Had he and I but met
By some old ancient inn,
We should have set us down to wet
Right many a nipperkin!
But ranged as infantry,
And staring face to face,
I shot at him as he at me,
And killed him in his place.
I shot him dead because—
Because he was my foe,
Just so: my foe of course he was;
That's clear enough; although
He thought he'd 'list, perhaps,
Off-hand like—just as I—
Was out of work—had sold his traps—
No other reason why.
Yes; quaint and curious war is!
You shoot a fellow down
You'd treat, if met where any bar is,
Or help to half a crown.
Notes
This should be compared with War Poet Ivor Gurney's ideas on the same theme. http://oldpoetry.com/opoem/30783-Ivor-Gurney-The-Target
Line 3/4
We should have set us down to wet
Right many a nipperkin!
in modern English might be
We would have sat down for a drink and drunk many a glass.
nipperkin = 1/8 of a pint
Lines 13/14/15
He thought he'd 'list, perhaps,
Off-hand like -- just as I --
Was out of work -- had sold his traps --
In modern English might be
Perhaps he thought of enlisting in a casual manner, just like me, because we were both out of work and had had to sell our tools.
traps = the tools or trappings of a particular trade.
Last Stanza in modern English might be
How strange war is, you might meet someone and kill them on the battlefield but, if you had encountered them in peace, you might have bought him a drink or loaned him some money.
treat = to buy something for someone
hald-a-crown = old British currency. One eigth of a sovereign or £0.125
Leave a guest comment (subject to review)
Comments
1 - 48 of 48
-
< To guests Hannah and Anna
In the 50 odd comments below this one there is a rather detailed series of analyses of this poem. I diffidently suggest my own comments on Dec 2007 and Sept 2007 would form a strong basis for your own studies. -
From guest anna (contact)
Hi hannah, I am a student studying this poem aswell, and i am also finding it difficult however i do know the poem is about war and death. Hope this helps -
Help
From guest Jim (contact)
Based on the extract (begin from line 9 to line 16), what did the persona realise about the man he shot? Help needed asap -
-
From one Jim to another
http://oldpoetry.com/board/topic/1492
Please try asking not demanding
If you look at ALL the comments you will find that between us, nyself and Rufina Caraid have covered all the points you will need. I particular commend my comment of September 2007.
Jim
-
-
helppppp
From guest tiffanylee (contact)
why does the poet use all those dashes in the third and fourth stanzas? what effect was he trying to achieve? -
Ahhhh but, Guest Melissa, "I" might be a better shot than "he" and so "I" survives whilst "He" dies.
-
Different Meaning
From guest Melissa (contact)
Okay, so this is a poem, the author is dead,, so it is left up to the reader to interperet the poem. Here goes nothing.
"The Man He Killed" implies that the poem is written about "He." The poem itself is about the man that "I" killed. In the first line it mentions had "he" and "I" but met. Therefore, the speaker in the poem is "I" and it is about "He." In other words, both "He" and "I" are dead. You can find textual evidence in the second stanza when it says "I" shot at him as "he" at me. They both took shots at each other, both shots were fatal and both men are dead. We know that poets write poems that seem to have dead men talking just take Randall Jarrell's "The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner" or Rupert Booke's "The Soldier" both are written from dead men's point of view. -
Opinion
From guest Katy (contact)
I honestly dont think the man felt guilty in his actions. He does reconize the facts that the man did nothig against him but he knows it needed to be done. -
Theme of the poem.
From guest Something (contact)
The poet was trying to convey the message that if they were in a different situation, they could have become good friends and therefore war is unneeded. -
Information(:
From guest Katrina(: (contact)
In this poem the poet tell as about this man he killed in the war, he feels guilty about what he has done. he say if he would have meet him in the bar they would probably got along but as they meet in a war they both had no choice but to shot at each other, and the poet tries to justify the fact he killed this man in war 'i shot him dead because he was my foe' when he repeat the word because it shows that he is trying to think of a reason why he killed this man then he realizes that it was because it was his foe and he probably only joined the war because he needed the money. then at the end off the poem he makes a joke of the war. Then it is also tied biblically From guest Prabha Patel said. Have fun(: -
-
-
To guest MEEEE!
