Comparison Paper Brainstorming

As far as what I will write about, I believe that I will go with the first suggested comparison. The comparison of "Dulce et Decorum Est" and "The Man He Killed" in their depiction of war, is what I will write about. In Dulce et Decorum Est the speaker's attitude towards war is one of horror, as the speaker uses graphic depiction with great purpose. The soldier in this poem sees himself as a victim of war and despises it. The Man He Killed, could also be seen as this type of poem, except for the fact that the speaker has a detached point of view. The speaker finds himself an objective angle of sorts in this manner and sees himself and the fellow he kills as both being victims of war, just as any other circumstance, but far more curious. The moral alternative to "kill or be killed," (Kirszner & Mandell, 710) might be kill to kill; the first implying little choice, the latter holding intent. Because of the implication that there is little or no alternative to the killing, and both speakers convey some sense of disdain for such acts, it could be said that both are victims of war. Both speakers are focusing on the war in general. In "The Man He Killed" the speaker is comparing the man that he killed to himself and figures that he too joined the war for reasons other than believing in the cause, which the speaker certainly doesn't find important enough to mention. In line 18, the speaker of "The Man He Killed" shifts to an objective standpoint saying, "you shoot a fellow down" (Hardy, 18) as though his moral reasoning is the same as everyone else and find morality in questioning the group mentality /morality that he sees himself subject or victim to. It is interesting that the speaker of "The Man He Killed" seems to want to find similarities between him and the man that he killed, even in the battlefield, this individual must feel some connection, some human interaction. At this point, the feeling of brotherhood may be his only source of human intimacy, even though the brotherhood is perceived; the speaker is reaching out. It almost seems a desperate act. "The Man He Killed" is devoid of any morality or personal belief, or selflessness. There is no belief in cause, this is an individual who may or may not believe in anything but himself. This begs the question, is there anything that this individual finds worth fighting for? "Dulce et Decorum Est" seems to hold to the ideal that oneself is more important than anything else. The poem is devoid of the idea that there is anything greater than oneself, anything worth sacrificing one's life for. Both poems compare the men to beggars in a sense, in that they must fight to feed themselves, as if they are being taken advantage of. "Dulce et Decorum Est" is an attack on the value of war, and the propagation of the idea of war. The argument is based solely on the fact that it is horribly unpleasant. The speaker in "The Man He Killed" is wishing a meeting somewhere pleasant, as if a pleasant meeting space would settle all issues. The naïve idea is that the soldier believes that the other individual doesn't believe in the war either and that none of their actions come from personal conviction, but rather, a paycheck. In reality, killing without any personal conviction, or reason for doing so is scarier than someone who believes in something and kills for it. "The Man He Killed" seems to be written by a man trying to find morality and reason in war, while "Dulce et Decorum Est" seems to be a protest against the pro-war propaganda of the day from a person that feels some conviction about its horror. These are the random thoughts I have right now and I'm trying to put them together.