Comparison of the “1914 V: The Soldier” and “Soldier’s Farewell”

Comparison of the “1914 V: The Soldier” and “Soldier’s Farewell”

We’ve come so far in terms of civilisation, yet war is still a concept that is prominent and even thriving in our world. The poems “1914 V: The Soldier” by Rupert Brooke, and “Soldier’s Farewell” by Mike Subritzky both counter the prospect of war but uses different viewpoints. Putting into mind that Brooke came from WW1 while Subritzky wrote the poem during WW2, their mindsets might differ. “1914 V: The Soldier” had a very patriotic outlook on war while the author in “Soldier’s Farewell” slandered war by saying he was leaving, and never coming back. I’ll be analysing and evaluating how both poets have expressed their point of view in this essay. 

Both poets were directly involved with war, as they both were soldiers themselves. Rupert Brooke represented England in World War One. He, like many others, was enthralled with the idea that war was an adventure, a heroic act of which to defend and show your loyalty for your country. He died in 1915. Mike Subritzky was a New Zealand poet and soldier from World War Two.
Both of them wind up with similar perspectives of war, but bring different experiences.

The poems both relate to the war with vastly different outlooks. Brooke as mentioned earlier, has a very patriotic outlook. His love and loyalty for his country is portrayed with the emphasis put on England, which is mentioned six times across the whole poem. He thought that “That there’s some corner of a foreign field, That is forever England.” This shows how much he believes that no matter dead or alive, he still represents his country. He would still be willing to represent his country even through the anguish of dying in the war. Subritzky however looks at war in a more negative light. He repeats “no more” multiple times throughout the piece, he is desperate to get away from war. “I won’t be coming back.” he states. War drove him to the point where he disregards his country for his own selfishness. All in all, Brooke is willing to sacrifice himself while Subritzky thinks war is not worth his own death.

The settings for both poems are different. “1914 V: The Soldier” was set in World War One, while “Soldiers Farewell” was set in World War Two. World War One was set earlier so it’s no wonder that people regarded war as an adventure. War was still a new concept for many, and they wouldn’t know the more ugly side of war. “In hearts at peace, under an English heaven.” Death comes at peace with Brooke, because it’s for his country. Technology was more advanced in World War Two. The new technology brings new vocabulary in Subritzky’s piece.

Both poets do not use individual characters, but both convey their feelings in first person. Subritzky uses his own experiences, as he calls out his finality with each experience. Brooke also personifies England though. “Her sights and sounds; dreams happy as her day;” Sibilance here emphasises ‘sweet’. Personifying England as a female plays up to gender roles, as the female gender is stereotypically known for their ‘nurturing’ characteristics. The rhyme and iambic pentameter gives the poem a definite beat and rhythm. Read aloud it’s almost like a rant, with no time for hesitation. It gives off a confident feeling. Subritzky knows what he wants, and it’s to leave. Pronouns are used everywhere, the poem is about him and how he feels.

The rhetorical devices and poetic techniques are relatively different as well. Brooke’s seems to use more elaborate techniques like enjambment and caesura, while Subritzky’s uses repetition and slang, like “ain’t” over the piece. It almost goes to show that while Brooke’s wrote his with care and attention, Subritzky was rushed as if to say he was done with formalities.

In conclusion a time rift in which the poets have written their pieces might have been part of the reason for the poets different views. It’s an adventure for Brooke, while Subritzky finds himself more than happy to leave the military.