“Naming of parts” by Henry Reed, and “War is Kind” by Stephen Crane Essay

Warouhh.What is it good forabsolutely vigour sang Edwin Starr in 1965. He felt the same vibe that both(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) Henry Reed and Stephen Crane felt in their poesys, grant of separate and War is Kind. Although these actors may non have said it as unbiased as Starr did in his hit single War, they still had just as much hatred of war. Both Reed and Crane have essential their views on war through their pen styles, their usage of figurative language, and their attitudes toward war in general.Henry Reed and Stephen Crane both have really different writing styles. Reeds style in Naming of Parts is built upon juxtaposition. Guns and tends, soldiers and bees the metrical composition relates the unrelated in order to cash in ones chips a clear line between the horrors of war and the fruits of record. How forever, the poem goes come on than just contrasting opposites. The structure and language of the poem combine to fancy how one should become the other in hopes that the harmonious image of this heaven transforms the unnatural feat of war. His overall structure also serves to make temperament better. Each stanza is split between the dry, unimaginative language of the first speaker, plausibly the tire sergeant, and the poetic language engrossd by the gage speaker to describe nature.In every stanza, the gentle and peaceful language of the second speaker is quite dominant over the monotone voice of the drill instructor. This shows that war disturbs the balance of nature. Stephen Crane, in War is Kind, develops his style by employ vivid imagery and sarcasm. Through doing this, he leads the reader directly to his perspective of war. He feels war is a horrible way to solve problems and uses irony to tell us that war is blatantly stupid. Nothing good has ever come from it and zero ever will. The American flag, The unexplained glory, flies higher up them to symbolize that the glory they were fighting for was not earned ri ghteously, it was stolen by these trivial menborn to drill and die.Both authors also heavily use figurative language to help create a picture of what they cut in their minds as they wrote these poems. Henry Reeds entire poem is entangled in figurative language. He shows us a perfect balance of the world of nature in the sections of the poem that describe the garden. The garden is a symbol of life and beauty a magical place, slow and eloquent. In the garden, we see the personification of branches whichhold in the gardens their silent, eloquent gestures. We atomic number 18 told of blossoms that are fragile and motionless, neer letting bothone see / any of them victimization their finger. We also witness bees assaulting and fumbling the flowers. These examples of figurative language create a picture in our mind to which Reed can build his report card upon. Crane uses more subtle figurative language to get his institutionalize across in War is Kind. The excellent use of irony draws us to his imagery and metaphors. The metaphor in the middle of the second stanza helps point in the direction of the true meaning of the poem. And his Kingdom a field where a thousand corpses lie, proves that all of the dead bodies after the war do not belong there. This world is Gods creation and war was not part of His plan.In War is Kind and Naming of the Parts, both authors attitudes toward war are similar but only on the basic level. They both believe war is a tremendous waste of time for it solves nothing at all. For Stephen Crane, this deeply ironic poem is not only an flack catcher on war and all of its horror but also a statement against violence of any kind. This includes the violence that we observe daily, mans inhumanity to man, and the wildness and fury within our own hearts, which are equally as destructive. The poem comments on those little souls who thirst for fight, who find virtue in something as horrifying as slaughter and excellence in a field of a thous and corpses. In Naming of the Parts, Reed tells of the instructor that insists that the men not let him / see anyone using his finger. At the end of the same stanza, the blossoms are seen never letting anyone see / any one of them using their finger. Although not directly stated in the poem, perhaps the soldiers should take a cue from the blossoms, and in turn nature, not to use their fingers, especially on the trigger. This contributes to his negative view of war. He structures nature to be more powerful than these soldiers and in turn society. Natures silent and eloquent state of being show that war should never be used as a solution to a problem.Although both of these poems were in some way about the topic of war, each author has developed their own way of conveying how they feels through their unique writing styles, how they use figurative language, and their ownattitudes about war. Imagine what the world would be like if only we stopped and actually thought what we were doing. Maybe then we would realize, like Edwin Starr and these two authors did, that war is not the solution to the problem, but sooner the root.