Comment 28 of 29, added on April 14th, 2008 at 6:20 AM.

Actually, Sassoon only threw away the medal of the award, the medal was found fairly recently in the UK

MW from United Kingdom

Comment 26 of 29, added on December 16th, 2007 at 10:52 AM.

i cant believe some people dont see the obvious sarcasm with which this poem was written. I am 14 and i get it! When Chris says we saved you in world war 2, does he mean himself? because if he did im sure he would feel differently about being disabled both physically and mentally by the horrors of war. shanqua said they shouldnt care whether they come home with one less body part because they will be loved the same. Thats stupid. If thats really true, why dont you just cut off your legs. even if your mummy still loves you, you cant walk or run or be seen as you are. Idiots.

mE from United Kingdom

Comment 24 of 29, added on July 29th, 2006 at 11:38 PM.

I would just like to say, in case Chris from page 2 ever looks at this again (unlikely), even if America did save Britain in WW2, Britain will probably save America in the World War 3 that Bush is creating.

And about the poem, Sassoon is being quite sarcastic, i think, but not about the people being kind, because they would indeed be far too kind and would make the soldiers feel pitied and pitiful. The sarcasm, or whatever you want to call it, is in the 'does it matters', because of course it matters, but people would say that you lost it in glory, fighting for a cause, but by that time im sure the soldiers would have realised there was no cause just a huge heap of death and pointlessness. So its quite bitter. I agree with the person who said it was quite bitter. Yes.

Bee from New Zealand

Comment 22 of 29, added on July 3rd, 2006 at 1:29 AM.

The poem is most definitely a sarcastic poem, i believe intending to highlight the unnecessary loss both mentally and physically to the soldiers. If it is a satirical version of the Pope's poem it may be attacking the expectations of those who haven't gone to war about those who have. I'll try to be clearer about that - 'They will know that you've faught for your country' and 'need not show that you mind' show that expectations are that the soldiers would come back, possibly a little worse for wear but ultimately the same sort of people they left as. What those who remained at home wouldn't reallise would be the absolute horrors they saw day after day and how this would traumatise the soldiers.
There are phrases which approach issues and possibly mock things such as patriotism and religion, i.e. 'your country'; 'turning your face to the light'

all in all, it is my opinion Sassoon had his tongue firmly placed in his cheek for the most part of this poem , and the mere contemplation that this would seriously be a partiotic uplifting poem is VERY hard to believe.

Meryl from United Kingdom

Comment 20 of 29, added on May 30th, 2006 at 10:06 AM.

Wow, this poem has caused quite a debate! Ok, first lets go to comment on the poem... As I make out it uses a Quaternary Cinquain rhyme scheme (ABBCA) (do correct me if I'm wrong though) And contains many features. First, to pick up on the use of anaphora as a sound patterning - the repeating of word groups at the start of a line "Does it Matter" It is written in colloquial language and an obvious comparison can be made between Jessie Pope's "who for the game" and Sassoon's "Does it matter?"

To read it face value, I spose it is possible to take it either way, yes, this poem could hark back to some of the upbeat, hyperbolic recruitment poems of 1914 - for example "Who's for the game?" Compare, "Does it matter? - loosing your legs" (SS - Siegfried Sassoon) and ""Who would much rather come back with a crutch/ Then lie low out of the fun?" (JP - Jessie Pope)

However, if you take into context the two poets - and I shall use other examples as well and explain the British humour, then the poem is in fact a satire.

First - there is a major difference between the two poets mentioned. One is the gender - Jessie Pope was female and never actually went to war. She wrote basic recruitment poems in the daily mail and is Criticised because “she is often seen as trivialising the war through her use of simple rhyme schemes” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessie_Pope) Sassoon on the other hand was male and did go to war, and is known as a satirical poet. The second difference is the time in which they were written. Jessie Pope’s poems were mostly written at the start of the war as a recruitment drive – you know 1914 – lets think of other 1914 poems, Brooke’s “If I should die, think only this of me/ That theres some corner of a foreign field/ That is forever England” Well that’s a Victorian idealisation – this comes from the Boar War and other wars in which the men who were fighting were a long way away and not really connected to home. The thoughts at home were it is right to die for your country – the big words are glory, honour and country. Look at Charge of the light brigade, breaking of nations, those are tow good examples of the influences that the early 1914 poets would have had. Of course, the influences the Victorain writers would have had would have been from the Romantic poets, Wordsworth, Shelley, Keats, Milton, who were all for revolution.

