Essay Questions

How is the literary technique of consonance used ironically in the poem?

To begin with, while assonance is the repetition of vowel sound that almost but not quite rhyme, consonance is the repetition of, obviously, sounds by consonants. It is a technique the poet engages in almost every line of the poem. The opening stanza is a perfect example in which the rhymes of “met/wet” and “inn/nipperkin” utilized the sounds of the consonants “t” and “n” respectively. This engagement of consonance on end words of the lines serve the purpose of fulfilling the rhyme. And the rhythm of that rhyme creates a light-hearted sing-songy effect that is ironic juxtaposition to the very serious topic of the poem.

What effect does the poet introduced to create rhythmic tension which subverts this sing-songy construction?

The poem is primary written in trimeter, but with one very notable and recurring exception. The third line each stanza is written tetrameter. As a result, the third line each stanza is just slightly longer than the other lines. This lengthening of each third line is only by a couple of syllables; hardly worth noticing in everyday conversation. But in a strictly regimented poem, the effect is jarring as it subverts the very purpose of the carefully applied use of consonance. The end word of the third line still rhymes with the end word of the first line—“infantry/me” and “perhaps/traps” for instance—but tension is introduced as a result of this ever so slight shift in meter. The rhythm is thrown off, but only temporarily. It does nothing to upset the irony of the sing-song effect because the rhyme takes care of that. But the story being told by the speaker gets thrown off its rails in a way that replicates the mood of the speaker as he ponders the insanity of life’s randomness.

What motivation other than the conventional wisdom of “patriotic duty” does the poem strongly suggest is the driving force behind most civilians deciding to become a soldier?

The conversational tone peppered with native colloquialisms rather than military jargon powerfully implies something the text does not assertively state: the speaker is something other than a professional soldier. The connotation qualifies his monologue makes it perfectly acceptable to assume he was once called to war, fulfilled his duty, and then went back to the life he had, but it could just as easily be argued he is a retired soldier or even quite possibly a soldier still.

The text really offers only one piece of evidence that can be forwarded to present a fairly strong argument that he is a professional soldier. When considering how the man he killed came to be in a position to be killed he admits that he made the decision to enlist on a sudden impulse. It was not a decision made out of the zealousness of patriotism. He then go on to contemplate that the other man might well have become a soldier only because he couldn’t find a job doing anything. The poem is suggesting that this is the thin line that separates the warrior from the accountant. It is not that most soldiers are pursuing dreams of valor and heroism. It is that no other avenue offering the same economic security is available to them at the time.