The Sad Ironies of War in Cranes War is Kind and Hardys The Man He Killed - Essay Example

February 16, The Sad Ironies of War in Crane’s “War is Kind” and Hardy’s “The Man He Killed” Modern times have witnessed one too many wars that evoke conflicting emotions. Others feel patriotic when they think of war, while some feel despondent. Two poems share a sad tone about the war, Stephen Crane’s “War is Kind” and Thomas Hardy’s “The Man He Killed.” This essay compares and contrasts these two poems in their effectiveness in showing a somber mood about war, where they are similar and they differ in their literary devices. These authors similarly use imagery and irony to convey their message, though Crane adds alliteration and allusion to his literary devices to present a strongly ironic analysis of war, while Hardy uses rhymes and iambic meter, and shows more guilt in the speaker’s participation in a war that he joined out of poverty. Crane and Hardy are effective in creating a sad tone by depicting the ironies of war, wherein, both assert that war is brutal and meaningless because it breaks natural inclinations and logic. Hardy uses a conversational writing style to assert the irony of war for soldiers. The style is conversational, wherein the speaker sounds like he is just telling a story. His story is about a casual drinking encounter that never came true because war changes the natural conditions of people. Hardy narrates that, without war, soldiers would have been, at least, drinking buddies. He says that, if he and a soldier from an enemy state met in “some old ancient inn” (2), they “should have” (3) drank “many a nipperkin” (4). The ancient inn stands for the past where wars did not exist. The setting would have been a time for making friends. Hardy asserts that war changes everything. It builds the new perspective of men when they are “ranged as infantry” (5). By “ranged,” it has the connotation of being developed into a soldier, and by sounding like “rage,” it implies that war teaches rage. As a soldier, a natural sense of friendliness is gone, and instead, when a soldier meets a soldier from another side, the ending is shooting one another and death. The speaker killed the other “in his place” (8). The “place” has become enemy ground instead of the neutral potential friendship ground. Hardy’s introduction of what-ifs about a different setting suggests that war creates a tragic situational irony that turns would-be-friends into direct enemy combatants. Apart from exploring the ironies of war, Hardy implies the meaninglessness of war. War is meaningless because its causes are unclear and enlistment reasons are unrelated to the goals of war. The speaker says that he shot the other dead because he was “[his] foe/Just so: my foe of course he was;/That’s clear enough; although” (10-12). The phrases “just so,” “of course,” “that’s clear enough,” and “although” show that the speaker is unsure of why he had to kill a person. He is a “foe,” but the hesitant tone of the speaker suggests the question, “Who says so who is a foe or not?” The word “clear” is verbal irony because the causes of war are unclear to the soldier, which makes the war lacking of concrete purpose. Later on, Hardy describes the war as “quaint and curious” because a different situation would have produced a different outcome (17). War creates enemies, while peace does not. Hardy is suggesting that there is nothing quaint and curious at all in war because it is about power and death, making the sacrifice of innocent lives, combatant or otherwise, all a waste of humanity. In addition, war is meaningless because the speaker joined it for non-patriotic reasons. He thinks that he might be like the man he shot, joining because he is “out of work/No other reason why” (15-16). This motive reveals that he did not enlist for the glorious reasons of patriotism and justice, but because of basic economic needs. The poem is showing the meaninglessness of war that does not resolve poverty and provide compelling justifications for so many people who sacrificed their lives for it. Crane explores the sad ironies of war too, where the title itself is a verbal irony. He uses the title “War is Kind” to challenge the ideas that war has important social purposes. “Kind” is an understatement because, in war, a common sight is a “field where a thousand corpses lie” (11). Crane repeats the line of these thousand corpses twice to emphasize that, war is not kind but ultimately brutal. The title is the reverse position of Crane who thinks that war is the least kind human act for it is the most vicious act of all. Apart from the verbal irony of the title, Crane uses allusion to talk to various people who are the most directly affected during wars, apart from soldiers. Crane uses third person viewpoint as he calls to the various individuals who truly care about soldiers- their lovers, children, and parents- to not weep. At first, Crane talks to the “maiden” or the soldiers’ lovers and wives. Theirs is the greatest sacrifice because they cannot do anything but “weep” (4). By saying “[d]o not weep,” the more that Crane makes these women weep because they know the hazards that their soldiers face in battle. Crane uses situational irony to say that maidens should not weep because their soldiers would leave the war and their “steed” (3) alone, when in reality, many of these soldiers stay and fight, no matter how scared and unprepared they are. They have no other “steed’ but their