The Man He Killed" was written in 1902 by Thomas Hardy
-
-
for Polo
We will never really know the feelings of the poet when he wrote this poem. It is about War and possibly the 1st World War was raging at the time which inspired him to write a poem about killing another person and more importantly to him, Why?
My own personal feelings: The Man he Killed was just a man, sent to War, to a 'Kill or be killed' situation. In a peaceful world they would possibly have never known the other existed.
Von ~ Oldpoetry -
-
Kamila
From guest Lynda (contact)
The tone in the four stanza is in my opinion full of regret. He is saying that the man he just killed could have been like him. -
The poem
From guest Lynda (contact)
I am in English Comp 2 and we are going over this poem. I see that alot of you are mentioning religion. WHil I see some of it can have that twist (If you see it this way) This poem is simply talking about the Boer war. This poem is talkign about how war is wrong and that in war people can be put against friends. That in a situation you could kill someone that you would have bought a drink for if you had met them in a different place. -
-
structure and rhyme scheme
From guest creebo (contact)
i'm a gcse student in need of help for my coursework.. i need to know what comments can be made about the structure and rhyme scheme.. anyone help?
MOD MESSAGE
As you can see there are 5 stanzas of 4 lines each and they have an ABAB rhyme scheme.
BTW please would have been nice! -
the speaker
From guest Shri Lang (contact)
Who is the speaker of this poem? and from the context, what kind of experiences has he had? And, what is the message? -
What the end was about
From guest Chris (contact)
As is see it... the hardest parts to understand are the 3rd and 4th paragraphs. Here's how i see it: in the 3rd paragraph, it is as if HE were narrarating, as if it werent really a poem, but his words, for he faulters and says "because" twice. he concludes that he shot the man because the man was his foe. in the 4th para. when it says " 'list" i hope you all realise that is for enlist, and the whole stanza means "he thought he would enlist casually, like i did, b/c he didnt have a job, he didnt have any more traps to sell. he didnt have any more reason to enlist -
-
-
To guest Ash (and others) it is all here in the comments if you read down!
-
-
tone of the man he shot
From guest Mark (contact)
ok..thanks so what would the tone of "The Man he Shot" by Thomas Hardy be? tragic or serious? -
-
-
"The tone of the poem" is another way of saying "the mood that the writer of the poem is trying to convey". If the actual words don't help you might try reading this http://www2.austincc.edu/buck/eng/1302/tone/tone1.htm
-
-
Reference to religion
From guest Prabha Patel (contact)
There are constant references to religion in this poem, in particular Christianity for example the title uses two terms 'Man' and 'He'. The opening stanza uses 'ancient inn' which is reference to the birth of Jesus 'no room at the inn' for Mary and Joseph. The first stanza also uses the word 'right' which suggests knowing 'right from wrong' and the breaking of a commandment 'Thou shall not kill'. The second stanza almost suggests the crucifixtion of Jesus on the cross 'and killed him in his place'. The loss of an innocent life is depicted clearly and we are made to fill guilty. The final stanza uses the word 'crown' again this is reference to Jesus on the cross. Before Jesus was crucified a 'crown' of thorns was placed on his head and he was made a spectacle of 'Behold the King of the Jews'. The poem beautifully conveys the actions of 'man' against 'God' there is upheaval of 'normality'in the poem because of 'manmade' rules - Man vs God's creation. The innocence and beauty of God's creation of Man is horrendous when left in the hands of humans. During anarchy in society literature often reverts to thoughts about God's creation - good against evil and man playing 'God' has horrid consequences. -
The title
From guest Prabha Patel (contact)
The title of this poem is very important as the word 'He' killed plays a very important part in the meaning of war. I think 'He' represents God and man trying to play God, taking a life. The poetry of war reflects constant reference to guilt of killing and breaking a commandment 'Thou shalt not kill'. The title also allows the reader to view the situation from the outside objectively. We can see how the two people are innocent and full of life, with normality about them but given instructions 'shoot the enemy' they have to fulfil their duties. The message of all the war poetry displays the message of unneccesary death of young lives 'the hell where youth and laughter go'. Human nature is such that we have been programmed into certain behaviours such as 'every man for himself'. In war the men die and women are the victims of loss. I love this poem for it's simplicity and beauty of it's message through vivid imagery and all inspiring reaction of the reader's response to it. -
What war this was...
