Owen, Faulks and Barker attempt to express the horrors of trench warfare through carefully crafting their language but, in doing so, prove that the horrors are so great that no form of language can truly express it. Mansur, quoting Howard Pinter, argues that “the more tense the experience, the less articulate the expression”, believing Owen cannot communicate the true horrors of war however eloquently he writes. It can be presumed that Faulks and Barker, through vivid imagery, also fail to do this. However, this is a false presumption to make. By using “articulate expression” , Faulks and Barker prevent themselves from immersing in the suffering of the soldiers, but they become spectators fully capable of describing what they see, the “tense
…show more content…
In “Birdsong”, Faulks does this through gruesome imagery when he describes a soldier being treated in hospital, yet it is his lack of a voice which is most unsettling: when he tries to speak instead he brings up “a yellow froth from his …show more content…
Thus, it is significant that Mansur criticises him for attempting this. However, in his preface, Owen writes “my subject is war, and the pity of war”, perhaps meaning that Owen wishes to shed light on the voiceless soldiers who have suffered greatly due to war. Owen, much like Faulks and Barker, never gives the soldiers a voice other than the single exclamation of “Gas! Gas! Quick, boys!”, interrupting his vivid painting of the emotions of the soldiers. This is, as Mansur suggests, Owen’s only example of “inarticulate expression”. The combination of short sentences, imperatives and exclamation marks create a sense of frantic urgency as Owen describes how the soldiers rush to save their own lives and their comrades’. Owen wrote “Dulce et Decorum est” in response to Jessie Pope’s poem “Who’s for the Game” that uses an upbeat rhythm, mimicking a sporting chant, to encourage soldiers to enlist. Surrounded with eloquence, Owen’s “inarticulate expression” reminds us of the individual soldiers behind the devastation: those who face the horrors without the safety of simply being a spectator. Owen, unlike Faulks and Barker, makes the reader uncomfortable by absorbing them into the mind of the soldier. It is important to note that Owen himself was a soldier who experienced extreme mental and physical horror,
In “Birdsong”, Faulks does this through gruesome imagery when he describes a soldier being treated in hospital, yet it is his lack of a voice which is most unsettling: when he tries to speak instead he brings up “a yellow froth from his …show more content…
Thus, it is significant that Mansur criticises him for attempting this. However, in his preface, Owen writes “my subject is war, and the pity of war”, perhaps meaning that Owen wishes to shed light on the voiceless soldiers who have suffered greatly due to war. Owen, much like Faulks and Barker, never gives the soldiers a voice other than the single exclamation of “Gas! Gas! Quick, boys!”, interrupting his vivid painting of the emotions of the soldiers. This is, as Mansur suggests, Owen’s only example of “inarticulate expression”. The combination of short sentences, imperatives and exclamation marks create a sense of frantic urgency as Owen describes how the soldiers rush to save their own lives and their comrades’. Owen wrote “Dulce et Decorum est” in response to Jessie Pope’s poem “Who’s for the Game” that uses an upbeat rhythm, mimicking a sporting chant, to encourage soldiers to enlist. Surrounded with eloquence, Owen’s “inarticulate expression” reminds us of the individual soldiers behind the devastation: those who face the horrors without the safety of simply being a spectator. Owen, unlike Faulks and Barker, makes the reader uncomfortable by absorbing them into the mind of the soldier. It is important to note that Owen himself was a soldier who experienced extreme mental and physical horror,