bodies, and for that, the maidens weep. Apart from the maidens, Crane talks to the children of soldiers, the “babe” (12). The line, “War is kind,” is verbal irony because these fathers “tumble” like objects before they die with “rage” (14). Crane paints a picture of senselessness in dying with rage for no clear purpose, and then this is juxtaposed with the image of children who are waiting for their fathers to return, which makes the poem’s tone heartbreaking. Fathers have a family purpose, wars do not. Finally, Crane talks to mothers. The analogy of their hearts as “humble” buttons contrasts with the “bright spending shroud” of their sons (24-25). The analogy suggests that these mothers want nothing else than to see their sons coming back alive, not caring for the glory of dead heroes. These allusions make the tone sad because they depict how wars break relationships apart. Based on these analyses, Hardy and Crane effectively present a sad tone through showing that war is meaningless and brutal because they break natural and traditional inclinations. For Hardy, the natural inclination of strangers, who have no ill will toward each other is that, if they meet in “some old ancient inn” (2), they “should have” (3) drank “many a nipperkin” (4). Congeniality is the next natural step. War, however, changes it to violent tendencies, with the intent of shooting the foe because it is the “clear” reason that the state tells soldiers (12). Crane agrees with Hardy that war disrupts natural acts and traditions. In war, men are trained to be violent, to “thirst for fight” (7), so that they would feel they were “born to drill and die” (8). “Thirst” and “born” are natural to humanity, but not war which is something the state trains and develops. These authors show the sadness of how war changes natural tendencies and how war replaces them with violent ones. Apart from breaking away from what is natural, these authors agree in their sad tone that war is illogical because it defies human needs for self-preservation and connection. Hardy’s speaker knows that he must shoot his foe or else he dies. But he should not have shot anyone in the first place, if he is not taught that the other is a “foe” (11). Their lives should have been both spared without the war. The same goes for Crane who does not understand the logic of killing, so that one must live. Soldiers must shoot the enemy or else they are killed, but either way, the field will be filled of a “thousand corpses” (11, 22). War does not preserve human life at all. In addition, apart from the consequences of death, war is illogical because it breaks human connection. For Hardy, war takes out the possibility of friendship, such as drinking in an inn, and charity, such as giving “half-a-crown” (2). Instead, a soldier sees a foe and he shoots him, even when reasons are unclear. Crane affirms Hardy’s ironic analysis of war. He is sad that war cannot preserve life at all, for soldiers “drill and die” (8). When souls also “thirst for fight,” it breaks the natural need for social support. War desensitizes soldiers and turns them into hardened killing machines, which produces a gloomy tone for the poem. Though the arguments of the two authors are similar in tone and content, they differ in use of dominant literary devices because Crane adds alliteration and allusion, while Hardy uses rhymes and iambic meter, and shows more guilt in the speaker’s participation in a war that poverty pushed him into. Crane uses alliteration to emphasize the gloominess of war’s brutality. “Weep,” “war,” and “wild” are alliterations that suggest the sadness of war that wastes lives and breaks families apart. Other examples of alliteration are “heart hung humble” and “button” and “bright” (23-24). The “heart” is simple with basic needs for love and family, and yet it is “hung” and killed because of war. “Button” is a contrast to the “bright” shroud, where war undermines the simple goals of family life. In addition, Crane alludes to family members and loved ones in his poem, while Hardy uses first-person viewpoint to speak more intimately about a soldier’s inner thoughts and emotions. As discussed, Crane speaks to every soldier’s loved one, emphasizing that, for every soldier lost, a maiden, a babe, and a mother weep. Hardy has a rhyming iambic meter that speaks of traditional poetry. These are effective literary structures because they make the poetry flow like a song, but only this time, it is a sad song. The rhymes imply the sadness of romanticized war when it is full of uncertainty and death. Hardy also has a guilty tone. The speaker is aware that he joined the war because of his poverty (15) and that his foe may have the same reason. Yet, poverty is not enough reason to kill a fellow human being. These authors combine other literary devices with irony to demonstrate the gloominess of war. Both poems effectively create a sad tone because they are aware of the ironies of war that defy logic and break human bonds. They expose the war as it is: it is filled with soldiers who joined for reasons not related to the glories of war and it is pursued without concern for the lives taken and families destroyed. War nurtures violence, not families. War is brutal, and the only kindness it shows is when death is swift, but war does not offer that, making it even more brutal and senseless. Works Cited Crane, Stephen. “War is Kind.” 1899. Web. 13 Feb. 2014. Hardy, Thomas. “The Man He Killed.” 1902. Web. 13 Feb. 2014. Read More