From guest Craigernizzle (contact)
I saw you asked what war this was... It was the second Boer war. Where the country discovered gold and Britain wanted the land because of the gold. So they invaded, causing the Boer wars -
great,
From guest joanna (contact)
i have been studying this poem in my GCSE enlish lessons, and i find it extraordinarily fasinating and intriguing. -
it was...
From guest KittyKatt :) (contact)
As Im doing a piece of coursework on the poem, I have found it is about the more commonly known Second Boer War. Theres lots of infomation about it on Wikipedia :) hope that helped. -
My view...!
From guest Robert browning (contact)
I believe that the title ,'He' is simply a 3rd person pronoun beacuse it reflects the fact that whoever the poem is about does not want to be this person. It aslo alows the poem to be related to any war participant. 'He' instead of 'I' makes it less personal or direct therefore it makes it seem as though the person at war is not the same person normally or wishes it wasnt. Hardys point of the poem is to exprees his opinion on how stupid war is. The short lines and simple rhyme is childlike and not cleaver: reflecting the war being stupid. The poem also starts in a pub and ends in a pub in the first and last stanza. This circle like structure reflects the war never ending. Good luck to everyone with tests! -
When? Where?
From guest blue (contact)
Yeah it really would be good to know what war this was, or who was in it. -
-
People waste a lot of time asking if this is from Hardy's own life or some real war. It is unlikely to be either but that does not stop us taking a message from the poem.
Hardy was a sickly child and even in later life his health was not robust so it is unlikely that the poem is about Hardy himself. I believe he is telling someone else's story, hence the title the man HE killed instead of the man I Killed.
As it was written circa 1905 shortly after the end of the Boer War it could have been about a real soldier in that war but more likely it is a generalised tale to illustrate a point. Or perhaps its another way of asking "who is my neighbour" when religions tell us to love thy neighbour. Hardy has in effect reversed it and is asking "who is my enemy?"
-
-
help
From guest charlie (contact)
i have a test on this poem soon. i under stand t but i have to link it to other poems but this poem does not link to them help.. -
-
-
for guest Jamila
If you read the comments below I'm sure you will get a feel for the point Hardy is making here. Think of time and place and what may have happened under different circumstances.Von - Oldpoetry
-
-
From guest katie (contact)
this is an amazing poem...my grandad was killed in the second world war so this is a poem tha really hit home...im against war so i love this poem. -
help please
From guest asad (contact)
i need an explanation for this poem because tomorrow i am tested on it -
-
Read the comments listed below for different points of view. Mine is: One man was killed where he stood because this is what happens when countries are at war. BUT Hardy is also saying that had they met under different curcumstances and been able to form a friendship, they would have had a drink together, talked and had a riotous time - War had other plans for these 2 men - one dead and one with regret. Good Luck with your test.
Von
Oldpoetry Team
-
-
From guest newf (contact)
I enjoyed this poem alot. it seems purposely simplistic to create irony because the subject of the poem is not a simple one. but i'm trying to figure out what wars might have been on the go around the time hardy wrote the poem (1902, according to my english book) I'm thinking the bohr war since hardy was english? does anyone know for sure? thanks a lot. -
Hi
From guest Davvid jon (contact)
I was just wondering if anyone can tell me the theme of this poem ? ? thanks -
-
To guest David John(?)
