In Thomas Hardy's poem, 'The Man He Killed', the anonymous narrator describes a time when he killed a man during the Boer War from 1899 to 1902. The speaker is conflicted with the idea of ​​fighting on the battlefield and he even discovers the concept of what war really is through human suffering , regret and guilt. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Thomas Hardy, a poet, rose to become one of the most famous English authors of his time. He wrote many thematic poems based on sadness and tragedy. In fact, according to scholar Indy Clark in “Thomas Hardy,” “Hardy lived in a time of mourning” (Clark p. 326). The speaker kills a man then later regrets his remorseful decision. That being said, Hardy writes this poem to express that death is inevitable and to show his readers that war can become a personal problem. Credo Reference sources say: “Hardy shared the contemporary interest in realism. » This realism is also found in the poem. The narrator experiences what it means for a human being to suffer by accepting a situation as it is. The phrase “I shot him while he shot me, and I killed him in his place,” suggests that the narrator was the very last one standing in this duel. This shows how quickly death can fall in war. At the beginning of "The Man He Killed", the narrator describes how he is fighting in a war and he seems to have difficulty understanding it. It even seems like he's a pacifist, or someone who believes war is too violent. Looking at the first stanza, "If he and I had met in an old old inn, we should have sat down to wet many a nipperkin!" it is clear that the speaker wanted to meet his enemy in different circumstances rather than in a war zone. In fact, "nipperkin" in the Merriam Webster dictionary means a vessel or container of alcohol with a capacity of half a pint or less. So imagine if the narrator met his enemy in a bar or an old tavern instead of on a battlefield. Maybe, just maybe they would have become friends after a conversation and a few drinks. But fate decided otherwise. These men met in war as enemies! Although this unnamed man is the narrator's enemy, the narrator regrets having killed him. He believed that he had no reason to kill this man, because he was just another person fighting for the good of his own country. But death is inevitable and it will happen to everyone sooner or later. In the third stanza, the speaker says, “I shot him because…because he was my enemy.” » It almost seems like there is hesitation or doubt about his reasoning. It may even be that the speaker does not consider this person as his “enemy” but as his own friend. This shows that the speaker is tripping over his words and finding a way to explain why he killed him. According to Eric Badertscher, “In most of his poems, his characters suffer tragic losses that seem beyond their control” (Badertscher p. 1-3). Although the speaker fights in the war, it is his duty to kill his enemies. The speaker's stuttering suggests his motive, his motive being innocent. Yes, he fought innocently for his country, but from a humanist point of view, he felt guilty. The speaker then describes how he killed this man in war. He also tries to justify why he did such a thing to her. After all, the speaker didn't even know this man. So what did he do to.