Comparing Poems 'Five Day Requiem For Vietnam And Buttons'

Trauma is often associated with war. As John F. Kennedy once said, “Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind” (“War Quotes”). A close analysis of the poems “Five Day Requiem for Vietnam” by Nan Braymer and “Buttons” by Carl Sandburg captures the trauma faced by soldiers during war. At first glance, they merely seem to describe the struggles of a soldier, but a deeper analysis also reveals their effects on the civilians who support them. The reader must also realize that although these poems share the topic of war’s repercussions, their identical literary devices assert contrasting themes. Whereas both poems include devices of pathos and rhetorical questions, “Five Day Requiem for Vietnam” conveys the idea that

civilians who understand what soldiers have to endure often condemn the government’s position in the war’s cause while “Buttons” develops a different idea that civilians who possess a trivial perception of warfare compared to those in combat are unlikely to understand the situation at all because of its misrepresentation from the media.
Sandburg, on the other hand, served in the Spanish-American war. During service, he met a student that attended Lombard College, and was convinced to go there. At Lombard, Sandburg attracted the attention of Professor Philip Green Wright. Professor Wright played an important role in assisting and encouraging Sandburg with his writing. After attending Lombard College, Sandburg would later write “Buttons”, a poem about loss concerning war (poets.org).
Braymer’s use of pathos in her poem reinforces the theme that people who are supportive of their soldiers but not the cause of the war are likely to understand their burdens and thus hold the government accountable for its stance in the war.

Throughout the poem, the alert reader will recognize the author’s audacious and even condemnatory tone, beginning with “The Voice again, / same hollow tones, same pitch” (Braymer, 2-3). The capitalization of “Voice,” which can be inferred as the government at that time, and the entity having “hollow tones” and a “same pitch” gives off an unsettling appeal to emotion, as this peculiar voice is portrayed as having an omniscient presence. One could also argue that the connotations of “hollow” and “same” suggest that the voice lacks human qualities and remains obstinate in its actions. Furthermore, the author criticizes the war’s cause when she writes, “Again and once again / the master pulls the strings, / demands consensus, and the puppets dance” (24-26). In this scenario, pathos is established quite evidently as the word “master” once again refers to the government during the war and the phrases “pulls the strings,” “demands consensus,” and “puppets dance” portray the government’s controlling attributes. Braymer’s use of pathos to appeal to the emotions of the reader reveals the civilians’ mutual mindset in holding the government accountable for its part in fighting a

war.
Likewise, Sandburg incorporates pathos in his poem, but to instead illustrate the different idea that people who do not serve in a war are generally ignorant about soldiers’ responsibilities due to misrepresentation from the homeland media. In the last stanza, the seemingly innocent moving of the buttons across the map is brought into full, gruesome detail, claiming “Ten thousand men and boys twist on their bodies in / a red soak along a river edge, / Gasping of wounds, calling for water, some rattling / death in their throats” (Sandburg, 10-13). Pathos can be identified through the author’s imagery in describing the true meaning of moving the buttons; by revealing the action’s misperceived and deplorable repercussions to the reader and not the “laughing young man,” (5) the pathos operates on the reader through the fact that people are ignorant in nature, especially in understanding the life of a soldier. Sandburg’s device becomes potent since this revelation is disclosed to the reader only and thus the distinction between the seemingly innocent moving of the buttons and the actual horrors of doing so evokes a powerful emotion. Sandburg’s use of pathos conveys the notion that civilians in their homeland interpret warfare’s effects as less detrimental and misconstrue its underlying meaning of violent sacrifice compared to the soldiers who have fought outside of that safe haven.
Additionally, prominent use of rhetorical questions in Braymer’s poem “Five Day Requiem for Vietnam” develops the theme of people holding the government accountable based on the purpose of the war. “and what will history tell of us / who let such monstrous things go on?” (Braymer, 30-31). “let the betrayed not go unavenged forever! / Spain, Guatemala, Santo Domingo, Vietnam -- / how many other stations of the cross?” (36-38).
Similarly, although Sandburg’s poem “Buttons” only has one rhetorical question, its presence creates a dramatic effect on the reader. In lines 14-17, the author interrogates, “Who would guess what it cost to move two buttons one / inch on the war map here in front of the newspaper / office where the freckle-faced young man is laughing / at us?” This one rhetoric device establishes the theme that people who have not seen war for themselves are nescient toward the subject as a result of the media veiling warfare’s sheer effects, so the information is essentially misrepresented and then misinterpreted.
The alert reader of “Five Day Requiem for Vietnam” by Nan Braymer and “Buttons” by Carl Sandburg will notice how the authors variously deploy pathos and rhetorical questions to advance their respective themes; a particular difference the reader must realize between the two is that the civilians in Braymer’s poem understand the war’s futile cause whereas the civilians in Sandburg’s poem are ignorant to war’s image due to misrepresentation from the media. Even though war and the conflict involved may be viewed by some as shallow with only a single, straightforward purpose, more insightful perspectives from Nan Braymer and Carl Sandburg unveil war’s facade. Regardless of one being a soldier or citizen, there will always be a unanimous motive thriving for better circumstances.