War poetry review

Year 9 students were asked to select a poet from World War One in their English lessons and produce an overview of their poetry, with a particular focus on language, structural and contextual analysis. Ellie B chose Siegfried Sassoon and below is her submission.

Siegfried Sassoon was once a typically patriotic, typically English man, born in 1886, who eagerly joined the Sussex Yeomanry in 1914, following in the footsteps of his elder brother Michael.

Hamo, Sassoon’s younger brother, was killed in action during the war. Sassoon also saw first-hand the damage a prolonged war will do to a person’s mental and physical health. He was even awarded a military cross for his near-suicidal exploits in battle, saving comrades. However, he became disillusioned around 1917, roughly halfway through the war, beginning to write forceful, angry poetry.  His first compiled volume The Old Huntsman (1917) was the public’s first exposure to his graphic, satirical poetry. Winston Churchill dismissed it as “cries of pain wrung from soldiers during a test to destruction,” and said no more on the subject.

In early July 1916, he took part in the advancement of the Battle of the Somme. He wrote despondent, graphic diary entries clearly depicting the life at the Front. He became ill in early 1917, prior to returning to France to fight in the Battle of Arras.

When recovering from injuries in hospital, he wrote a savage letter to Parliament, and at the urging of Bernard Russell, it was read out in the House of Commons. Sassoon expected to be court-martialled for the protest, but renowned and respected Mr Robert Graves swooped in and pronounced Sassoon “shell-shocked”. It was during his time in Craighlockart Hospital, Edinburgh that he wrote some of his most well-known poetry and nurtured a friendly relationship with notable fellow soldier, Wilfred Owen.

The poem ‘Suicide in the Trenches’ is one of his most poignant poems for me. Its purpose is to show the horrors of trench warfare and battle to those ‘kindling eye’ at home.

The metaphor ‘kindling eye’ is used to imitate the lighting of a fire in the crowd’s eyes. Sassoon also compares war to hell, putting specific emphasis on the change war induces, even upon the most even-tempered and kind among us.

The innocence of the solider is laid completely bare in the first stanza. The use of a simple rhyme and iambic tetrameter draws attention to the alliteration and subtler connotations.

Use of many words with peaceful, joyous connotations imply the solider was kind, but perhaps not the sharpest.

The words ‘simple’ and ‘boy’ illustrate an image of youth, which prolongs that feeling of innocence.

The tone of the poem, the feelings and imagery change dramatically between the first and second stanza. The use of connotations darkens, as words such as ‘grinned’ and ‘whistled’ become more morbid words like ‘glum’ and ‘cowed’. This makes his point as clear as day to me. Sassoon is asking the crowds and the politicians a very specific question: How could you possibly do this to him?

He is pouring scorn on the cheering crowds that await soldiers when they come home, putting specific emphasis upon how those at home will NEVER feel the horrors their ‘heroes’ have been subjected to. Sassoon uses the word ‘sneak’ which, in my opinion is always used to describe who creeps around behind those who are braver, those who are prepared to “take one for the team” as it were.  

‘Base Details’ is my favourite of all the war poems we have discussed over the previous half term. Its precise prose aimed heavily at the commanding officers of the army, with references to the specific Officer dubbed the ‘Butcher of the Somme’. Sassoon stereotypes the commanders as ‘puffy’ and ‘petulant’, and whilst some certainly didn’t fit this bracket, most did. Through the use of the subjunctive tense, usage of the words ‘If I were’; Sassoon communicates that he will never be one of these officers in his lifetime.

One of the most blamed men for the tragedies of the First World War was Field Marshal Haig, who is hinted at several times in this poem. During Sassoon’s ‘Mad Jack’ period, he saved a solider during heavy fire. He did this under General Haig; however, this does not mean Haig was present at the time. He was sat in a five-star hotel in Paris, which explains away the line ‘Guzzling and gulping in the best hotel.’ This shows the attitude the officers had towards the war, along with the eighth line. Using the word ‘scrap’ indicates the officers’ attitude by showing they feel a battle is simply inconsequential.

The very last line is the most sarcastic line of this poem, although it comes up against stiff competition. Sassoon saved his most savage point until the end: officers never have to risk their lives for the so-called good of the country.

In ‘Who’s for the Game?’ Jessie Pope shows the classic British patriotism, the deluded fantasy that displays war as a simple game. A way for a boy to show his manliness. She describes war as fun.

I think Siegfried Sassoon has a much more realistic approach towards the mass genocide of conflict; that of educating the public as to the horrors endured and the laid-back, negligent approach of the officers.

I agree with Sassoon’s relentless attack upon the public, and feel he did so in an eloquent, meaningful way, from his subtle digs throughout his poems to the fierce physical action of tearing away the ribbon of his military cross.  

What I find ironic is how angry Sassoon would be now, as we analyse his poetry and justify his savage actions. We haven’t felt the sickening consequences of war, so why are we worthy to make judgement about his work, his reasons and his life?