preview

A Comparison Of Emily Dickinson And Rupert Dickinson

Decent Essays

Since the emergence of written history, many fables regarding war have encompassed a significant portion of prosodic literature. Two of the foremost war poets of the 19th and 20th century—Emily Dickinson and Rupert Brooke—have both written about profound implications of war on society and also upon the human spirit albeit in two very different styles. The book, Catcher in the Rye by J.D Salinger, theorizes through Allie, that Emily Dickinson was indubitably the superior war poet. Furthermore, when we analyze their works as well, we realize the invariable fact that Dickinson’s work delves into war with a much more holistic approach as well. She not only honours the soldiers for their valiant efforts, but also deftly weaves notions of liberty and civilian duty in regards to war as well as compared to Rupert Brooke who carried a romanticized imagery of martyrs within his poetry. In summation, Emily Dickinson is a superior war poet for her incisive analysis of death, and human nature in correspondence to war as compared to the patriotic salvos of Rupert Brooke’s poetry. Death is an ubiquitous aspect of war; in virtually all wars, the sacrifice of soldiers is necessary for fruition. One of the reasons why Emily Dickinson could be considered a superior war poet to Rupert Brooke would be her method of deftly taking a more holistic approach to death within her poetry. For instance, Dickinson attempts to emphasize with the martyrs who perished in war. She wants to know whether the

Get Access