Maybe I am misinterpreting the saying, but when I hear "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori," I don't actually take that literally. I don't think that they actually meant that you would be happy to die, that you would actually feel joy while you were dying. Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think that's what is meant by the saying that Wilfred Owen is reacting to.
When I hear the saying, I imagine myself in a scenario. I think, if someone were to threaten harm to my family, would I be willing to stand up against them, even if it meant that I could be hurt? If someone were to threaten the liberties and freedoms of my country, would I be willing to fight, even if it meant I could die? I have never been forced into either of those scenarios, but I would like to think that I would, in fact, be willing to fight and die to protect those whom I love.
In his poem, Wilfred Owen called this saying a lie. Yet, ironically, he did die for his country. Thoughout his poem, he describes the terror, the deprivation, and the pain that these soldiers went through. I don't doubt that conditions were horrible, that they suffered greatly. However, that brings up a question I think is important: despite the horror and pain (physical, emotional, mental) that he experienced in the war, he still returned to fight. Why would he do this? If he honestly thought that there was no value to be found in fighting for one's country, why did he return to the battlefield, particularly after his breakdown? Faced with the terror of almost certain-death, why didn't he desert or defect? He must have found some reason for fighting, something more important than the terror of dying, something that would have transcended that fear, to bring him back to the battlefield.
I don't want to die, but at the same time, I believe that there are certain things that are worth dying to protect. I would like to think that, despite his words, Wilfred Owen felt the same.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with parts of what you are saying, I really found it hard to view this as an anti-war poem, mainly because Owen returned to battle is stead of deserting. For what reasons he returned, I don't know, it is possible that he had no other choice. Regardless, he did not flee from his duty, but I really feel that the controversy comes with the word ‘Dulce’, I am no Latin scholar, and this possibly has a different connotation in the original Latin, but that is where I see the ‘lie’ referred to by the author, the death is not sweet, nothing about war is sweet, not even the results of war. This is a lie made up by those that survived, or those that were not involved in the conflict to begin with. There is no honor for the deceased, there is no sweetness for them, they are numberless and nameless, and they are dead. The sweetness comes almost as a justification for those that benefited from the sacrifice, creating some sense of honor where there is none, romanticizing a horrible thing. That is where the lie is, it is not that there are not things worth sacrificing, but that the sacrifice is not sweet.
ReplyDeleteI think that the main source of our disagreement is what the 'sweetness' refers to. I am stating that it is a good and noble thing that there are people who are WILLING to die for something they see as being greater than themselves, whether that be religion, country, family, etc, whereas you are stating that there is no sweetness in their deaths, which is a sentiment that I agree with. I don't feel that it is right that they are dying, but I still applaud their courage at being willing to die for their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that anyone is disputing the courage (some would say foolishness, but hey, I'm an optimistic guy) that it would take to so intensely dedicate yourself to a cause or institution that you would be willing to die in order to further it. I think that the issue, then, comes from the reality that sometimes those deaths, while perhaps always tragic, still have to happen at all.
ReplyDeletePerhaps there is some sweetness in all of this for the survivors. However, it's incredibly difficult to enjoy that sweetness if one is dead.
I'm taking a WWII class and all the stories of all the senseless killings really make me sick! Many a time I feel that War is a useless tool for a weak mind. For if we were smarter human beings we would find a different way to solve our problems. But with all the wars and loss of the past we still seek out the so-called "glories of war" Why?? Men always say it is for my country or my family, and I think this holds true for most. But I can't help but think that there is some other reason men seek to conquer, fight ,and become "Heroes" I think the "lie" that Owen is talking about is how he imagined war to be, how maybe his comrades thought war would be. I don't think it’s an anti-war poem, or "I wish I could defect" poem. I think is more about a boy becoming a man through the trials of war. His vision is not of daydreams anymore but of reality, and he wants to share that reality.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLet us take an example of the smart men who tried to prevent war: Stanley Baldwin, Ramsey McDonald and Neville Chamberlain. These three men were in charge of the British Government from 1923 to 1940; 17 years. During that time their foreign policy towards Hitler or any other belligerent, was to actively seek another way around the conflict. At all costs they wanted to avoid war. In the process they negotiated away countries they did not own, allowed Hitler lead his country from military pygmy to Behemoth, neglected their own defenses and led their countries into another bloody, costly, stupid war. Every instance in the years leading up to that war, where Hitler challenged the agreement of the armistice, they had the chance to challenge him militarily and crush his chances for European domination. But they tried for a smarter solution. I can't say that I blame them for trying, but I can blame them for not being alert to reality and how to deal with someone like Hitler, or Mussolini, or Stalin, or Kruschev, or Hussein, or Bin Ladin, etc. They were played for fools. Hitler used them as pawns. Why? Because he wanted to dominate, he wanted to conquer and have power and he would stop at nothing to get it. Now you will notice a difference between how the British interacted with countries who were not hell-bent on conquest and domination. Yes, war is awful, but what would be a smarter way of dealing with a megalomaniac? How do you talk to them? How do you negotiate with them? How would you negotiate with Hitler?
ReplyDelete