Walcott's main point, being that through the Red Badge of Courage Henry has absolutely no ability to evaluate his own actions beyond the limiting scope of immediate experience, begins by declaring this the “one point [in] the book”. However, there is far greater evidence for the book being a much greater and more impactful satire of war, simply one that makes its points in a less than obvious manner. Firstly, the book begins with Henry, speaking of how he wishes to find glory in battle. Immediately in the text, however, the reader is shocked when Crane deprives all of his soldiers (except, in rare cases, Wilson and Henry) the luxury of even a name, utterly rendering void Henry’s aspirations for glory. Moreover, Henry’s resentment of his fellows following his early egress from …show more content…
This runs contrary to ideals about the military, thinking of it as a place of honor and duty, rather than the reality of fear. In addition, Walcott highlights another irony when Henry finally gains glory for himself by retrieving and wielding the fallen standard. It is ironic that one could gain glory from such a practice as this, as wielding the flag completely incapacitates the bearer as a soldier - removing from him all ability to effectively contribute to the battle. Henry compounds this by encouraging the soldiers, even bordering on ordering them around despite the fact that he has not even come close to earning this privilege. Taking this into account, the last chapter certainly has a significance, and Henry’s lack of development is simply one of the novel’s points. At the end of the book, Henry reviews his actions and gives himself a little pat on the back, thinking that he has done a good job, since his actions will be “paraded in great and shining preeminence”, even though his actions weren’t even his own, but rather a confluence of