Comparaison Between Mcmxiv & Anthem for Doomed Youth Essay

In both of these poems Anthem For Doomed Youth and MCMXIV talking about war, Wilfred Owen and Philip Larkin try in diametrical ways to engrave in their readers minds the atrocious actions that war provoked with different language, voice but also form.First of all, the poems atomic number 18 create verbally in a different way. Anthem For Doomed Youth with his ABAB CDCD ABBACC rhyme scheme is in fact a sonnet. However, a sonnet is usually employ to exhilarate love and romance whereas Anthem For Doomed Youth focuses on the First World state of war. We can assume that Wilfred Owen surely wanted to contrast these two reversal corrections to create an ironic atmosphere. We can already guess the poem is going to be powerful and memorable. On the other hand, the second poem, MCMXIV,is composed of 4 stanzas containing each(prenominal) 8 clienteles but which dont have a rhythmic pitch. For me, it looks interchangeable Philip Larkin is narrating a tale or a story. In my opinion, the sonnet gives a rhythm to the poem and catches more the readers attention even if it seems shorter than Larkins poem.Secondly, we know both of these poems are talking about the First Wold War. however if we look a little bit closer, we can clearly feel a difference in the choice of words and language. After reading the original poem, we feel a mix of disgust, revulsion and unfairness whereas after reading Philip Larkins one, melancholia, emptiness and distress invade us. How can two poems with the same subject can lead to such different feelings?The sonnet looks like it is divided in two parts, both of the stanzas start with a question What passing-bells for these who get as cattle?, What candles may be held to speed them all? Then, the following lines answer to the questions. For me, it seems its like a speech with two rhetorical questions. The poet asks the questions but already has the answers and responds to it very precisely in a very negative way no, nor, not are used at th e beginning of a line following the question.Anthem For Doomed Youth is a small but efficient poem. Any word is present for a particular reason. The vocabulary used is snappy and harsh one such as monstrous anger nor any voice of mourning who die as cattle. It sounds like Wilfred Owen wants to seismic disturbance us. He plunges us in the horror of the war we can almost sound the stuttering rifles, see the holy glimmers of goodbyes. He definitely wants to express his disgust toward war. Indeed, we are not facing a peaceful war as the whole universe expected in 1914, these young boys do not bravely die for their nation its a horrific battle which ravage both sides but both stubbornly do not make any fall to stop this carnage.Owen makes us feel the constant fear, the incomprehension of this pointless ravage Withal, the second poem has a more smooth way of approach. Philip Larkin wants to have an affective impact. He doesnt use striking a vocabulary like Wilfred Owen but a melancholic one. There is this feeling of confinement and reclusion shut shops, sunblinds, shadowing eschaton lines. Whereas we could almost hear the stuttering rifles in Anthem For Dommed Youth, here, in MCMXIV, silence is the save tolerable sound. No one should make noise, in honour of all the groundless soldiers who fought naively for a cause that wasnt even directly linked to their nation.Wilfred Owen expresses the horror of the trench warfare whereas Philip Larkin enters in the impact on social consequences that War leaded to. Life will never be the same again after this tragedy. Not only will the soldiers be shell-shocked, but the whole population will be too. Even though women and children were not on the battlefront, they still experienced the war at home fronts.Owen also uses repetitions to emphasize some ad hoc phrases. The second and third lines both start with the word only and are followed by personifications of weapons like the monstrous anger of the guns and stuttering riffle s rapid rattle it is almost like the poet cannot even distinguish the human beings and machines. The men do not kill each others anymore, the machines do. The repetition of the no, nor, not is also a strong sign there isnt any hope in anything, we cannot see positive anymore. There is a constant anxiety in the soldiers eyes. The word choirs is also written two times. The reference in music could be positive but here, it is not.It is a music which leads to an inevitable death. It could also refer to the heartbeat of soldiers. A lamentable rhythm that could stop anytime. There is also a repetition in MCMXIV in the last stanza never (thee times). But once again, we cannot feel anger only a strong sorrow. Humans can never be innocent again after the terrible massacre of this War. Larkin accepts with resignation what happened what is done is done. The dead great deal will not come back. The only thing we can do is remember them and commemorate them. On the contrary, Owen cannot tolera te this thought and he feels obliged to touch on the catastrophic event harshly to prevent people to never do that again. The human loss is literally and psychologically intolerable.Finally, we can discuss about the poets choice of title of their poems. An anthem is a choral composition having a sacred or moralizing text. So, this poem is aimed to all the heroes who died fighting. Nevertheless, the adjective doomed comes to decay the word anthem. Doomed is just fate, something inevitable. It is true we cannot win over death but at least, we can delay it as more as we can, whereas the following word youth has a tragic connotation. Young people are not supposed to die, their fate is to enjoy life as much as they can but this war comes to destroy all their dreams and hopes. MCMXIV is the number 1914 in ancient roman. We can assume it is a reference to the past, Roman earn still exist after hundreds of years, maybe Larkin wants his poem to be remembered as much as these numbers?To c onclude, we can say that even if Wilfred Owen and Philip Larkin did have different ways of approach to talk about war, they both caused very strong feelings. One used an aggressive and impulsive pen whereas the other provoked sadness and respect toward the fallen soldiers. In fact, they definitely agree in one similar point First World War was a tragedy that no one should ever forget.