GCSEEnglish LiteratureEdexcelRevision Notes4. The Poetry AnthologyConflictThe Man He Killed

The Man He Killed (Edexcel GCSE English Literature)

Revision Note

Jen Davis

Author

Jen Davis

Expertise

English

The Man He Killed

Your Edexcel GCSE English Literarature Conflict Anthology includes 15 poems. In your exam you will be given one poem – printed in full – and asked to compare it to another one from the anthology. As this is a “closed book” exam, you will not have access to the second poem, so you will need to know it from memory. Fifteen poems is a lot to revise. However, if you understand these four essential things about each poem, you will be able to produce a top-grade response:

  • The meaning of the poem
  • The ideas and messages the poet wanted to convey
  • How the poet uses poetic methods to convey these ideas and messages
  • How the ideas and themes in each poem compare and contrast with the ideas and themes of the other poems in the anthology

Here is a guide to Thomas Hardy’s 'The Man He Killed', from the Conflict Anthology. It includes the following sections:

  • Overview: a breakdown of the poem, including its possible meanings and interpretations
  • Writer’s methods: an analysis of the poet’s techniques and methods
  • Context: an exploration of the poem’s context in relation to its themes

What to compare it to: suggestions about which poems to compare it to in the exam

Exam Tip

Your exam paper may ask you to compare 'The Man He Killed' with one other poem from the Conflict Anthology. You should focus on the ways in which each poem presents ideas about conflict.

If you look at the section on “What to compare it to”, you’ll find detailed suggestions about how to compare 'The Man He Killed' with other poems in the anthology. If 'The Man He Killed' is the printed poem on your exam paper, state which poem you’re going to compare it to, and why you have made your choice. For instance, you could compare 'The Man He Killed' with another poem that focuses on military conflict, such as Wilfred Owen’s 'Exposure'. In your introduction, present a summary of the main similarities and differences you intend to focus on in your response.

Overview

This section includes:

  • The poem in a nutshell
  • An explanation of the poem, section-by-section
  • An outline of Hardy’s intention and message in each of these sections

'The Man He Killed' in a nutshell

'The Man He Killed' is a dramatic monologue, narrated by an unnamed soldier. He recounts his experience of killing an enemy soldier on the battlefield and reflects that, if he had met the man he killed under different circumstances, the two of them might have been friends. The speaker’s lack of conviction about killing the man is emphasised by his sense of identification with him, although he also recognises that he was his enemy. The poem criticises the way that war forces soldiers to simply follow orders, without knowing or understanding the reasons for their actions. Hardy also implies that it is usually working class men who are put in this position. 

'The Man He Killed' breakdown

Lines 1–4

“‘Had he and I but met

By some old ancient inn, 

We should have sat us down to wet 

Right many a nipperkin!”

Explanation

  • If the speaker had met the man he killed near a pub, they would probably have shared quite a few drinks:
    • A “nipperkin” is a measure of drink, so it’s like saying “quite a few pints”

Hardy’s intention

  • The speaker contrasts the situation that actually happened with what might have happened (“Had he and I but met”) in different circumstances
  • The speaker and the man he killed would probably (“should”) have been friends
  • Hardy’s use of the dialect words “wet” (drink) and “nipperkin” suggests the two men would have had a lot in common, including their working class backgrounds
  • Hardy is showing, right from the start, the speaker’s uncertainty about his actions:
    • This opens up the subject of the irrationality and futility of war

Lines 5–8

“‘But ranged as infantry, 

And staring face to face, 

I shot at him as he at me, 

And killed him in his place.”

