Comparison of How Two Poets Present Ideas about Conflict
There are two sides to conflict, the first is the character that causes conflict and the second is the effects of conflict. It may seem that actually causing conflict is the worst part but seeing the effects is catastrophic, and that is what the poem futility by Wilfred Owen shows us. The other side of conflict is shown in hawk roosting by Ted Hughes; this poem displays the typical character which would cause conflict. These poems seem to be so different but yet they link together and display an insight into conflict.
Within hawk roosting the poet repeats pronouns, my, me and mine to emphasise the conceit and arrogance of the creature, but within futility the poet uses direct language to address the reader directly to make the reader feel more emotionally involved, by asking questions, too hard to stir? and also by giving commands, move him into the sun are used to get the reader to think about why the soldiers life has been wasted whereas hawk roosting is just displaying the selfishness and self-centred creature which enjoys causing destruction and in this case death.
The structure of hawk roosting consists of six four-line stanzas which makes it a simple structure, and it does not have a specific rhyme scheme except for in lines 3 and 4 where the short words, feet and eat introduce the idea of the hawk as a violent killer, whereas futility is written in 14 lines with some of the traditional features of a sonnet but are divided into 2, 7 line stanzas because the tight control of a traditional sonnet is not appropriate when such shock and emotion is in the voice of the persona. The structure of hawk roosting is self-centred around the hawk and it just displays the hawk as the greedy, natural savage that it is however futility engages directly with the reader and makes you feel sympathy for the soldier and is a much more softer yet sombre poem and those tones of poems display the poets different ideas about conflict.
Hawk roosting is just written in the present tense, to give the poem a timeless feel, as if the hawk is still permitting no change and he is feeling superior to everything else in existence and killing where he pleases whereas in Futility it is written in the present and the past tense to show the contrast between the soldiers life at home, at home, whispering of fields half-sown, and his current situation, if anything might rouse him now.
The wastage of life is questioned in Futility, too hard to stir? in the second stanza the language becomes more philosophical as the poet considers whether creation is worthwhile when life can be ended so quickly however in Hawk Roosting the hawk doesnt think about life, he thinks that he is the only life that matters and he kills where he pleases without even thinking about the life he is taking and he feels no sympathy for the life he took he is just concerned with, tearing off heads and in Futility it makes the reader really think why life was created for it just to be destroyed whereas in Hawk Roosting the hawk doesnt show any remorse he just believes that, he holds creation in his foot whenever he doesnt.
In conclusion, in Hawk Roosting nature is displayed as savage and non-sympathetic but in Futility it is displayed as powerful but helpless in the face of war the soldier desperately pleas for nature to help and bring his friend back to life but when nature is displayed as savage in Hawk Roosting do you really think that the soldier should have been relying on nature to help when nature is so selfish and evil? That is what I think the difference between the poets ideas of conflict, because conflict can be displayed anywhere especially between war and nature, nature is savage and war is brutal and when you combine them together you get something that is unthinkable to even imagine as it would be disastrous to the world and to everyone around it.
Already have an account? Log In Now
6848