Blindly read

A constant that runs through Felicia Hemans’s “Casabianca” and Gwendolyn Brooks’s “First Fight, then Fiddle” is a theme of war. Hemans poem is a tragic depiction of the effects of war, and uses her writing as a critique of unnecessary deaths caused in fighting. Brooks describes war as a necessity in order for culture and society to thrive. It is easy to see how these two poems can be interpreted as opposing arguments to war, Brooks’s in support, Hemans’s arguing against war. Hemans incorporates beautiful scenes of fire to tell her story of disastrous loyalty while Brooks argues that war is needed for civilization to become well-cultured. Clearly, they seem to oppose each other.

While both offer compelling imagery and seem to present counter arguments to the other’s interpretation of war, “Casabianca” and “First Fight, then Fiddle” both work to show the positives in great tragedy. Yet, they do so in different forms. Hemans uses the minute events of war to show some of the best qualities of mankind, while Brooks justifies war by writing of the positive results that come from it.

First, Hemans uses many positives in describing the young boy who perished in battle. Hemans starts by calling the boy, “a creature of heroic blood, a proud, thought child-like form.” Those who fight in war are often the most courageous of a society, those willing to die for an idea, a country or a people. War brings out the best people in a society. Even if the cause is unjust, it takes much gumption to willingly sacrifice yourself for an abstract concept. Later, Hemans describes the boy’s mental state as “brave despair.” A strange oxymoron, it serves two purposes. While reminding readers of the inevitable deadly consequences of war, she plants an image of almost pitiful, but very admirable loyalty. The closing stanza finishes the poem with “But the noblest thing which perished there, was that young faithful heart.” Again, reminding us that war ultimately ends in tragedy, Hemans completes the poem telling us that the boy who perished, died with good intentions. The boy was steadfast in his resolve to follow orders and defend his ship and country; he was willing to accept his fate for a greater cause, even if he did so blindly. It is the character of the boy that Hemans wants us to recognize.

Brooks’s poem presents another positive side to war, the results. Brooks’s entire premise is that in order for a society’s culture to thrive, they must have a place that is free from oppression to do so. Her poem tells the reader to “muzzle the note with hurting love.” Brooks is telling us that war is necessary in some situations to accomplish certain positive results. The idea of necessity is reinforced later in the poem, “But first to arms, to armor.” Brooks wants her readers to realize that culture cannot come without a safe haven and war is sometimes necessary to create one. Yet Brooks still reminds us of the deadly consequences saying that the people must “rise bloody.” Also, similar to Hemans’s poem, Brooks is describing war as something for the brave. Hurting love represents a courageous sacrifice. Tying these ideas together, Brooks’s final lines those who take on the brave challenge of carving themselves a space for culture will be fairly rewarded with a place to “play your violin.”