Explanation

  • Because the two men were enemy soldiers in an infantry regiment, they shot at each other
  • The speaker killed the other man where he stood

Hardy’s intention

  • Hardy introduces the circumstances in which the two men actually met
  • They were both soldiers in infantry regiments, on opposite sides (“ranged”) in the conflict
  • Standing “face to face” emphasises their opposition, while “staring” could suggest fear or horror
  • The line describing the two men shooting at each other is very evenly balanced, with four syllables describing each man’s action:
    • This highlights their mutual enmity, but also how much they are alike
  • The construction of “killed him in his place” also implies how easy it would be to switch the subject round to read “killed me in my place”:
    • This reinforces the commonality between the speaker and his enemy

Lines 9–16

“‘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.”

Explanation

  • The speaker shot the man because he was his enemy
  • That’s clear to the speaker, even though he seems to need to convince himself of it
  • However, the man he killed may have decided to enlist (’list) in the army on the spur of the moment, just like the speaker did
  • He may have had similar reasons to the speaker, like being out of work, or selling his belongings (“traps” broadly means “stuff”), or some other reason that wasn’t serious

Hardy’s intention

  • These lines show the speaker attempting to make sense of the situation that he and the man he killed found themselves in
  • First of all, the speaker reminds himself that he shot the man because he was his enemy
  • He then settles on a definite reason for killing the man:
    • But he seems to need to justify it to himself when he says “Just so” to emphasise it, then repeats his statement
    • “Just so” may also imply that his action was “just” the way it was, because that’s what happens in war 
  • The line ending “although” leads straight into the following stanza, suggesting that the speaker can’t think about the man he killed as only an enemy
  • He returns to the the things that made them alike
  • The sequence of possible similarities that follows shows the speaker creating more parallels between himself and the man he killed
  • The similarities identified by the speaker emphasise his belief that the man he killed had the same rural, working-class background as himself
  • The one reason for enlisting that the speaker doesn’t identify is patriotism, showing that he did not himself enlist for patriotic reasons

Lines 13–20

“‘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.’”

Explanation

  • War is unusual and odd 
  • In war, you shoot somebody that you would buy a drink or lend money to in other circumstances

Hardy’s intention

  • These lines take the poem full-circle, back to the beginning, with the speaker asserting that, in different circumstances, he would have been friends with the man he killed 
  • The use of “quaint” and “curious” understate the gravity of the speaker’s experience, and are likely to be intended as ironic

In fact, war has been a devastating experience for the speaker, and the trauma of killing a man who he believes was just like himself still haunts him

Writer's methods

Although this section is organised into three separate sections – form, structure and language – it is important to take an integrated approach to AO2. That means you should only consider how the poet is presenting their ideas to help you understand why they have made those choices. Think about how Hardy’s language, structure and form contribute to his theme, message and intention. 

Focusing on theme, rather than individual poetic techniques, will gain you far more marks. In the following sections, all analysis is arranged by theme, including the intentions behind Hardy’s choices of:

  • Form
  • Structure
  • Language

Exam Tip

The best way to discuss the technical aspects of poems, such as their form, structure and language, is to integrate what you know into your argument about the themes and ideas in the poem. For the highest marks, you should demonstrate your understanding of how Hardy gets his meaning across. 

That means you should show how Hardy uses form, structure and language to make his ideas clearer and more effective. Avoid just identifying poetic techniques without linking them to the themes of 'The Man He Killed'. Focus instead on things like the effect Hardy’s rhyming scheme has on his message, or how the poem’s form or structure helps to convey a particular tone.  

Form

Hardy’s dramatic monologue has five four-line stanzas, all of which have a regular rhyming scheme of ABAB. The third line of each stanza is slightly longer than the others at eight syllables. The poem’s regular rhythm gives it a conversational, even chatty tone, which contradicts its violent subject. This contributes to the poem’s irony, and also makes it more noticeable when the regular rhythm is broken. Drawing attention to his theme of the futility of war in such a subtle way reveals Hardy’s sophisticated use of form, even when his language is simple and straightforward. 

