless. “And look, has made a man of dust of a man of flesh. This sorcery I do. Being damned, I am amused.” This section of the poem reveals the detachment involved in the killing and that the killer feels as though he is guilty, condemned and cursed. He is fascinated by how easy the act of killing can be. In contrast to Vitaï Lampada, ‘How to Kill’ is written as a warning to the terrible and shocking impacts of war.

Douglas and Newbolt express diverse opinions on war in a very interesting manner. While using many of the same techniques, metaphors and approach they are able to achieve conflicting arguments. ‘Vitaï Lampada’ and ‘How to Kill’ both appeal to the emotions, values and morals of the audience especially through the ‘game metaphor’. This metaphor encompasses the discourse, whether anti or pro war, of the poet. In ‘Vitaï Lampada’ it is utilised to encourage the values learnt in conjunction with sporting competition in war. However, in ‘How to Kill’, it is used to expose the loss of innocence and the mindless killing involved in war. The similarities seen within these poems are the aspects that create such a significant difference in the meaning. It is obvious that war poems can clearly represent the ideologies and beliefs of their poets through portraying discourses that appeal to an audience and convey a specific message.

Thank-you for giving me the opportunity to talk to you today and for listening to everything I had to say.