Analysis of Remains

Analysis

"On another occasion, we get sent out/ to tackle looters raiding a bank."

"On another occasion" could mean that this was not the first time they had sent out or perhaps not the first unpleasant encounter. the inclusive pronoun "we" suggests a sense of belonging. As this is a power and conflict poem about war, we can assume it is a sense of belonging felt between comrades. 

"And one of them legs it up the road,/ probably armed, possibly not."

Here we see the author using colloquial (slang) language. Some possible reasons for this is to make the poem feel more realistic as if it were a story your uncle or brother or father were telling you. The last line of the stanza presents a sense of discomfort. It is as if the poet is asking himself "did I do the right thing?"

"Well myself and somebody else and somebody else/ are all of the same mind,"

The first line of the stanza holds great significance. Did the poet not want to remember the details? It seems as if he is trying to make the point that there is no set identity between soldiers; they are just a number. This could suggest a lost identity. The next line solidifies that -- "all of the same mind" means a hive mind; group thought. This means their individual thought has been stolen from them. They are only following orders. 

"so all three of us open fire./ Three of a kind all letting fly, and I swear"

This shows that the poet wasn't alone in his actions. "I swear" is as if he is trying to validate his actions. He is trying to justify what he had done. 

"I see every round as it rips through his life --/ I see broad daylight on the other side."

"rips through his life" is graphic hyperbole. For those of you unsure, hyperbole is an exaggerated statement that usually isn't true (think "I'm so hungry, I could eat a horse!"). The poet is using very graphic imagery in these two lines, but he is also stating the events as a matter of fact as if he is devoid of emotion. In some ways, it's as if he is dehumanizing the man he shot. 

"So we've hit this looter a dozen times/ and he's there on the ground, sort of inside out."

The first question that should go through your mind while reading these lines is "why so many shots?" That's a hard question to answer. It could be because the events reminded the poet of being at war and suddenly he wasn't thinking clearly and he only saw an enemy. It could be because the poet is malicious or a serial killer with massive rage issues that enjoys killing, but alas, we will never know. The use of the term "looter" here, instead of man, is the poet dehumanizing the guy again. He is trying to validate his actions by focusing on the actions of the man. If the man was just a looter, a bad guy caught in the wrong actions at the wrong time, then the poet is justified in his actions. Again, using terms and phrases like "sort of" make this seem more like a personal conversation rather than a poem. 

"pain itself, the image of agony./ One of my mates goes by/ and tosses his guts back into his body./ Then he's carted off in the back of a lorry."

The first line of this stanza shows the emotive language the poet is using which is ironic given the next few lines. Tossing some guy's gut's back inside of him and chucking him in the back of a lorry is showcasing the poet's disregard for human life. It could also show how the poet is dealing with the situation. By removing as much emotion as he can from the experience (by downplaying the scene) he is able to remove his own emotions as well. All of this is again only dehumanizing the fact that they killed a man for looting (stealing essentially, just more..messy? Think of the people the break windows and steal things during riots). 

"End of story, except not really./ His blood-shadow stays on the street, and out on patrol/ I walk right over it week after week./ Then I'm home on leave. But I blink"

The first line of this stanza is showing the reader the reality of the situation. It's explaining that even after the gun is fired and the body is carted off, there is still a memory, a glimpse of what had once happened. "blood-shadow" is an interesting word choice for the poet to use. On one hand, it means a bloodstain, a constant visual reminder of what had happened. On the other, a shadow is something that follows you everywhere (anyone else get the visual of Peter Pan's shadow?? just me?? cool....). So not only is this experience visually haunting the poet, but it's metaphorically following the guy around (please don't use guy, I'm being a bad example). "home" has connotations of being safe. But "blink" is showing that these memories are vivid, they come back quickly. 

"and he bursts again through the doors of the bank./ Sleep, and he's probably armed, possibly not./ Dream, and he's torn apart by a dozen rounds./And the drink and the drugs won't flush him out--"

"probably armed, possibly not" is a repeated line. This could be representing how the memory repeats itself and replays for the man. It could be that these are the questions that plague him still. "the drink and the drugs" show that the poet is trying to self-medicate which could mean that he is alone in this struggle even though he was not the only one to shoot at the looter. 

"he's here in my head when I close my eyes,/ dug in behind enemy lines,/ not left for dead in some distant, sun-stunned, sand-smothered land/ or six-feet-under in desert sand,"

It's the last two lines of this stanza that are crucial. In the first two lines, the poet is saying that the looter is/was the enemy. He's saying the looter was (or could possibly be) shooting at him too as if the looter was a threat and the poet's actions were justified as self-defense. But we know from the previous lines that the shooters didn't know if the man was armed or not, so it was difficult to assess the threat level. The last two lines are vivid with imagery; you can imagine the burning sun on your back, the sand hot under your feet. But they are bringing your attention to the question of "is there a difference?" Is there a difference between the enemy lines or a man in the street that may or may not have a gun? Is he not still the enemy? 

"but near to the knuckle, here and now,/ his bloody life in my bloody hands."

If you are familiar with Macbeth, the last three lines should scream "LADY MACBETH!!!!" for you. If you are not familiar, Lady Macbeth killed the king so that her husband would take over as king, but then is so guilt-ridden, she begins seeing things and she gets really psychotic (AO3-context if you mention this 😉). Like Lady Macbeth, the poet must live with his guilt. Today, we would call this Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The haunting images of war and conflict that soldiers face and that they are unable to forget can be triggering. 

There are several questions that you can answer to get you thinking more in-depth about this poem. 

1. Was the soldier simply doing what he was told? 

2. Should he be held accountable for his actions? Why or why not?

3. Paper 1 Question 2 - How does the poet use language to present guilt (or conflict??)?

Annotations

(You're welcome)

Happy revising, kiddos!