Theme

Evidence

Poet’s intention

The futility of war

The regular rhythm and rhyme scheme gives the poem a conversational, nursery rhyme feel that contrasts dramatically with its subject matter

The contrast between form and subject creates dissonance:

  • This draws the reader’s attention to what is being said about armed conflict
  • Hardy wants to emphasise the seriousness of what the speaker is saying about the futility of war

The regular rhythm breaks down at the beginning of the third stanza and throughout the fourth stanza:

  • Dashes replace the missing syllables and create pauses

Hardy conveys the speaker’s difficulty in justifying his actions and his recognition of the similarities between himself and the man he killed

Structure

The structure of the poem is cyclical. The speaker discusses the friendship that might have existed between the two men, then identifies that he was an enemy soldier, and finally comes back to the idea of friendship. This puts greater emphasis on the similarities between the two men and, therefore, the futility of their conflict. The cyclical structure also implies that there is no solution to the speaker’s anxiety and that war fails to provide any answers; it can only perpetuate a cycle of destruction and doubt. 

Theme

Evidence

Poet’s intention
The futility of war

The poem’s first and final stanzas mirror each other in their tone and the use of conditional language:

  • “Had (if) he and I” and “if”, emphasising the cyclical structure

Hardy shows the speaker beginning and ending his monologue with the same question: what would have happened if our circumstances had been different?

The first line in the third stanza is missing a couple of beats after “because”: 

  • They are replaced by a dash

Hardy uses the dash to convey the speaker’s thought processes as he struggles to justify his act, showing how difficult it is to find any moral justification for killing

In the third stanza, the poet uses caesurae with semicolons after “of course he was” and “that’s clear enough”

The pauses suggest that the speaker is checking to see if his reasoning is convincing, either for his listeners or for himself: 

  • Hardy is illustrating the moral problem of seeing a fellow human being as an enemy who has to be killed

Enjambment at the end of the third stanza leads straight into speculation in the fourth stanza about the similarities between the speaker and the man he killed

This shows how quickly thoughts about their common humanity overtake the speaker’s perception of the man as an enemy: 

  • Hardy’s message is that these soldiers have more in common than sets them apart, so killing each other is senseless and wrong

The nine syllables of the penultimate line break the rhythm of the verse and emphasise the word “any”


 

 

This introduces an insistent, almost angry tone:

  • It reflects the speaker’s frustration that he hasn’t resolved his moral dilemma

  • It also conveys the idea of universality (the bar could be anywhere, including in the enemy’s country)

  • This reinforces the sense that the speaker is just like the man he killed

The longer final line, with its six syllables, also gives a sense of bathos:

  • This suggests the speaker’s melancholy focus on his actions

Hardy wants to leave the reader in the same situation as his speaker: 

  • The reader is left in a state of moral conflict about war and the killing of another human being

Language

Hardy’s use of simple language reflects his speaker’s character, which makes his anti-war message very direct. The violence and futility of war is conveyed by language illustrating the speaker’s desperately grim situation, in which he could either kill or be killed. Hardy’s use of dialect words suggests his speaker is a working man from Dorset. This presents him as an everyman figure who represents the feelings of ordinary soldiers. It also highlights ideas about social class.

Theme

Evidence

Poet’s intention
War and violence versus friendship

The poem uses the semantic field of armed conflict with terms such as “infantry”, “shot”, “shoot”, “killed”, “foe” and “war” 

This language emphasises the theme of the violence of war, and the repetition of many of these words suggests the speaker’s constant replaying of his memories
The contrast created with the gentle, friendly imagined scenes of sharing a drink or lending him money highlights the unnatural nature of the violence

The cosiness of the image of an “ancient inn” and “any bar” presents a strong contrast with the speaker’s memories of the battlefield

The idea of sharing a drink begins and ends the poem:

  • This promotes a feeling of fellowship that is in direct contrast to the violence that the speaker is forced to enact
  • Hardy is showing that friendship is preferable to enmity and violence

The futility of war


 


 


 


 

In the third stanza, Hardy’s repetition of “foe” and “because” communicate his speaker’s troubling feelings:

The internal rhyme “just so” adds to this effect

 

