This dark humour and needless violence is not uncommon in poetry but the deadpan delivery and closeness to everyday life is unusual and conveys a distinctly threatening message. In “The Laboratory” by Browning there is a far more different approach to murder. Although the murder has yet to take place there is the same apparent jealousy of the victim. The lady in “Laboratory” envies her lover’s mistresses as the speaker in “Hitcher” envied the hippy’s carefree life style. However what is very different is the way Browning concentrates on the reasoning behind the murder, the speaker is full of anger at vengeful thoughts at her lover’s betrayal and is obsessed with the making of the murder weapon, in this case poison. It is very dramatic in that is uses vivid imagery to convey the colours and smells in the laboratory
“…faint smokes curling whitely…”
The speaker is intrigued and mesmerised as the poison gradually begins to take shape. This is disturbing in that she appears mentally unstable but for a very different reason to the speaker in “Hitcher”. She takes an eager interest in the method of death and
“…let death be felt”
This murder seems much more pre-emptive and scheming than in “Hitcher”, the names of the rivals are given but more generally and there appear to be several. The people don’t seem important just as long as they can’t have her lover. The speaker seems to be admitting defeat by resorting to killing off her rivals rather than winning back her lover’s affection. This sign of weakness is apparent in “Hitcher” too as the speaker would rather kill off the person or lifestyle that he envied rather than change his own.
“Education for Leisure” ties in with the theme of pre-meditated murder, the speaker appears simple minded but determined. The first sentence makes that clear
“Today I am going to kill something. Anything.”
This is purposeful in the same way that “Laboratory” is, however the language is less elaborate. In “Hitcher” the point of concentration is on the act of murder rather than the motive which is the same in “Education for Leisure”. The same arrogance is also apparent “They don’t appreciate my autograph.” In “Hitcher” is the quote “…and didn’t even swerve”.
The same mentality of an uneducated person spending their day doing outrageous things for no apparent reason is shown in both poems. The difference between the two is that the speaker in “Education for Leisure” makes a statement of intention which sounds terrible and then goes on to do very little until the end, and even then the reader is not sure how capable the speaker is of committing murder. Where as in “Hitcher” there is no statement of intention or melodramatic opening line.
The speaker in “Education for Leisure” blames his teachers and family for failing him but still wishes to play God over small creatures such as a goldfish, he quotes the book of Genesis from the bible “I see that it is good” this boasting is almost comic in that it is so pathetic yet his arrogance still shows. Through the whole poem the word “I” is put sixteen times. As in “Hitcher” the sentences are short and sharp for emphatic effect. However the speaker in “Education for Leisure doesn’t seem to be as capable or as disturbed as the speaker in “Hitcher”, there doesn’t appear to be any real violence. The same glossing over of actions and emotionless words is still sinister. Both speakers do seem to suffer from eternal boredom either because of lacking imagination, flailing careers or past disappointments.
Thomas Harding portrays the act of violence in a very different way to any of the other poets. The title of the poem is odd as it is written in the 3rd person as opposed to the rest of the poem, which is written in the 1st person, this suggests that even though this was a personal experience it happened to all soldiers who fought in the same war, it generalises the event. It could also be interpreted as a detachment from the truth. Again there is a lack of motive behind the killing of the other soldier; the speaker says that he was just following orders. What separates the speaker in this poem from the speakers in the other poems is that out of choice he would not have killed his opponent, it was a matter of kill or be killed and under any other circumstances the two men would have been perfectly amicable.
Just because the speaker had no motive to kill the opposition doesn’t mean he didn’t feel that it was a waste of life, an unnecessary death that could so easily have been avoided. It was an artificial enmity that brought the death of the opposition, and the speaker appreciates that.
There is a heavy sense of irony throughout the poem as the speaker mentions drinking with the deceased before and after describing what happened. The stupidity of such an unnecessary loss of life is not lost on the speaker and he suggests that to fight under command is to deny the basic human instinct to socialise, in this case in a bar. This raises questions on the morality of war. The disturbing part of this poem is different from the others; it is on the ways of all humans and the continuation of violence amongst ourselves rather than an individual person committing a crime.
The poems all link together in that they portray violence. The approaches are all very different. In the older poem “Laboratory” the point of interest is not the act of murder but the reasoning and methods behind it. This is maybe more believable than the modern ideas in “Hitcher” and “Education for Leisure” where there is no motive and a dark humour that casts doubt in the reader’s mind. The characters are all twisted or warped in some way, all except in “The Man He Killed” which could and most likely did happen to many young men and so audiences can identify more with the meaning behind the words. The death in “The Man He Killed” would be classed by many as not the same as murder. This is because he was under instruction and would face death himself if he had not taken the upper hand, whereas the others are out of preference.
In general the earlier poems such as “Laboratory” elaborate the story behind the murder and the emotions involved, but not so much on the act of murder. In “Laboratory” the murder is yet to be carried out. In the more modern poems like “Hitcher” the speaker doesn’t even give one reason as why he killed an innocent hippy. There is a great amount of detail on the killing and a dark comic slant on the situation, this humour is also shown in “Education for Leisure” as the speaker makes pathetic attempts to play God right up to the end of the poem. Even then it is left to the imagination of the reader as to what may or may not happen next.