War is wonderful

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, even in basic style. Hemans uses evokes powerful sensations through effective story-telling. Her poem is marked with descriptive phrases such as “The flames rolled on,” and desperate dialogue, “My father! Must I stay?” Brooks approaches her poem as more of a speech, direct and less provocative of emotion. As if a calm elder speaking to students of war, Brooks writes, “First fight. Then fiddle.” It is almost a logical appeal to the senses.

Brooks and Hemans take a different approach to one issue, war. While both offer compelling imagery and seem to present counter arguments to the other’s interpretation of war on even the most basic levels, “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. The unending loyalty of the child is established right away. “The boy stood on the burning deck, whence all but he had fled,” opens the poem, immediately saluting the quality and character of the child soldier. War does many things, including setting apart the true followers from those who simply tag along for the benefits of a war. The most courageous, those willing to die for a cause will continue the fight no matter how helpless a situation, simply because they believe in the cause.

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. To further exemplify this, she tells the reader to “carry hate in front of you and harmony behind.” Brooks explains in this line that fighting is often one’s only form of protection in certain circumstances. She argues war comes first, but something good must follow. War is not simply fought for fighting’s sake, but just war has a cause behind it that leads to a positive end result.

Yet Brooks still reminds us of the deadly consequences saying that the people must “rise bloody.” From tragedy, rise good things. The end of war brings a final peace, the type of peace Brooks maybe suggesting is required for such cultural advancement to take place. Also, similar to Hemans’s poem, Brooks is describing war as something for the brave. Painful love represents a courageous sacrifice. Tying these ideas together, those who take on the brave challenge of carving themselves a space for culture, “For having first to civilize a space,” will be fairly rewarded with a place to “play your violin.”

Compared together, similar ideas run through these two poems. Both authors remind us that war is foremost, deadly and has many tragic consequences. It is clear in “Casabianca,” but a little more subtle in its presentation in Brook’s poem. Brooks puts in more general terms that hate must be had for war to be waged, while blood will be shed. Different scales are used, but the same message is being sent. Brooks uses a much more broad view, while Hemans singles in on one event, attempting to use it as an example of overall tragedy. The difference in scales can also be seen on the flipside, the positives of war. Hemans picks on person to exemplify all that is good in war, courage and loyalty, while Brooks uses an entire society as the example of positives in war. Again, the same message is passed along using different methods. Hemans small scale approach to the issue of war gives us a much more personified and personal feel to the poem. Brooks offers us a little more detachment, but allows us to consider the societal impacts of war and what positives may arise. Moreover, “Casabianca” uses individual qualities, personal bravery and one person’s loyalty to a commanding officer to display the good that is shown and comes from war. Brooks focuses on the success of an entire society. Her Volta, shows this point the best. She uses the word “civilize,” referring to a task that both requires and serves the purpose of a larger population. The differences in scale provide two glimpses into the same issue, an issue which both Brooks and Hemans arguably fall on the same side.

Both poems read literally and quickly seem to offer opposing view points on war. Hemans may be writing as a tragic explanation of the consequences of war and why it must be avoided. On the other hand, at first glance, Brooks is a clear advocate of war. When read a little more deeply, both offer the same argument, that while tragedy and death are inevitable in warfare, the good that stems from war, the qualities displayed in war are not only positives but sometimes desired. 

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.”

Using a well-known popular culture figure as the subject of a poem can be very effective, but it also has some negative effects. Reading the poem, it can be broadly approached in two ways. First, the advantage of using such an acclaimed figure can be seen as a sell-out of the field of English poetry. Rarely is poetry seen as the delivery method for pop-culture; the big screen or television is a more likely avenue. Yet, with the use of such a popular figure, the poem is much more engaging, much more receivable by the general public. A reader with little training or understanding of poetic devices, historical context and literary references can still appreciate and enjoy reading a poem about a popular fictional figure.

At the same time, using pop-culture as a basis for a poem doesn’t make the poem any less literary. Though there is more liberal use of colloquialism, it still paints a vivid picture. It offers strong writing, though not standard for prose. It is by no means weak of word choice nor does it display a lack of literary knowledge. It’s simply a different subject of attention.

Because it lacks the normal entrance points of analysis, scansion, rhyme scheme and structure, it offers a different angle of engagement. The use of pop-culture figures adds another dimension to the subject, because a reference point can be alluded to when beginning to read into the poem. For this particular example, Batman is the figure of this poem, but he is a defeated man exemplifying all that can go wrong with society. We know him as a powerful vigilante, who stands for all the right things. The author’s choice of subject gives more depth in analyzing the character than other characters may offer. Furthermore, the use of colloquialism and various cursing humanizes the character in a way that the big-screen often fails to portray. He suffers from what we suffer; connecting, understanding such a character may often prove easier than dissecting a bigger than life, complex character. Another angle is as a more active, readable poem. The actions in this poem can be read into more than imagery created. It’s a refreshing point of view.