There appear to be many issues within this one simple poem. The most obvious one in my opinion is that in one set of circumstances (Peace) men may meet as friends, swap tales, drink each others health and be content.
In other circumstances (War) the same men, when they meet, will try to kill each other.
If they are conscripted and cannot act of their own volition that is one thing but if they are volunteers acting through choice it is another.
The poet claims to have enlisted voluntarily (lines 13/14) perhaps because it was the only work he could find. Maybe he was out of work and had sold his tools (or his traps). Is that enough reason to kill someone who might have become a friend?
Perhaps also the poet is also claiming to be a different man now than he was when he shot the enemy. Perhaps that is why he refers to his earlier self in the title as He rather than I?
-
-
Irony
From guest Bethany (contact)
can anyone help? What quotation in this poem could i use to show the way Harys using irony?? thanks -
"Off-hand like"
It's pretty obvious that the speaker (soldier) is complentating the actions of war. In the third stanza he is trying to convince himself that he had to shot the other soldier 'cause he was his 'foe'. That's a foot soldier's job, shoot the enemy, but he finds the whole situation absurd.
"Off-hand like" means to just like randomly enlist, something you do out of the blue perhaps. The speaker is projecting himself and ponders the other soldier's motives for enlisting and thinks that maybe it might be for the same reasons as him.
I hope that helps you Beth. -
The importance of the pharse"Off-hand like"
From guest beth (contact)
Could anyone giveme some help in what the importance when the "speaker" says "Off-hand like"? Thanks -
From guest J (contact)
What are "traps"? I've tried to look it up. don't you love the redundancy of "old ancient inn"? It's like Hardy is trying to say how primordial the balance between war and peace is. -
-
Traps
'Traps' are belongings. It is a word that my mother used and in common use some 100 years ago.
-
-
this poem
From guest josh (contact)
its nto hard 2 understand 4 me coz am frm a military back ground he is on about how war is the strangest thing because u kill ppl u wud otherwise be friends with but also shows how humans do what we have 2 to survive "i shot him dead" this poem has been a life line 4 me with GCSES coz im crap at poetry lol ny ways hope that helps u :D -
From guest Munch (contact)
i am doing this poem for GCSE english, i find this one very hard to find anyone that has wrote up on it, i have only found out the its monologue maybe can be compared to the laboratory. I have to compare four porms, the laboraory, hitcher, Havisham and this one. im finding it very hard to do so. -
mmm...
From guest Hannah (contact)
Zach, you say the poem is too obvious, and not worth reading by anyone who loves poetry... but does poetry have to be hard/deciphered in order to be enjoyed? I think it's great! War is something that touches everyone, from the clever, to the most basest of people, thus Hardy's poem is accessible to everyone that may have been hurt or experienced war. He may even use its simplicity in order to present the idea that war is so obviously destructive " I shot him dead because— Because he was my foe" Hardy writes with childlike innocence, but warped reasoning- to show us how 'because he was my foe' is not an acceptable reason to kill, no matter what the soldiers were taught. The word 'foe' being used, almost to distance themselves from the terrible act that they were committing. Its as if he's a soldier, having been brainwashed or something. I think it's simplicity is effective... -
Blatantly Obvious
From guest NoMan (contact)
What's most curious and quaint about the comments I've read here is that no one mentioned what I feel is the most important twist. The title speaks of the man "HE" shot. The body of the poem is about the man "I" shot. I loved this poem as a child and I could recite it thoughout my life. But I remembered the title as the man "I" shot. Clearly, Hardy is speaking to the necessity of having to distance oneself from the act of killing. The tone is one of dispassion - a dispassion necessary to fulfill one's duty. The speaker is reflecting on the taking another man's life, without fully embracing the horror of it; that is, the horror of war. And that is why the poem is titled, 'The Man "HE" shot.' -
Quaint and Curious
From guest kelsey (contact)
I have just read this poem in my English 201 class last week. When the aithor says quaint and curious he is using sarcasm(about the quaint part at least) because we all know that war is NOT quaint. -
-
Quaint?
