Anti-War Owen’s “Dulce et Decorum Est” and Dylan’s “Masters of War” Essay

War has always served as an object of ardent discussions and reflections among politicians, philosophers, and theologians. People of art have not stood aside, which has brought about a number of paintings, books, movies, and other pieces representing or examining war. The poem “Dulce et Decorum Est” by Wilfred Owen is considered as one of the most powerful images of war ever created by a poet. In his work, Owen condemns those who do not get involved in the deadly fight by themselves, but. At the same time, encourage others to do so. Bob Dylan’s famous song, “Masters of War,” has a similar meaning. Both Owen and Dylan express the emotions of disgust and hatred towards war through the use of word choice and poetic forms, such as emphatic structures, similes, repetitions, and word choice.

In the time dimension, there is a gap of several decades between the poem and the song. Owen wrote “Dulce et Decorum Est” at the end of the 1910s, whereas Dylan created “Masters of War” in 1963 (Araujo 326; Førland 340). Still, despite half a century between them, the two pieces have much in common in terms of the authors’ choice of stylistic devices for conveying their views. There are instances of similes in both writings, which Owen and Dylan employ to describe soldiers and those sending them to war, respectively. With the help of similes, Owen depicts those returning home from war “like old beggars under sacks (1) and “like a man in fire or lime” (12). Meanwhile, Dylan uses similes “Like it’s your little toy” (12) and “Like Judas of old” (17) to describe the rulers who send young men to participate in atrocious battles. The moral connection between the poem and the song is evident. Dylan’s criticism of capitalists who are ready to do anything to become richer is reflected in Owen’s description of how those exploited for such enrichment look after the war is over.

The word choice in the song and poem is similar to a great extent, although Owen’s vocabulary is much more sophisticated than Dylan’s. Still, there are some striking parallels between the two pieces, the closest one being in the description of young soldiers’ bodies upon being wounded. In Owen’s poem, it is mentioned that “Many had lost their boots, / But limped on, blood-shod” (5-6). In Dylan’s song, the masters of war hide at the time “young people’s blood / Flows out of their bodies / And is buried in the mud” (30-32). Thus, both authors make an emphasis on how bloody the war is. They show that many young people suffer unjustly, not quite sure what they are fighting for, and why they have to lose their health and lives.

A prominent place in both pieces is given to repetitions. In Owen’s poem, there is one instance of consecutive repetition: “Gas! GAS!” (9). Dylan repeats some phrases at the beginning or in the middle of several successive lines: “You that build” (2-4), “You that hide behind” (5-6), “I see through” (21-23), “You might say” (41-44). Although the structure of repetitions is different in the poem and the song, both authors pursue the same goal: the reiteration helps them to intensify certain ideas in the written pieces.

Another common issue pertaining to the poem and song is the mentioning of children. Owen uses children as a hypothetic object of addressing for the one who may try to persuade young people to go to war: “children ardent for some desperate glory” (26). Meanwhile, Dylan speaks about children as “Unborn and unnamed” generations due to the fear of people to procreate in this cruel world (38). Both poets blame those who are afraid to enlist but urge others to do so. Owen says, “you too could pace / Behind the wagon,” which means that they have not actually followed any of such wagons (17-18). Dylan, too, accuses the elites of being cowards, but he does it more directly. He says that the authorities “hide” (5), “never done nothin’” (9), ‘put a gun in my hand” (13) and “hide from my eyes” (14). Hence, both authors blame and condemn the system that destroys the lives of thousands of people while not helping them in any way both during and after the war.

Finally, it is relevant to note that anti-war views expressed in “Dulce et Decorum Est” and “Masters of War” have been acclaimed both by contemporary critics and those from the following generations. Day Lewis remarks that Owen was the only poet who rose above the “the sadly pedestrian rabble” (qtd. in Araujo 333). What concerns Dylan, he is regarded as the personality whose “footprints” were “so impressive” that his lead was followed by “a whole generation” (Førland 337). Both authors’ loathing of war is clearly depicted not only in the lyrics but also in the titles. Owen divides a famous Latin phrase into two parts so that someone seeing the title may think that his poem is going to be patriotic, which turns out to be the opposite. Dylan’s referring to the people ruling the wars as masters is also not void of irony.

Wilfred Owen’s “Dulce et Decorum Est” and Bob Dylan’s “Masters of War” have much in common. The use of similar stylistic devices makes it possible to draw common features in the two seemingly different pieces of poetry. Both authors have employed repetitions, similes, and emphatic structures to make their writing more impressive and expressive. However, what unites the poem and the song most of all is the mutual hatred of war and the cowards who hide behind soldiers’ backs.

Works Cited

Araujo, Anderson D. “Jessie Pope, Wilfred Owen, and the Politics of Pro Patria Mori in World War I Poetry.” Media, War and Conflict, vol. 7, no. 3, 2014, pp. 326-341.

Dylan, Bob. “Masters of War.” Bob Dylan, 1963, Web.

Førland, Tor Egil. “Bringing It All Back Home or Another Side of Bob Dylan: Midwestern Isolationist.” Journal of American Studies, vol. 26, no. 3, 1992, pp. 337-355.

Owen, Wilfred. “Dulce et Decorum Est.” Poetry Foundation, 1921, Web.