Let me put htat in a bit of a clearer way. Turn of the 19th Century – Romantic poets are all for the revolution, They often write about it through nature – see Wordsworth. Ok – so then there is a war – lets say the Crimean war – but any of those post revolution pre WW1 Wars will do, so the Victorian guys are writing about a war which is far away, where the soldiers have decided to be soldiers and have been trained. There is the great Britishness about it, you know, Duty is paramount, glory, honour, country, all key words, so then Tennyson decides to write about this. He writes using imperative verbs, “charging” gets the adrenaline going with “Cannon to the right of them,/ cannon to the left of them/ Cannon in front of them” so then it because 1914 - the start of the war and poets want to put their thoughts to paper, here we have Brooke saying “If I should die think only this of me,/ That there is some corner of a foreign field/ that s forever England” We’ve got the influences of nature from Wordsworth, we’ve got the land, glory, honour from Tennyson – but we don’t have the influences from actual soliders. Remember Brooke never made it to the front. Ok, so how does this relate? Well at the same time here was Jessie Pope, having read tennyson, Hardy, Newbolt, she was ready to write. Has she seen a guy with no arm? Or been to those fields in France which make even the noisiest school groups silent? No. So here work, although is almost comical to read now, was someone being deadly serious.

Now lets compare this to Sassoon. Sasoon went out and fought. A Lot. I think it was around 1915 when he went out and saw what it was like to fight. He saw the skulls used to keep up the trench walls, he saw and heard day after day the guns. If you read a book like Regeneration by Pat Barker – although not completely accurate it does a very good job of showing the effects that the war had on men. The people who had actually fought, write very different poetry. Look at Rosenberg’s the Immortals “I killed them, but they would not die” Or Owen’s disabled, “and shivered in this ghastly green suit/ Legless, sewn short at elbow.” Sassoon saw all of this. Do you really think someone who had seen the horrors of war this bad, who felt the despereness of the men in the wards and wards at the hosptial who could not look at their empty places where limbs were meant to be? Read Regneration, Look at chapter 14 in part three when Sarah goes off alone and sees the badly hurt men p 159 – 161. This really shows the horrors. I cant personally believe that Sassoon who saw all of this really wrote a poem about how it doesn’t matter to not have a leg.

Also, take into accoutn British humour. Friends, scrubs the such like has given the brits a bit of American comedy – but does anyone watch Green wing, or black books and find it funny in america? The British sense of humour is biting, and its long since known that Amercians don’t get it! But re-read the poem taking into context Sassoon’s position, look openingly about how it could be satire. The language is extreme, “splendid” “hunting” these are stereotypes of britain for a comic effect.

Look at the last two lines,
“For they’ll know that you’ve fought for your country
And no one will worry a bit.”
The short statement like use of that last line really shows the sarcasism.

So seriously – I don’t care if your British, American, Australian, whatever, you should be able to understand that this poem is definitely not the patriotism some have mentioned. If it was by Pope and written in 1914 then maybe – but it looks like Sassoon is trying to parady Pope’s work, writing in the same format but satircally. This is more subtle then Owen’s “Dulce et Decorum est” which was origianally addressed to Pope.

I hoped that helped to sort out the little patriotic / satire issue. Don’t just read the poem. Read the context – look for other poets to compare to. Now, what I said may not be entirely accurate as I’m only doing A level (I’m 18) but I can say it’s a pretty good attempt.

Oh and fyi you stuck up Americans – you may have helped us at the very end of the war, but you are stereotyping a hellovalot, and I suggest you get over it – we don’t need you and your government anymore – its not like you have poets like Owen and Sassoon – all you have is pearl harbour. Meh.

Rach
(ps sorry for typo's my spelling things not working)

Rachel from United Kingdom