In the sense of being Strange - different - out of the usual.
-
-
I disagree with the negative comments regarding this piece. Just because the style is dated I still enjoy the 'train of thought' style of this poem, I get the sense of the soldier's guilt. The message is obvious? I don't disagree with you, but it's important!
-
x..[[..im not clever but I know morals..]]..x
From guest x..[[..edie..]]..x (contact)
I am doing this poem for my GCSE this means that I am only 14 (girl) and as it seems by reading the few comments below this i wonder 'do I appriciate poets such as Hardy more then peope who are my elders by many years! I believe that there is nothing better then poetry its like another world! you are able to let all your feelings and thoughts out in a matter of lines (sometime) SO Zach and John next time you think you can find a poem 'exponentially better' you need to re-read the poem and realise that all poems are made for different reasons and the reason you are reading it may be differnt from why the author wrote it. This would cause you not you appriciate it to the full!! I may not be the cleverist in my class (and I can tell you I am NOT) but god I know when people are in the wrong! So remember what your mother should of taught you ' if you don't have anything nice to say...do say anything!' -
I agree with Zach
From guest John (contact)
I can think of so many more poems that are exponentially better than this piece. All in all this poem sucks because of how blatently obvious it is. -
An easy read
From guest Zach (contact)
I think that anyone who knows what war is can understand what this poem is trying to convey. I love poetry, and love deciphering poetry that is well written. This piece on the other hand I find extremely obvious. It leaves nothing to the reader to attempt to figure out for themselves. It's not worth a read from anybody who loves poetry. This might make a good poem for high school, or middle school students to examine because of how easy it is to read, and understand. I will continue searching this site as I have found a few poems that have intrigued me. This is my first comment, and I will be sure to tell my co-worker what I think about the poem as it was recommended to me in the break room today at lunch. -
This poem shows that if he met the man in peacetime they could be friends- this isn't their battle but someone else's. It also shows a sense of nostalgia for an older, more simple time. In battle, things are different and hatred is brought about through orders- almost in a robotic way. He is not his 'foe' but they have met in a battle situation in which they have to be 'foes'. This is merely an excuse, given by the society and that he must tell himself, he doesn't actually dislike this man. He has enlisted- perhaps all young men enlist- for simple reasons, but has ended up killing a man.
Pozo
-
One of my favorites
This poem has been a favorite of mine since the first time I read it in Jr. High. It makes some hard points about war that are often never taken into consideration. It is one of those timeless pieces that still applies to times of war and it is written in a way that the language is easily discernable by deciphering meanings of old expression in context. I never even looked up the words like nipperkin until I was much older and realized I had no clue what a nipperkin was.
Basically the piece forces us to consider the fact that the enemy is generally just a bunch of people just like ourselves. It examines the absurdity of killing strangers who are probably just as likeable as we are. For so many people around the world, the military is simply a job sought out because a person had no better way to support themselves or their families. -
This poem reflects a manner of speech and writing for the era. I love reading old letters written when letter writing was an art form....amazing reads. This poem reminds me of just that sort of writing. The poet explains the game quite well and just how odd war really is when studied in such a way. I enjoyed the read.
-
This poem was worded a little strangly....I felt that the 3rd stanza was a bit redundant, but then again...thats just me. Its funny how war is- I mean, this poem is true. If met in any other place than the frontlines....you and your enemy would probably be friends. It's kind of like this....America is told that Iraq is our enemy. But I, personally, dont find any one of the people in Iraq (except for the few terrorists that happen to live there) my enemies. Quite frankly, I would love to take all of them out for drinks, and tell them how sorry I am.
You kill because you are told who your enemy is in war...and forget that they are people just like you. -
'Quaint' is a strange word for war. The speaker in this poem is making an observation and does not seem upset by killing a man so much as 'curious' about the circumstances that led to the action.
