Is it sweet and fitting to die for your country; is war really kind? In comparison of two poems, Wilfred Owen's "Dulce et Decorum Est," and Stephen Crane's "War is Kind;" both successfully use language to describe how they see war and will help find out if there is an answer to the question above.
             What type of language am I referring to between "Dulce et Decorum Est," and "War is Kind?" What I mean is that they are both portrayals of how they see the war whether it is negative or positive. First lets focus on Wilfred Owen's "Dulce et Decorum Est." The title of this poem threw me for a loop. When I read the title "Dulce et Decorum Est;" which when translated means, "It is sweet and fitting to die for your country," I thought it was going to be about a soldier speaking of how honorable it is to die for his country. On the contrary it was sad and rather graphic and not so pleasant an account of what the war was like through his eyes. If I had to think of one word to describe Wilfred Owen's "Dulce et Decorum Est," it would be that it is very explicit. It is straight and to the point. Simply because Wilfred doesn't include many implications, and this would explain the graphic details in his poem. Why butter up the truth, he might say, this is what happened, so be it. A good example might be, "The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est," It states that they feel that it is not so fitting to die for your country. The last difference, again it is discussed in Literature and the Writing Process (pages 450-452). The authors speak of metaphor and similes. The poem Dulce et Decorum Est uses metaphor and similes to get his point across. The book uses a good example, "...his hanging face, like a devil's sick sin." The word like shows us that the author is making use of a simile here and he does this more than once. Like the book...