The poem “The Man He Killed” was written by Thomas Hardy in 1902. A fictitious narrator describes in the poem how he caused the death of a fellow soldier during the war. Using imagery, the poem paints a picture of the circumstances that led to war, how it was perceived, and the experiences that troops had. The narrator provides several reasons for why he shot the other man, his thoughts regarding the deed, and an alternative for how things may have been different if they had occurred outside of the battlefield. This essay aims to explain the poem in plain language, explain the narrator’s argument of why he killed the other man, explain whether or not the narrator felt that he did the right thing, and discuss his overall attitude towards war. While the various stylistic devices used in the poem have transformed its language, this essay aims to explain the poem.
From the beginning of the first stanza, the narrator describes the actions he would have taken if he had encountered the other man in a pub. Several drinks could have been divided between the two men, according to the explanation provided by the narrator. When the narrator says these things, it is evident that they are not together. On the other hand, the reader might also become aware that the two individuals were most likely of a lower social level by considering that the location of their meeting was going to be an old pub. Considering his point of view, he harbors any hatred or ill feelings towards the other individual.
In the second stanza, the reader is introduced to the shooting incident and the circumstances that took place before the occurrence. The men were soldiers fighting in the war, as the opening sentence of the passage says. The reader can comprehend that they were on opposing sides because they were “staring face to face” and firing at one another. Although it is possible that any of them would have been killed in the catastrophe, the stanza comes to a close by elaborating on the fact that the only person who survived the event was the narrator. Moreover, this stanza offers additional details regarding the site selection and the ideas of the deceased individual rather than the speaker’s views. After his near-death experience during the war, the narrator might have gone to the pub as a means of calming his head and getting his thoughts back on track.
The narrator presents A convincing argument in the third stanza, explaining why he decided to shoot the other individual. The first thing he says is that he killed the other man because they were adversaries who were engaged in a fight. On the other hand, the fact that there is a break between the first and second sentences, as well as the inclusion of the phrase “just so,” gives the impression that he is uncertain about his reasoning. In addition, he asserts that this is the most he can accomplish in explaining the connection between himself and the other man. Based on the anticipation that he generates at the end of the stanza, it seems he is engaging in some internal dialogue with himself.
In the fourth stanza, the narrator starts to reflect on the life of the deceased guy and his life. For these reasons, he encourages the man to join the military. The narrator hypothesizes that the deceased individual had enlisted in the army as a component of his employment and as a means of generating revenue. This was also the only reason the narrator was at war, as the two men might have exhausted their resources before enlisting in the military.
In the poem’s fifth stanza, the narrator expresses his thoughts on war and how the interaction with other men who had enrolled could be outside of the battlefield. He paints a vision of war as an absurd event in which one can kill without a second thought and one in which someone can shoot a man who could, under different circumstances, quickly become a friend. He does this by creating a picture of war as an absurd event.
The narrator presents a justification for his killing of the man. He says he only did it because the two served in the military and were on different sides of the conflict. Nevertheless, it turns out that the two men had similar backgrounds and goals. He contends in the second verse that they were firing at each other and that it was a question of life or death for every one of them. Both of them may have had difficulty surviving, which is why they were attempting to kill each other. But in the third stanza, the narrator refers to the man as his “foe.”
Nevertheless, it is evident that he is uncertain of the rationale to make, as can be seen in the pauses that occur between the lines; the fact that he insists that the other man was a “foe” was “clear enough,” and the suspense that he generates as a result of these thoughts. In the first and the last stanzas, the narrator suggests that the relationship might have been different if the two men had met under other conditions. He demonstrates, for example, that the two could have been friends, that they could have shared several beverages, and that they could have supported one another.
When he killed the man, the narrator has the feeling that he did not act in a morally responsible manner. To begin, he thinks that the two individuals only met in the incorrect place while they were both compelled by comparable circumstances. The fact that the two of them were out working and trying to make a livelihood is demonstrated in the fourth verse, which indicates that neither of them had a justifiable motive to shoot the other outside the context of the war situation. His claim that he might have treated the man differently, that the two of them could have had a good time together shared a drink, and even supported one another, demonstrates quite clearly that the narrator regrets the fact that he shot the victim. He goes on to say that he had no other option because the only way for him to stay alive was to shoot the man.
Both of the final two stanzas explain the narrator’s perspective on war. It is something that he considers to be nonsensical and ludicrous. According to him, war can turn friends into enemies. The two guys had no other cause to kill one another during the war, as can be observed from what is presented in the essay for the reader to see. They were only enlisted in the military because it was required of them, which, in this particular instance, turned out to be a risky endeavor that did not promise any returns. Even though the fifth stanza reveals that the man had recruited to earn a living, he passes away before enjoying the benefits of his labor. Additionally, the narrator conveys his disdain for how one engages in combat with unknown individuals. The final line of the poem is where he makes the argument that he would have been able to have a drink with the people he shot if they had met under different circumstances, regardless of the location. It is also possible to observe the irony in the narrator’s words in the third stanza about the relationship between the soldiers fighting in the battle. He asserts that he shot the victim “because he was my foe, just so: my foe, of course he was.” He says this throughout his argument. It is clear from this that he regarded war and the hatred that developed between troops who had recruited on opposite sides as being ludicrous.
Work Cited
Hardy, Thomas. “The Man He Killed.” Poetry Foundation, 2024, www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44329/the-man-he-killed.
write