Wars have been around for centuries and have affected people’s life forever. The poets Emily Dickinson and Rupert Brooke did manage to live through bloody and long wars that many other people could not, but only Brooke fought along with the army. According to the Literary Critiques, Dickinson was not interested in publishing her work. She simply wrote well over a thousand poems and they were eventually published soon after her death. Brooke on the other hand wrote along as he experienced such horrific events. According to Literary Critique John Drinkwater, Brooke’s death was one of the saddest losses in poetry since Shelley’s death. He wrote some of his poems with feelings of patriotism and nationalism for his country, making his work excelling. Dickinson did write excellent poems as well but mostly about life. A Literary Critique said, “The lack of explicit reference to the war in her poems and letters has made it appear that she remained nearly oblivious of it.” Allie must have had a different view and opinion about Dickinson like many others when D.B. asked him who the better war poet was. But in my opinion, I also believe that although Dickinson might have written around 1,700 poems, it does not make her a better poet than anyone who wrote less. Her work is in fact very interesting. She enjoys the use of alliteration, rhyme and suspense, like in her poem “A Bird Came Down.” But like another Literary Critique said, “she made it seem just like another event in human experience.” It will deliberately be an ongoing discussion on who should be entitled the “better” war poet and even though I am neither a Critique nor a Scholar, in my experience with all the research that was done, Rupert Brooke is more fitting than Emily Dickinson.