“Because” is repeated as the speaker struggles to remind himself of the reason for killing the man:

  • The repetition of “foe” suggests that the speaker is trying to convince himself that this was a logical thing to do
  • This is emphasised by “just so”

Hardy shows the speaker’s struggle to rationalise his actions in order to reinforce how senseless his situation was

In the fourth stanza, Hardy’s use of hesitant language, such as “although” (line 12) and “perhaps” (line 13) produce a tone of uncertainty:

  • The repeated dashes add to this effect

Hardy is emphasising the speaker’s uncertainty about his actions:

  • He speculates that his enemy was a man just like himself, illustrating the senselessness of war: similar people are placed in deadly opposition to each other 

Hardy uses parallel sentence structures in the lines “I shot at him as he at me” and “face to face”

This emphasises the similarities between the two men, as  Hardy wants to highlight the commonality between the two men, despite their situation on opposing sides in the war:

  • They are presented as two halves of a pair

 

Hardy breaks with his use of the first and third person (“I” and “he”) in the final stanza: 

  • He uses the second-person “You” in the final stanza 

This makes the message of the poem universal as Hardy highlights the unnatural state of armed conflict: 

  • Hardy is suggesting that “you”, the readers of the poem, would all behave differently in other circumstances
  • People are forced to act against their natural instincts of fellowship 

Social class


 

 

The plain diction of Hardy’s speaker suggests his working-class origins:

  • His use of dialect words like “nipperkin” and “traps” also suggests this
 Hardy is illustrating the fact that most wars are fought by soldiers from working-class backgrounds

The speaker and the man he killed have more in common than those who gave the orders

The speaker speculates that the man he killed enlisted for the same practical reasons as himself:

  • Reasons such as unemployment
  • Like the speaker, the man enlisted quite casually, “off-hand like”

 

Hardy illustrates the fact that the two soldiers, although on opposing sides in the conflict, are alike:

They are alike in terms of their class and motivations, which include financial need

Patriotism is not mentioned as a reason for enlisting:

  • This emphasises the fact that patriotic feeling is not a motivating factor for the speaker or for other working men

  • This lack of patriotic feeling suggests that war propaganda is dishonest when it claims that people enlist for moral reasons

  • It also suggests that working men enlist for different reasons on both sides of the conflict

Context

Context

Context is important, but examiners don’t want to see random chunks of information about Hardy’s life or the times he lived in, because that doesn’t demonstrate your understanding of the poem itself. You should aim to use contextual information to support your analysis of Hardy’s message and your exploration of his ideas. As the ideas explored in 'The Man He Killed' all revolve around the central theme of the futility of war, this section has been bullet-pointed under that theme:

The futility of war

  • Thomas Hardy wrote 'The Man He Killed' in 1902, during the Second Boer War:
    • The Boer Wars were conflicts between British and Dutch (Boer) settlers in what is now South Africa
    • It’s likely that the British wanted to seize the territory because it was rich in diamond and gold mines
    • Hardy disagreed with the reasons for fighting the Boer War:
      • He argued publicly that the war was unjust, as the Boers were only defending their homes
    • Hardy’s objections were typical of his liberal viewpoint:
      • He believed that war was unnatural and should not be seen as a normal method of resolving a dispute
  • Hardy believed that the politicians of his time were incompetent:
    • They didn’t care about the moral and practical consequences of their decisions for ordinary soldiers
  • In 'The Man He Killed', Hardy’s speaker can’t make sense of his experience:
    • He struggles to find a reason why the man he killed was his enemy
    • This illustrates Hardy’s view that ordinary soldiers had to enforce the senseless and immoral decisions made by politicians 
  • Hardy was born in Dorset to a working class family:
    • His father was a stonemason, which was regarded as a working class occupation
    • Instead of following his father’s trade, Hardy pursued a career as a writer:
      • His novels and poetry often feature working class protagonists
      • His rural, working-class background allowed him to empathise with the speaker of 'The Man He Killed'
      • It also ensured his familiarity with the Dorset dialect used by his speaker
  • Hardy made it clear that the speaker of 'The Man He Killed' is a soldier who has returned from the war:
    • He is talking to his friends in a Dorset pub
    • This setting reinforces the contrast in the poem between normal life and the horror and futility of war

Exam Tip

You should show your understanding of the relationship between the poem and its context in your response. Demonstrating your knowledge of contexts is a great way to add complexity to your analysis of the poem’s themes and ideas.