-
This poem always makes me think about the real men huddled together in the fox holes of the past. Wars were faught differently then, "But ranged as infantry and staring face to face". The choice to enlist, a simple alternative to being out of work.
This poem makes me wonder at how such a set of circumstances could contrive to bring two men together on a killing field, who would otherwise, perhaps have become friends.
War sucks! -
The poor author feels remorse for having to kill in war, but in a distant and hardened way. I'm sympathetic towards him, probably because he recognizes that war makes murderers and victims out of people who could be friends.
-
This is very interesting. He uses lines and certain words in a way that totally make the poem what it is rather than the message being in just the content. For example, he gets his message across through intentional pauses, and he slowing the tone down, and through indentions, and using very casual language. I enjoyed this, and his message came out loud and clear.
-
Yes, ive just been studying this poem for my GCSE English Coursework. i had never thought about the idea of "war is killing him" which was a good suggestion. this has to be one of my favourite poems.
i didnt see the poem as "moving" or "emotional" at first but thanks to your comments, you have made me really see a different perspective.
if any of you would like to email me more comments and suggestions to help me with my coursework, please do.
many thanks
sophie x -
I think I got from this the somewhat abstract and dissociated feeling someone might have by being put in this position of having to kill or be killed by a person he has no real feelings about as he does not really know this person. He can only speculate that maybe they would have shared a beer together and that he himself wasnot filled with hate but needed a job! So thats why he joined up. There is a tinge of regret, in this piece, perhaps a remorse at killing someone he has no feelings of anger towards. This seems to me to be an element of the 4th stanza. The last stanza does also seem more philosophical, the acceptance of the tradegies of war as a curioso, as people often do when they have no other means to deal with complex, tragic and challenging situations that befall us (disease, death or maiming etc are often wrapped up in a philosophical parcel to soften their blow "the will of god" might be one).
-
touched me deeply. I found the way he described the actual killing very poignant due to the lack of emotion portrayed in that particular stanza,
"But ranged as infantry,
And staring face to face,
I shot at him as he at me,
And killed him in his place. "
where as the rest odf the poem seems emoiton filled. I also enjoyed the way he spoke about how in any other situation the two would be friends, and therefore how pointless war is-killing somebody just because they are on a different side to you.
I think the repetition of because isnt so much him emphasizing why he did it, but a touch of irony, "because he was my foe" as in, I shot him because that's what I was told was right, but I don't believe it. -
Strange that you walk away from this piece kinda liking this chap - who goes around killing for no good reason. ha ha. I'd say it a testament to the writer that beyond just understanding the logic of the situation, you also begin to build and empathy - for both characters. Also, I found the sense that this was written as responses to the unstated questions of the narrator an interesting approach.
-
This poem gives a great look into war... you may fight friends, you may not really know the reasons... etc.
in :
" I shot him dead because--
Because he was my foe,"
it was as though he had to pause to remember why he had killed him in the first place. great poem. -
Conscious is the moral fiber that links each of us to our instincts of right and wrong. I think that what he did was out of neccesity, even though to dwell on the subject; one would know that it shouldnt have been done that way. The thing that I really enjoyed about this write was the perspective of how he expressed his feelings, in first person but stumbling to justify his actions. Great write!
-
Maybe the title doesn't refer to the persona's foe...maybe the man that was killed is really the narrator. He may be living, but is he really alive? Maybe war "killed" him...I agree more with JennyLee's take on the title, but I just thought I'd throw something else on the table.
-
wow - funny thing is that thursday, my english class was discussing war poetry, and we ended up reading this! I'm so excited now...
I fell in love with the tone used in this piece then... it seems so real, so amazingly militaristic, but verging on individual...
