Say how far you agree with the view that 'Lamplight' presents a more effective criticism of the war than 'Idle Hill'


While I believe Lamplight to provide the greater criticism overall, I can acknowledge the criticisms made by Housman in Idle Hill. He makes his criticism by highlighting and bringing to peoples' attention the reality of the war. This can be seen in his diction, in the use of words such as "slain" and "rotten". He's not associating death with weak, abstract ideas such as honour and heaven, as a propoganda poet might. Instead he uses words that create an imagery of the true horror that comes with war.
Housman also uses the term, "friends and food for powder" which acts as a synonym of sorts to the term "cannonfodder". This is a criticism of the great human loss, of how soldiers were seeming more and more like a dispensible material that was used to fight the war with (cannonballs being a material or utensil). I think Housman is criticising the idea of honour and patriotism here -- the "old lie". There is neither to be had, I think, in being "food for powder"
Housman also uses juxtaposition to give his poem and his criticism a greater impact. For example, he writes: "lovely lads and dead and rotten". The positive image of "lovely lads" changes dramatically into something grotesque; "dead and rotten". The effect: not only does the dramatic change of tone stand out to the reader, but his use of "lovely lads" as opposed to "soldier" or "cannonfodder" forces us to imagine them as actual people instead. Houseman's use of language here causes us to consider what kind of people these "lads" were before they died.
Finally, Housman structures the first and last stanzas so that they have a certain symmetry. That is, they both contain musical instruments which I see as very important. In the first stanza, he describes a drum, "drumming like a noise in dreams". In the last stanza, he describes the "screaming fife". Both instruments, and the general tone of the beginning and end of his poem, are made to sound differently from his use of language. By associating the drums at the start to something like a noise in a "dream", he creates a positive image, while the fife is "screaming" as soldiers on the battlefield or with war neuroses might scream. It's a negative image this time.
I believe this image, and the transition it makes, is supposed to be from the perspective of a soldier, or perhaps even the reader. At the start of his poem, Housman expects people to believe "the old lie" of war propaganda, how good it is to go to war. That is why the drums sound like a noise from a dream to the courageous soldier who is desperate for heroism. By the end of the poem, after the realities of war have been explained, the noise created by the instrument is of "screaming". There is a definite transition made, which Housman expects the reader to follow and agree with.
What makes Housman's criticism weak is a) the poem's end and b) his detachment from the war. Although he acknowledges the human loss, it's impossible to ascertain from the poem whether he's actually been to war and experienced this loss of men and friends first hand. His poem could have been much more gristly, with detailed imagery. The ending is also disappointing because even though he has made his criticisms, he writes: "I will rise", which sounds like he's agreeing to go to war. The last two lines should have been removed to create a more effective poem.


With Lamplight, I feel it to be much more effective because it's more personal. Whereas Housman sounds detached from the war, May Wedderburn has experienced loss and trauma in the form of her partner dying in the war. By making the poem so personal, she is able to orchestrate a more powerful reaction to the text, whereby more emotion and thought is invested by the reader.
In terms of diction, where Housman uses strong language ("slain" and "rotten"), Wedderburn uses soft assonance in her verse to reflect her lament towards her lost lover. An example might be: "Now in the quiet of a chill winter's night," where she repeats the soft "i" sound. I believe May Wedderburn uses soft language, not only to create a romanticism, but to take a passive-aggressive approach to the war, which I feel comes across as much more powerful.
Wedderburn's language also features nature repetitively, words such as "sea", "light", "winter", "night", and "summer". These references to all things natural could be Wedderburn trying to reflect how natural and beautiful her love was and still is for her partner.
Regarding form in the poem, Wedderburn also uses the repetition of "We", "together", and "you and I". ("We planned to shake the world together, you and I") which is used to illustrate the closeness and intimacy she shared with her partner before he died. By the last stanza, Wedderburn makes the transition to, "We shall never shake the world together, you and I", which causes the reader to acknowledge her loss and therefore acknowledge in more detail another human cost of the war. May Wedderburn is criticising the war here by pointing out what it has taken away from her.
She also criticises the war by highlighting the futility of it, in which she writes: "for you gave your life away". Instead of writing something such as 'you traded your life for honour', she says that he simply gave it away, meaning of course that heroism, valour and patriotism account for nothing if you're dead. I feel she is criticising the propogation made by early war poets that include fighting for your country and coming back a hero.
Finally, I conclude that Wedderburn's use of rhyme in the poem is used to create a romantic feel such as is used in a traditional sonnet, rather than being used to create a positive, light-hearted tone. And I think the one most touching line she uses that sums up the tradgedy and effect of war is: "I think my heart was broken [by the war]." It really criticises and makes the war accountable for her loss.