However, avoid including sections of information about Hardy’s life or his historical context without connecting it to his ideas, as that will not gain you marks. Instead, aim to use your knowledge of contexts to enrich your analysis of Hardy’s theme and message. That means your main focus should be on the key theme of Hardy’s poem, and how you can link it with the themes of the other poems in your Conflict anthology.  

What to compare it to

Your exam response should compare the ideas and themes explored in two of your anthology poems. Therefore, you should aim to revise pairs of poems together, to understand how each poet presents their ideas about conflict in relation to the other poets in your anthology. In 'The Man He Killed', Hardy’s main theme is the futility of war, so the following comparisons are the most appropriate:

  • 'The Man He Killed' and 'Exposure'
  • 'The Man He Killed' and 'What Were They Like?'

For each pair of poems, you will find:

  • The comparison in a nutshell
  • Similarities between the ideas presented in each poem
  • Differences between the ideas presented in each poem
  • Evidence and analysis of these similarities and differences

Exam Tip

Your comparison of 'The Man He Killed' with other poems in the anthology should be detailed and insightful. You will need to compare how Hardy uses language, form and structure to present his themes with the methods used by other writers. Therefore, it’s important that you have a thorough knowledge of all the poems, rather than just memorising a series of quotations. 


Make sure your response is a comparison of the named poem and one other poem in the anthology. If you only write about the poem given on the paper, you will only achieve half the marks available. Writing a comparison of two poems that demonstrates your thorough understanding of both of them will achieve the highest marks. For instance, you could compare how Hardy and Wilfred Owen show their protagonists’ sense of futility, or how Hardy and Denise Levertov convey the devastation of ordinary peoples’ lives. 

'The Man He Killed' and 'Exposure'

Comparison in a nutshell:

Both Wilfred Owen’s 'Exposure' and 'The Man He Killed' explore the futility of war and its devastating effects on ordinary people. Owen shows how trench warfare causes misery and hopelessness for a group of soldiers, while Hardy presents the aftermath of war and the suffering it causes an individual soldier. Both poems show how the experience of war leads to a realisation of its pointlessness. 

Similarities:

Topic sentence

Both poems illustrate the futility of war, and their speakers’ struggle to justify their situation

Evidence and analysis

'The Man He Killed'

'Exposure'

Hardy highlights the futility of war by repeating the idea that the speaker and his enemy would have been friends in any other situation

Owen highlights the futility of war by repeating “nothing happens” to describe the soldiers’ situation as they wait in the trenches 

Hardy’s speaker recognises the pointlessness of enlisting for “no other reason” than an “off-hand” one: 

  • He speculates that his enemy was in the same situation

Owen illustrates the sense of pointlessness experienced by the soldiers, who seem to do nothing but wait: 

  • Their doubts are revealed when they ask “What are we doing here?”

