Liz Claessens: Peer Commentary for Nadine Cohen
English 354/Finley: 4 October 1999
In her essay "The Inadequacy of Language in 'Recalling War' Nadine Cohen
discusses the limitations of language in describing trauma specifically
within the medium of war poetry. Though Nadine writes convincingly, I
disagree with a few of her assertions. While I fully acknowledge the
limitations of language to convey fully and accurately traumatic
experience, I hesitate to completely dismiss war poetry, and especially
poetry of the Great War as being "simply incapable of expressing what is
essentially expressionless." In the case of Robert Graves' "Recalling War"
I think expressing trauma isn't so much the point as is criticizing through
the use of irony, as Nadine rightly observed, the different means of
"recalling" war from twenty years later. Graves distances himself from the
men missing arms, legs, and vision with the lines, "Their war was fought these
twenty years ago/And now assumes the nature-look of time." These poignant
lines do not leave the reader with a sense of inadequacy either in
understanding or meaning. The "inadequacy" of poetic expression in
expressing trauma would likely be a problem faced by the poet alone, rather
than a shared experience with the reader as Nadine suggests. Because the
reader can never fully grasp the intent of the poet simply due to poetry's
personal intensity, it is impossible to then react to a reading using the
words "inadequate," or "impotent." Even a detailed historical understanding
of the Great War will never compare with the physical experience of it that
men like Graves had; but as readers we can still identify or project enough
of the emotions and sensations that are however inadequately expressed,
though they are destined to be less meaningful to us. What point would
there be to reading poetry if we had to abandon every hope of understanding
its message? War poetry is far more complex, but "Recalling War" is more
accessible than most and can be closely examined