 

Part 2

"Bond, James Bond"

To watch this man in action is a thrill.

No lady can resist him.

He is the man with a license to kill.

 

Twenty-two films and we haven’t our fill.

His style is most grim.

To watch this man in action is a thrill.

 

There is no match for his skill

To think, he kills on a whim.

He is the man with a license to kill.

 

The man never falls to ill will.

His deadliest match: a hat’s brim.

To watch this man in action is a thrill.

 

In him, our dreams fulfill.

His cause right, no act a sin.

He is the man with a license to kill.

 

Saving girls, he crashes through windows sills.

Killing villains, he tears them apart by limb.

To watch this man in action is a thrill.

He is the man with a license to kill.

 

 

A never-ending bowl

Emily Dickinson’s “I dwell in Possibility” uses the uncommon em-dash in a seemingly nonchalant way. She structures her poems in a way, through the use of the em-dash to create a seemingly endless poem. Rather than using periods to complete a thought and signify a new idea, she leads the reader line to line fluidly, connecting each idea with a secondary idea or thought, before returning to her main topic. The use of the em-dash in this sense is as a unique divider that both separates and adds on to the previous phrase.

“I dwell in Possibility—
A fairer House than Prose—
More numerous of Windows—
Superior—for Doors—”

Here the idea of subordinating ideas can be seen clearly. Her first thought is about thinking in the realm of all that is possible, but before going on to explain why she does or what she’s doing in that realm, she adds on a secondary thought that Possibility is greater than Prose. Again, before continuing back to her main idea, she breaks off again to explain why this house is fairer than Prose with a phrase separated by em-dashes. Because each short phrase is related to the previous, she links them together continuing the thought.

“Of Chambers as the Cedars—
Impregnable of Eye—
And for an Everlasting Roof
The Gambrels of the Sky—”

Again, all the separations link easily back to a previous idea. They are subordinate. Dickinson continues to describe the House of Possibility; the Chambers of the House must be invisible, while the roof should be made of heavenly Gambrels.

“Of visitors—the fairest—
For Occupation—This—
The spreading wide my narrow Hands
To gather Paradise—”

These last few em-dashes seem to continue the idea of secondary idea connectors. The visitors that come to the house are the fairest, while the occupation is a collecting of literary Paradise. Interestingly, she ends with an em-dash. It signifies that she hasn’t completed her original thought, the one that began in line one, “I dwell in Possibility.” Here the em-dash might serve a different purpose, one of continuance. Without a finite ending to the poem, one that could be shown with a period, her opening line rings true. Anything is possible, because nothing has been completed.

Overall, Dickinson’s poem describes her choice of writing in poetry over prose and the reasoning behind it. She sees poetry as limitless opportunities. The many “Windows,” mean the many options a poet has, while the impregnability describes the ambiguity given in a poem versus prose. The em-dashes perfectly compliment those ideas; in no prose would such usage of em-dashes be regular, in no prose would the em-dash be open for meaningful interpretation. Dickinson uses the em-dashes to effectively prove her point, the same point about which she writes. 

Firey loyalty

In Heman’s Casabianca, the most prominent image is that of fire. It continues throughout the poem in various forms and intensities and dominates all other imagery in the writing. The oft-mentioned flames lead themselves to present a feeling of desperation that grows towards the end of the poem until the climax. Additionally, unending loyalty is a striking image that runs through the work. While prominent, this picture of devotion is subordinate to the flames.

While the imagery of fire lends itself to easy interpretation, the idea of unending loyalty sends a more powerful message. Throughout the poem, the child refuses to remove himself from his position unless ordered to do so by his commanding officer, his father. The son does not realize his father had passed. The powerful loyalty of the son can be inspiring, yet terrifying if the implications are understood. The loyalty is his undoing; he refuses to leave the boat without permission. It is as if he is trained to only take orders. A sense of self and self-preservation does not seem to exist. It seems almost robotic in the sense that the son cannot understand humanity’s greatest goal: to survive. Moreover, the son is robotic in that he cannot think for himself. There seems to be no self-awareness, but rather his existence is commanded by being a follower.

Though written in the early 1800s, a modern-day approach to this poem can explain it as a critique of society. Hemans could be suggesting society’s willingness to blindly follow the government or the leaders of a society. In this literal case, the absolute trust placed in the chieftain leads to the demise of his son. In more general, applied terms, Hemans could be suggesting that the dependency that grows out of a society for its government can be beneficial but terrifying when crisis erupts. Dependency leads to less of a “think-for-yourself” attitude in society and without use, it gets pushed aside. Hemans paints a beautiful scene of heroic loyalty while simultaneously shows the flaws.