"I shot him dead because--
Because he was my foe,"
That hesitation makes the entire piece, I think. It's the conflict between morality, obligation, and patriotism. And isn't that exactly what war is? I don't know. those two lines just strike me as amazing. The tone is attempting to be detatched, but there's this slight hesitation, questioning the motive behind war - I just love this piece
~Christy -
ooooooooh. this is wonderful. i used to be in the military and many of my acquaitances/friends... (including husband) still are. it's hard to imagine gunning down someone just because they're on opposing sides of a line. and who draws that line? i know there are a lot of conscientious objectors out there who can refuse to do those things during war. though i've never met one face to face. in theory, it's possible. anyway. i wonder how people are able to distance themselves from the reality of death brought by their own hands. i mean... thinking about all the guys that have been drafted in our nation's history. did they WANT to kill? um. almost definitely not. but did they? yes. because it was kill or be killed. but how do you recognize the humanity in your foe and still manage to do the deed?
this was kind of whimsical. almost fumbling. like the narrator couldn't quite make sense of things but was still determined to reconcile himself to the reality of it and move on. -
I guess Thomas Hardy, sitting around a cottage fire on a cold and windy night on the moors would tell it just like this: Simple, editorial, manly, no fluttery details, yet the sentiment comes through clear as a bell. He did what circumstance forced him to do, but he regrets the necessity of doing it very much.
-
I don't know if indifferent is the term I'd use to describe this. I take it more as the narrator realizing that he's only shooting the man because he's the "enemy" he's been trained to kill. He realizes that on another day this man and he could have been great friends. He also realizes that he and his enemy aren't so different. That they could have both joined the war for similar reasons. The main difference is that one is now dead and the other isn't.
M -
My impression reading this is that the writer is indifferent, but not, if that makes any sense. Soldiers need to be indifferent, but many times cannot quite cut themselves off from the emotions felt when faced with taking another human life.
-
The author struck me as very detached. I found the way he discussed his murder of the man to be rather nonchalant considering the importance of the event. Having been in the military, I know that part of the indoctrination is to give the soldier a feeling of disassociation with killing. I personally believe it comes more naturally to men than to women. I remember marching with a bunch of men and doing the little marching songs, the end (I can't remember any other part but the end) was "hey Napom it sticks to kids." I was horrified that those fellows could sing that like it was funny. I could never accomplish the detachment it would take to be an effective soldier, that's one reason I left the military.
One final note, sometimes this coldness we see on the part of soldiers who have killed in war is a facade, somewhere deep inside they are hurting (wow, now I am sounding like a woman).
In answer to Silica's question, I believe the title is a reinforcement of the author's tone of disassociation (and I sincerely hoping I am using the right word here!) -
A very interesting choice Nando. I would say a blue collar philosopher – not in a pejorative sense but one who has learnt his creed through experience rather than scholastically and is sharp enough to see through the rhetoric of war to the reality; the similarity rather than the difference between sides. A subtle social condemnation on war as well.
One question for the clever coming after: The poem is written first person – so why isn’t the title ‘The Man ‘I’ Killed’?
Edited on Mar 24, 7:48 p.m. because '+'. -
I think with this piece, Hardy tries to create a split feeling towards the man he killed.
First, he uses a friendly scene, (a pub ) a place where friends meet for social reasons. Then continues to menton that he (his foe) was just an ordernary man like himself.
Second, in the second and third stanza, he make it quite clear that they are both trying to kill each other, and with a sense of detachment they were only doing their jobs.
Andrew
Edited on Mar 24, 5:51 p.m. because ''. -
What is the story of the man who was killed?
What is the relation of that story to the meaning the poem?
Is there any particular reason why one man gets killed and not the other?
Can it be said that this question has an ironical relation to the theme of the poem?
my opinions are as following...
Obviously, the theme is irrationality of war. I think in war that makes them kill who have no grudge against each other and who might under different circumstances show each other considerable kindness. Thus.... -
What is the figurative language, tone, and imagery used?
-
lol ok thanks for ur help
-
Peace,
I don't think you could really place this poem easily in any 'theme', without question.