Hardy contrasts the imagined comforts of home with the reality of war: 

  • The speaker imagines buying his enemy a drink in an “ancient inn”, where they would sit down together
  • This emphasises the speaker’s conflicted feelings about killing his enemy

Owen also contrasts the comforts of home with the reality of war: 

  • He contrasts the “kind fires” of the soldiers’ homeland with the “sunk fires” burning in the trenches
  • This emphasises the suffering of the soldiers in the trenches

Hardy shows the speaker struggling to justify his actions:

  • After pausing to consider, the speaker concludes that he killed the man “Because he was my foe”
  • The pause implies the speaker’s lack of certainty

Owen’s narrator tries to justify the soldiers’ situation by saying “Since we believe not otherwise can kind fires burn”: 

  • This means “we believe this is the only way we can protect our homes”
  • But the complicated, indirect syntax reveals a lack of certainty in their claim

The inevitable nature of death in war is presented directly when the speaker describes how he killed his enemy:

  • They were “ranged as infantry” and “staring face to face”
  • Therefore, no other action was possible

Owen describes the “burying party” who look on the “half-known faces” of corpses: 

  • The “burying party” implies that this is a frequent duty
  • This implies the inevitable and everyday nature of death 

When Hardy’s speaker observes how “quaint and curious war is”, the ironic tone implies a criticism of war:

  • This understatement suggests concealed feelings of anger and bitterness  

Owen’s narrator, after describing the “miseries” of the soldiers, offers a similarly ironic, understated comment: “We only know war lasts”:

  • This comment is similarly understated, suggesting a bitter acceptance of the situation

War is depicted as pointless in both poems, and death and suffering are presented as inevitable

Differences:

Topic sentence

Hardy and Owen present the futility and suffering of war in different ways

Evidence and analysis

'The Man He Killed'

'Exposure'

Hardy’s poem depicts the killing of an enemy by his speaker directly

Owen evokes death and suffering, but does not depict killing directly

Hardy employs a first-person speaker:

  • This makes it feel as though the speaker is telling the reader his experiences directly

Owen’s narrator describes the events from the point of view of the group of soldiers (“we”):

  • This emphasises the collective nature of their experience
  • But it doesn’t feel as though the reader is being addressed directly 

Hardy’s speaker is blunt and uses straightforward language to describe his feelings of guilt and misery

Owen uses highly descriptive language, employing complex imagery, metaphor and personification to evoke the misery of war

Hardy objected publicly to the Boer Wars:

  • But he had no direct experience of warfare as a soldier

Owen had direct experience of trench warfare in the First World War:

  • Despite his disagreement with the continuing conflict, he returned to fight in the war

Hardy’s presentation of the futility of war is direct, although he had no personal experience of warfare, and while Owen was a soldier, his poem is less direct and more descriptive in its presentation of war’s futility



'The Man He Killed' and 'What Were They Like?'

Denise Levertov’s 'What Were They Like?' and Hardy’s 'The Man He Killed' both present a critical view of war’s futility, destruction, sadness and loss. In Hardy’s poem, the speaker has lost his peace of mind because he cannot account for or justify his actions during the war. Levertov’s poem focuses on the survivors of another unequal conflict, the Vietnam War, which devastated the country to the extent that her speaker cannot answer the questions about what things were like before the war. 

Similarities:

Topic sentence

Hardy and Levertov both use techniques like repetition and conjecture to criticise the destruction and losses caused by war

Evidence and analysis

'The Man He Killed'

'What Were They Like?'

A tone of conjecture opens and closes Hardy’s poem, as the speaker speculates on his potential friendship with his enemy outside of a war situation:

  • Throughout the poem, the speaker shows confusion and doubt
  • This suggests criticism of the war that put him in the situation

Levertov’s second speaker attempts to answer the first speaker’s questions, but finds they can only guess at the answers: 

  • This is because the war has destroyed so much of the country’s culture and way of life
  • Therefore, the speaker’s tone of conjecture can be seen as a criticism of the war

The ending of the poem evokes sadness and a sense of loss:

  • The speaker is left with his unresolved moral dilemma and unanswered questions 
  • He has lost his peace of mind

Levertov also shows the sadness and loss suffered by the Vietnamese people in her final line, “Who can say? It is silent now.”: 

  • This line shows that answers are impossible, because the people who could provide them are now silent
  • A whole culture has been lost

The speaker’s lack of certainty is illustrated by the repetition of “because” and “foe”:

