I will discuss the two writers of the poems and summarise the historical background of both of the poems and give a considerable biographical details about Thomas Hardy and Alfred lord Tennyson. Alfred lord Tennyson was one of the most important poets of Victorians times. ‘The Charge of the light brigade’ was based on the war known as eastern war in Russia or in UK it is known as Crimean war, which took place between 1853 till 1856. Britain and France were together and they were both fighting Russia. He was the poet laureate. This meant that he wrote poems celebrating occasions of national importance and honouring the royal family. His poem dealt with a range of themes. Most of his poems celebrated war and shows in the whole slew of poems (The Charge of the light brigade is one of them) that dying for your country is honourable.
Thomas hardy felt affronted and abhorrence for the loss of life in wars which he then reflected in his poem ‘The man he killed’. Late in his life he became more devoted because Germany looked as if they were going to attack Britain. Thomas Hardy was based on the Boer war was about an imperial inquest. ‘The man he killed’ was based on Boer war, which took place between 1899 and 1902. The countries which took part were Britain who took on the republic of South Africa and Orange Free State. Britain declared the war which made Thomas Hardy more aggravated.
‘Came thro’ the jaws of death’ this shows that only a few men survived the certain death but despondently many died. That statement can also be looked as a personification to the reader. ‘All in the valley of death’ this gives a strong and powerful image in the readers mind. The effect of this is that he is trying to show that it was an order that made sure that ‘The light of Brigade’ was going to die due to a military error. One type of language that I am going to describe is the direct speech used in the poem. In ‘The Charge of the Light Brigade’ there are few in stances that the poet talks to the reader directly. An excellent example of this is in the 6th stanza ‘When can glory fade this is telling the reader that there glory will be ever remembered and never forgotten. Another instance that the poet uses direct speech is also in the 6th stanza when he says ‘honour the charge they made’ the poet is saying to the reader to honour what the cavalry did. Both poems have informal language which is known as colloquial language. The charge of ‘The Charge of the Light Brigade’ have good examples of this such as ‘dismay’d, blundered,’ and many more. This gives an effect that this person is talking to friends.
In ‘The Charge of the Light Brigade ‘ there is no clear cut way of saying there is a rhetorical question but there are few statements that can be sensed as rhetorical question such as ‘was there a man dismay’d?’ This shows that no one doubted the order they had been given. He is trying to say was there a man in doubt but still look at what he did. ‘The man he killed’ in parts does not have a lot of imagery. The poet wants to give the reader the impression that the foot soldier is a very simple person that has a lack of education. We get the sense that the foot solider is very poor and has only joined in the army for the money as he did not have anything else to sell. ‘Was out of work- had sold his traps’ this shows that the foot solider presumes that the person he was facing on the opposite side was like him, out of work and he had sold all his belongings so this was not his choice but he was forced to join the war because of his circumstances.
‘The man he killed’ is a dramatic monologue. The poem has 5 stanzas in the whole of the poem. In ‘The man he killed’ the 3rd line tends to be longer than the rest except for the 2nd stanza. Each stanza has 4 lines each which give it a sense of regularity. In each stanza the first and the third line rhyme and the second and fourth line rhyme in each stanza. The poem uses a lot of enjambment. ‘I shot him because- Because he was my foe,’ this shows that the reader is unsure why and what he has just done. This also shows that he is trying to justify in his own mind and trying to justify to the reader why he has done this terrible thing. He is also just coming to terms what he has done. As the poem continues and as he starts to understand what he has done he says that if they me each other in different circumstances such as outside a bar they would have has a drink. ‘Right many a nipper kin’. The poem has a regular poem scheme. If you just look at the beats to the poem and forget the words you would see that it sounds like a nursery rhyme. I believe that this is done so that in his own mind and also to us the reader he is trying to convince himself and trying to come to terms with what he has done. As we first read the poem it sounds like a nursery rhyme with the beat but as we read on we find out that it is something far more serious than what we expected so the writer tricked us.
Conversely ‘The Charge of the light brigade’ has 6 stanzas, which are all also regular. The poem has a first syllable which has more of a stress than the next two this is called a dactylic rhythm. Each stanza varies in length, which gives it irregularity. This poem also uses enjambment. ‘The Charge of the light brigade’ uses fewer caesuras. This shows that the poet and the cavalry are really focused and not having any doubts about what they have been ordered to do but instead following the orders. ‘The Charge of the light brigade’ has an uneven rhyme scheme. Only a few lines rhyme with each other and it is not constant throughout the poem. During the poem the rhyme schemes are not regular and also there are imperfect half rhymes. Each stanza varies in its length. A good example of this is ‘half a league, half a league.’ The first word has more stress and emphasis on it and you put less on the next two words. So in this case ‘half’ has a strong emphasis and a league does not have as much. This gives the effect that how the soldiers walk and marched together.
There are two very different attitudes by each of the poets. One showing futile and disgust at the very thought of a war and the other showing delight and celebration and implying that someone that dies for their country, it is very honourable and you will not be forgotten easily.
The attitude expressed by Hardy is very clear and simple. War is very futile and there should not be loss of death for brainless things. ‘Yes quaint and curious war is’ this shows how Hardy thinks about war and when he says this line he is really addressing this line to the reader. When he says this it is curious he is really saying in sarcastic way meaning to show how ridiculous war is.
The first theme in ‘The man he killed’ is war but the other one is brotherhood. After reflecting about the actions done on the battlefield the speaker must deal with the nature of warfare. After settling his argument on why he killed the man, the stanza ends with the word ‘although’ indicating that there is more to be considered. He goes on in the next stanza to imagine how he and his victim are alike. But, perhaps because he is a simple countryman, and even though he realizes the man he killed was as human as himself, he cannot see the logical implications. The most he can conclude is yes: old-fashioned and curious war is!’ as if he were observing some interesting but useless artefact in a museum. Sardonically, the speaker best expresses Hardy’s views on war by what he omits from his argument. Because he balks at drawing the obvious conclusion, the reader is forced to do it for him and conclude that war is murderous and wrong. The way the solider speaks reflects the simple background and unrefined way of consideration on particular instance. ‘I shot and he at me’ also ‘and killed him in his place’. This shows that he remembers clearly what happened with clarity, but the only time that he faltered during the poem was when he was trying to explain what happened. On a personal level that is why war is completely senseless. The best excuse or satisfaction of killing a man he can come up with is ‘because he was my enemy, I killed him’. The meaninglessness of this response is evident by the effort the speaker must make to reassure him that such responding is lawful: ‘Just so of course he was; that’s clear enough.’ Although he is relieved to find an explanation that seems to settle is moral dilemma, doubts continues to pester him.
