Introduction
War has long been romanticised in literature and society as a noble endeavour, filled with heroism and patriotic glory. However, poets like Thomas Hardy and Wilfred Owen challenge this notion by exposing the grim realities of conflict. Hardy’s “The Man He Killed” (1902), written in the context of the Boer War, and Owen’s “Dulce et Decorum Est” (1917-1918), composed during the First World War, both critique the senselessness and brutality of war. This essay compares these poems, arguing that while they share a common anti-war message—rejecting the glorification of death in battle—they employ contrasting styles: Hardy’s understated, conversational tone versus Owen’s vivid, horrific imagery. Through detailed analysis, the essay explores their themes, techniques, and implications, drawing on literary criticism to highlight how these works reflect broader disillusionment with war (Stallworthy, 1983). By examining their differences and similarities, we can better understand how poetry serves as a tool for social commentary in English literature.
Analysis of “The Man He Killed” by Thomas Hardy
In “The Man He Killed,” Thomas Hardy employs a calm, reflective tone to underscore the absurdity and pointlessness of war. The poem’s speaker, a soldier, recounts shooting an enemy who, under different circumstances, might have been a friend: “Had he and I but met / By some old ancient inn, / We should have sat us down to wet / Right many a nipperkin!” (Hardy, 1902). This casual language, reminiscent of everyday conversation, humanises both the killer and the victim, emphasising their shared humanity. Hardy repeats the word “because” to convey the speaker’s hesitation and inability to rationalise the act: “I shot him dead because— / Because he was my foe” (Hardy, 1902). This repetition highlights the flimsy justifications for violence in war, suggesting that enmity is arbitrary and imposed by external forces.
Critics argue that Hardy’s style challenges Victorian ideals of imperial heroism. For instance, Murphy (1996) notes that the poem’s ballad-like structure and simple diction parody traditional war narratives, revealing war as a disruption of normal social bonds. Indeed, the speaker’s uncertainty—”Just so: my foe of course he was; / That’s clear enough; although”—exposes the moral confusion soldiers face (Hardy, 1902). By presenting killing in a matter-of-fact way, Hardy critiques the senselessness of conflict, particularly in colonial wars like the Boer War, where ordinary men are pitted against each other without personal grudge. This approach, while subtle, effectively dismantles the myth of war’s nobility, portraying it as an irrational force that corrupts human interactions.
Analysis of “Dulce et Decorum Est” by Wilfred Owen
In contrast, Wilfred Owen’s “Dulce et Decorum Est” uses stark, visceral imagery to depict the horrors of trench warfare in the First World War. The poem draws from Owen’s own experiences, vividly describing a gas attack: “Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling / Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time” (Owen, 1920). Owen’s language is intense and sensory, evoking the physical agony of soldiers: “Bent double, like old beggars under sacks, / Knock-kneed, coughing like hags” (Owen, 1920). This imagery counters the Latin phrase “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori” (It is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country), which Owen labels “The old Lie” at the poem’s end.
Literary scholars highlight Owen’s use of irony and realism to subvert pro-war propaganda. Hibberd (2002) explains that Owen’s detailed descriptions, such as the soldier “guttering, choking, drowning” in poisoned lungs, aim to shock readers into recognising war’s brutality rather than its glory. Furthermore, the poem’s irregular rhythm and harsh sounds mimic the chaos of battle, drawing the reader into the terror. Unlike Hardy’s detached reflection, Owen’s direct confrontation forces an emotional response, critiquing not just the act of killing but the systemic suffering inflicted on soldiers. This makes the poem a powerful anti-war statement, reflecting the disillusionment of a generation scarred by industrial-scale warfare.
Comparison and Contrast
Both poems effectively challenge the glorification of war, yet their methods differ markedly. Hardy’s understated tone and repetition emphasise war’s senselessness through personal reflection, while Owen’s graphic imagery and irony expose its physical horrors. For example, Hardy’s speaker ponders a hypothetical friendship, humanising the enemy, whereas Owen focuses on collective suffering, using metaphors like “drowning” to convey helplessness (Owen, 1920; Hardy, 1902). Despite these contrasts, both poets convey an anti-war message: war is pointless and brutal, stripping away humanity. As Stallworthy (1983) observes, such works represent a shift in war poetry from romanticism to realism, influencing modern perceptions of conflict. However, Owen’s poem, born from the trenches, arguably offers a more immediate critique, while Hardy’s pre-WWI piece anticipates this disillusionment.
Conclusion
In summary, “The Man He Killed” and “Dulce et Decorum Est” both dismantle the myth of war’s honour, with Hardy using casual reflection to highlight absurdity and Owen employing brutal imagery to reveal suffering. These contrasting styles strengthen their shared message, demonstrating poetry’s role in critiquing societal illusions. Their enduring relevance reminds us of war’s human cost, urging a more critical view of conflict in literature and beyond. Ultimately, these poems encourage readers to question patriotic narratives, fostering greater awareness of war’s darker realities.
References
- Hardy, T. (1902) The Man He Killed. Poetry Foundation.
- Hibberd, D. (2002) Wilfred Owen: A New Biography. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
- Murphy, P. (1996) ‘Hardy and the Boer War: “The Man He Killed”‘. English Literature in Transition, 1880-1920, 39(1), pp. 45-59.
- Owen, W. (1920) Dulce et Decorum Est. Poetry Foundation.
- Stallworthy, J. (1983) Wilfred Owen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