On a basic level, the theme is that of war, but as you study the poem more, it could be that of humanity, or at a deeper level, possibly one of guilt.
Andrew -
Is the theme of the poem how war changes everything ?
-
Peace:
it's a soldier talking about how he's just killed a man he might ave met in a bar and been friends with...but, instead, they've gone to war....
Stanza 1:had we met before in a bar, we might have shared a drink together
2: but we're in the army, on opposite sides and he shot at me but i killed him first
3: i shot him because he was an enemy
4: but maybe he just signed up because of the same reasons i did...i was out of work and had nothing better to do
5:yes, how strange war is/ you kill men who might have been a friend
this is spoken from the soldier's point of view, is a dramatic monolgue, uses pauses for effect, is in stanza form with an ABAB rhyme scheme and the first and last stanzas link ideas together
hope this helps -
Also if someone can tell me the theme of the poem it would be nice.
-
Hey if anybody knows the 3 important literary elements that help convey the theme of the poem please tell me.
-
Hello Liz,
It's generally believed that Hardy wrote this piece against war in general. It has often been associated with the first world war and can often be found in collections of poetry relating to the event.
The actual composition date is unknown but it was first published in 1909, five years before the war.
Andrew -
WHAT BATTLE OR WAR DO YOU SUPPOSE HARDY IS REFERRING TO WHEN HE WROTE THIS POEM???
-
fifi,
The repeated because, (as I see it) is as a break in thought. When you listern to someone talking about something important or a subject that is very close to them. They will often pause to consider the best words to use, then begin again with the last word uttered. If you read the verse again (preferably out loud) and say the second line louder with force, emphercising the second Because you may find it helps with finding the voice Hardy had intended.
The word, 'although' has been used to tie the third and forth stanzas together, and change the direction of though in the poem. In the second and third verse, the other person is the enemy who should be killed on sight, but the forth verse points out that this enemy although in the uniform of the foe and willing to kill. Is a man just like Hardy.
I hope this helps
Andrew -
I like this poem very much but I have tow questions.1)why is the word (because) repeated and 2)what does the word although at the end of the third stanza emphasize.
-
war is a devil.it has different impact on the minds of the people.none ever think that there is a human being on the other side.so wicked is the mind which gets satisfied when the other human being gets slaughted.Le
t there be a movement to stop all the wars in the world. -
Given recent current events, I found myself reading a spate of anti-war poems this year. Many of them were very good but I think this one, written by Hardy in 1902, is still my favorite. What Hardy does so effectively is repaint a politically abstract act of war through the eyes of a common soldier and thereby humanize it.
The key to the success of this poem is the skillful manner in which Hardy establishes the speaker’s voice. There is a beautiful bit of enjambment after the first line of the third stanza; “I shot him dead because -- \ Because he was my foe,” The hesitation after “because --” separates the speaker from any political implications that may surround the conflict.
Also important to the voice is the very commonplace tone which is supported by the form of a familiar sounding ABAB rhyme scheme. The use of the word “ ‘list,” instead of enlist, is more than just a device of meter as the colloquial contributes to the tone. In a similar manner, references to “nipperkin”, “sold his traps” and “half-a-crown” help create the voice.
The speaker ultimately comments that war is “quaint and curious”, not horrific, not tragic, but “quaint and curious.” The understatement has thunderous effect on this reader.
As I read this poem in the context of today, I cannot help but to observe that war most often meant Europeans fighting Europeans. How much easier it is, today, for governments to manipulate public opinion by dehumanizing the enemy. When the “other” is not so clearly seen as like us, the human empathy which Hardy touches in this poem becomes obscured.
-
-
I liked this poem because it is so real. Nobody thinks about how casual soldiers are in war. They don't care about the enemy.
Adding your comment:
1 - 48 of 48
Forum topics
- how does th on poem The Man He Killed, with 1 responses
- what sort h on poem The Man He Killed, with 1 responses
