Summary
The speaker begins the poem's second stanza by explicitly stating that he doesn't consider Death to be an enemy. The soldiers consider him to be a friend and have good times with him. Furthermore, it's not their job to consider Death an enemy—they don't get paid to rebel against Death. While accompanied by Death, the soldiers laugh at the future soldiers fighting in bigger wars. They imagine with amusement that these future soldiers might boastfully claim to be fighting Death in support of life, rather than fighting fellow men in support of a flag.
Analysis
This poem is a vehicle for a single firm moral message, and it's in this stanza that Wilfred Owen makes that message as clear as possible. The speaker explains that his friendliness with Death doesn't have anything to do with liking Death personally. Rather, he is friendly with Death because, as a soldier, he's required to be. It would be absurd to hate Death, because soldiers are paid to kill others and to put themselves in a position to be killed. Therefore, the powers who have sanctioned war mandate that soldiers become friendly with Death. But there's a greater evil even than getting to know Death intimately, the speaker asserts, and that evil is wartime propaganda or any other narrative that softens the truth about war. Not only will there be another war, he tells us, but there will inevitably be soldiers in that war who believe that they are fighting to preserve human life. Those soldiers will be wrong. The idea that fighting a war will prevent Death is in fact deeply ironic, because war invites and encourages Death. The poem ends with a denunciation, not just of war, but of nationalism: the speaker argues that war is fought for the sake of "flags."
The poem's subject matter changes between the first stanza and the second, as the speaker shifts from speaking in an arch, riddle-like manner to directly stating his opinion. That change in content is accompanied and driven by a change in form. The second stanza still strictly follows iambic pentameter, but its rhyme scheme shifts. Its first four lines follow an EFEF rhyme scheme, rather than the ABBACDDC scheme established earlier. This signals a shift in tone and mood, as the speaker grows more literal, serious, and urgent. The final two lines, meanwhile, rhyme with one another, creating a GG rhyme. This final, rhyming couplet, which takes on a rhyme of its very own, tells us that an extremely important concluding point is being made.
This poem is a sonnet—it consists of fourteen lines and is written in iambic pentameter. However, it's hard to say whether it's an Italian or Shakespearian sonnet. Like most Italian sonnets, it contains an octave and a sestet, and follows an ABBA rhyme scheme during the octave. However, Italian sonnets typically use a CDCDCD, or a CDECDE, rhyme scheme in their concluding sestet. The final couplet, in which the two concluding lines rhyme only with each other, is actually typical of a Shakespearian sonnet. Ultimately, it's not necessary to categorize the poem as one or another, and poets frequently blend or bend forms. However, it's interesting to consider why Owen mixed these two forms, in a sense borrowing the most dramatic moments from both. Both types of sonnet contain a "volta," a turning point where form and content both suddenly shift. In fact, the volta is usually the most dramatic and important part of a sonnet. In an Italian sonnet, the volta occurs in the transition between the poem's octave and its sestet. In a Shakespearian one, it comes before the poem's final rhymed couplet. By introducing shifts in form and content in both those spots, Owen creates a kind of false volta. In the shift to the sestet, the speaker announces that Death isn't his enemy. This makes it seem as if he's perfectly content being exposed to Death, lulling the reader. But the second, harsher volta tells us that he's not content at all—Death isn't his enemy, but war and nationalism certainly are.
