Thomas Hardy is a poet born in England, who died at the age of 87 in Dorset.

The Man He Killed, one of

Thomas Hardy's famous poems, based in World War I, describes the horror of war and how it affected
soldiers who were still human beings with feelings. It was written from the point of view of a soldier
who was expressing his shock at what war required him to do. The poem is spoken in first person, using
the soldier as the speaker. The speaker was trying to explain to himself why he killed this man who he
could have been friends with if they were somewhere else, like in a bar. 

Thomas Hardy explained the stupidity of war by thinking about the things that were the same between
the two men, who were enemies. Hardy thought about a friendship that could have existed between the
two of them, if they had met somewhere else and not in war. It shows that a war is something horrible
between different countries and religions instead of single men. He used a special way to describe the
cruel of the war, in which he detailed displayed two common persons at that time, not criticizing the
war straightly.
The tone was used to emphasize what he felt, which you can tell in this poem: anger, sadness,
helplessness and commiseration. The poet used strong words to help you create an image in your head
of how war affected their lives. Even though its language isn’t very complicated, it still contains some
strong words to outstand the feeling that he wanted to emphasize. With each word in the right place,
this poem can totally express what he wants to tell. 

The poem is written in a conversational tone, with speech marks included, making us feel that the
soldier is telling us personally in an informal way, and debating with us to understand his action in killing
his enemy. The tone in the five stanzas is mainly full of regret, also complaining about war. He criticized
that war had changed people’s personalities, compelled them to harm each other for no reasons.

In the beginning it has the same tone as the last stanza, which says, Yes; quaint and curious war is. The
poet is sighing about the destiny of the soldier and the man he killed and some other unfortunate
people who cannot be seen in this poem. In the first stanza, the poet says if they had met the man he
killed at an inn or a bar, he would gladly have shared a few drinks with that man he killed. The word BUT
is a clue to the reader that this is an alternate situation: what could have happened, rather than what
actually did, as does the word HAD, and SHOULD. Nipper kin could be a metaphor for having a
drink.(nipper kin: a half empty vessel in this case probably used to contain alcohol) Had he and I but met
By some old ancient inn, We should have set us down to wet Right many a nipper kin! But since they
met at war and shot at each other and he ended killing the other man. This verse is the introduction to
the poem. It sets the scene. The main event-the killing-has already taken place and the poet is reflecting
on the event, which allows him to give the readers a sense of place before he begins-almost like a flash
back.


In the second stanza, the whole line is very simple. It has a resigned tone about it, as if he only shot him
because he was going to shoot him. The main action in the poem takes place here. This is the event that
the whole poem is about and it is surprisingly simple. In this stanza, he kills a man, a stranger perhaps
one of his enemies. He doesn’t say anything about how the man looked, whether he was tall or short, he
just refers to him as he. In his death, the man is still a stranger to him. He doesn’t even give detail about
his face and they were staring face to face.

In the third stanza, his tone feels sorrow and helpless. He tries to find a reason to justify the killing but
fails to find one. He is telling the audience how he knows nothing about him, I shot him dead because--
Because he was my foe, just so: my foe of course he was; that's clear enough; although. He seems to
falter here with two because. He hesitates, and repeats a word, for the first time indicating that he feels
at least some need to try to justify it to himself. However he eventually comes to the conclusion that he
had to because it was his foe. Although he is still conscious that this reason is not good enough and does
not excuse him for what he did. That although at the end of the line of this stanza reverberates with his
confusion. Why was his victim a foe? To this question he came up with no answer.
In the fourth stanza the poet is telling about that they both have the list of name of each other, similar
to complete a mission of killing each other. Was out of work had sold his traps No other reason why. It
means, it is the war that forces him and the man he killed to take this gunfight with no other choice.
The last stanza sums up the speaker's views on the whole thing that has happened:
 Yes; strange and

curious war is! You shoot a fellow down you’d treat, where any bar is, or help to half a crown.

 Half a crown is probably a small amount of money, and "traps" means belongings. It comes back to
the main point of the poem, that war is a strange phenomenon because a soldier finds himself forced to
kill a man that he would otherwise have bought a drink for or lent money to if they had met in times of
peace. 

This poem is a quatrain, which is balanced and each stanza is 4 lines, so it sounds regular. Its lines are
neither too long nor too short, therefore it won’t sound its idea is well organized. Each stanza expresses
a different idea, except the first and the last ones. In the first and last stanzas, it is mainly sighing about
their destinies, while in the second one, it is telling what takes place in the story, what has happened
before that man is killed. In the third stanza it is trying to make a reason about that he did not kill that
man in purpose, he has no choice. Then it comes to tell how helpless the soldier felt after killing a man
who he had never known in the forth stanza. They don’t want to join the war, but they were forced to
do so. 

The language is very straightforward and easy to read and understand with exception of some few
words. It uses an informal way to show it, so that might seem more just like the soldier who killed a man
is talking on his own, which let people involve into the situation he is describing quickly. In stanza two,
the language does not sound like his own; perhaps it is the soldier telling the story, it is fairly casual and
is mostly quite conversational. There is some metaphors used in this poem, like nipper kin, infantry,
quaint and curious. These metaphors are not specifically hard; they are just adjectives that we uses in
our everyday life. 

The rhyme scheme and rhythm are regular and gives the poem quite a fast pace while reading it. As you
can see there are 5 stanzas of 4 lines each and they have an ABAB CDCD EFEF rhyme scheme, which
does not contain any near rhyme or assonance. There are some words repeated in the end, because he
has to rhyme the poem.
The mood in this poem is sometimes aggressive and sometimes full of indignant which changes people’s
mood while reading this poem, so people can feel the feelings of the poet easily. In this poem, the sound
is not really outstanding, in the beginning and the end, which is soft and full of felling of sympathetic. It
changes in the second, third, fourth stanza, and becomes harsh. 
 

The first image that I came up with while reading this poem is a battle with dead bodies lying on the
ground and there is still soldiers fighting. The sound of gun is everywhere. All in a sudden, a man was
shot and killed. The words in this poem are created from words; it can give us a clearer idea of what it is
saying about. Each word of this poem is connected, so it gives us a connected image all the way thru

| Posted on 2009-05-15 | by a guest