  • He is trying to convince himself that his actions were justified 
  • He does not manage to define his reasons convincingly

Levertov uses the repetition of “It is not remembered” to emphasise the effects of the war:

  • Everything from before the war has become obscure, like an “echo”
  • In the aftermath of the war, things can no longer be defined

The speaker’s sardonic comment that war is “quaint and curious” reflects his bitterness:

  • He is left with feelings of regret and anger that he cannot resolve

Levertov’s speaker answers a question about laughter with the sardonic comment that it is “bitter to the burnt mouth”: 

  • They are alluding to the use of napalm in the war
  • The bitterness is, therefore, both physical and emotional
  • The repeated use of “Sir” in the poem could also be read as sarcastic

Both poems deliver a criticism of the futility, destruction and sadness of war and its aftermath



Topic sentence

Both poets show war in unambiguous, direct terms that leave no doubt about their views

Evidence and analysis

'The Man He Killed'

'What Were They Like?'

Hardy’s speaker describes the death of his enemy directly:

  • The statement “I killed him in his place” is blunt and unambiguous
  • This effect is emphasised by Hardy’s use of words with only one syllable

Levertov also describes death in direct terms of one syllable:

  • The statement “All the bones were charred” is realistic and shocking
  • Levertov makes this statement a separate sentence, emphasising its bluntness 

Hardy’s speaker is an ordinary working man:

  • This is shown in his plain speech and use of dialect words

Levertov also indicates that the victims of the war were ordinary people: 

  • Her speaker instructs the questioner to “Remember, / Most were peasants.”

Hardy objected publicly to the Boer Wars and the British Army’s involvement in the conflict:

  • He saw the war as oppressive and morally wrong

Levertov actively protested against the US military’s involvement in the Vietnam war:

  • She co-founded a protest group of writers and artists that criticised America’s intervention in Vietnam

References to class in each poem emphasise the oppressive and unjust nature of war

Differences:

Topic sentence

While Hardy presents a straightforward account of the horror of war, Levertov combines direct description with metaphor and imagery

Evidence and analysis

'The Man He Killed'

'What Were They Like?'

Hardy presents his anti-war views through a first-person speaker:

  • His dramatic monologue is delivered in the first person
  • This has the effect of speaking directly to the reader about the futility of the conflict

Levertov uses a dialogue to present her anti-war poem:

  • One speaker asks questions and a second speaker responds to them
  • The reader is not addressed directly, but is shown the horror of the war in the third person

Hardy’s language is direct and graphic:

  • His speaker’s statement “I shot at him as he at me” leaves no room for doubt about events

Levertov uses a combination of direct description and metaphor:

  • Descriptions like “their light hearts turned to stone” are open to a number of different interpretations

Hardy shows the similarities between his working class speaker and the man he killed:

  • Phrases like “just as I” and “face to face” emphasise their equality and commonality

Levertov presents the conflict as unequal, and the enemy as oppressive:

  • Phrases like “their children were killed” and references to “bombs” and “screams” demonstrate the overwhelming nature of the attacks

Hardy criticises the war through a single speaker, while Levertov describes the conflict through descriptions of its effects on a group of people



You've read 0 of your 0 free revision notes

Get unlimited access

to absolutely everything:

  • Downloadable PDFs
  • Unlimited Revision Notes
  • Topic Questions
  • Past Papers
  • Model Answers
  • Videos (Maths and Science)

Join the 100,000+ Students that ❤️ Save My Exams

the (exam) results speak for themselves:

    Next topic

    Did this page help you?

    Jen Davis

    Author: Jen Davis

    Jen studied a BA(Hons) in English Literature at the University of Chester, followed by an MA in 19th Century Literature and Culture. She taught English Literature at university for nine years as a visiting lecturer and doctoral researcher, and gained a Postgraduate Certificate in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education in 2014. She now works as a freelance writer, editor and tutor. While teaching English Literature at university, Jen also specialised in study skills development, with a focus on essay and examination writing.