Historical Blindness in Thomas Hardy’s "Channel Firing" Essay Example

I would like to argue that in Hardy’s ‘Channel Firing,’ the central problem is the question of historical blindness. Firstly, I would say that Hardy engages in a rewriting of religion through the use of irony that causes religious frameworks and moral structures to crumble. Secondly, building on Holder, I will essay that using “gaps and discrepancies” and verbal irony, Hardy creates humor to change the reader's perception that history is changing.

Even though his poem has moments of humor and irony, I am not arguing that Hardy finds historical blindness to be a good quality. On the contrary, by looking at where and how he directs his use of irony and humor, we will be able to see that Hardy attempts to change the reader’s perception of this historical blindness. 

Let us begin with Holder’s remark about the perspective from which the poem is coming. Holder alerts us to be aware that the verse does not come from “...within a Christian perspective” and that unless we are aware of the “comic undercutting” that Holder identifies, we will risk misreading the poem. Holder is therefore helping us, I would argue, to read the poem accurately so that we do not misread it. Misreading it destroys the poetry and Hardy’s feeling about the Christian perspective. Hardy uses irony to help show the religious frameworks being destroyed. From the opening, we see a stark gap between the expectations of the skeletons and the harsh reality: “We thought it was judgment day.” However, when God intervenes, we see that it is far from a religious moment. The noise is not from the trumpets but the gunnery practice at sea. Holder essays that Hardy follows the disturbing images with ones that are mainly not so, thereby creating irony:  “The initial somberness and spookiness created by guns shaking coffins, the disturbing of the dead, and the awakening of dogs who then proceed to howl in a “drearisome” manner is undercut by the distinctly unthreatening details of the mouse, the withdrawing worms, and, most of all, the drooling cow” (296). Judgment Day is not what is at hand, war is, and Hardy makes light of the fact that the deadly mistake it as such to show us the way the Christians think it was supposed to be is a way that religious frameworks crumble. 

I would also argue that Hardy engages in a rewriting of religion through the use of irony that causes religious frameworks and moral structures to crumble when he writes, “The glebe cow drooled. Till God called, “No; / Its gunnery practice out at sea.”  Building on Holder, I would argue that Hardy reduces God to a comedic level when He stands with not just a cow but a drooling one. Holder essays, “Hardy heightens the incongruous presence of the cow by having it enter the poem in the same line that sees the entrance of God.” I would argue with Holder that Hardy’s use of irony brings humor to the moment and uses it to rewrite religion to cause the traditional religious and moral frameworks to crumble. In Hardy’s poem, he writes, “And sat upright. While drearisome Arose the howl of wakened hounds: The mouse let fall the altar-crumb, The worms drew back into the mounds.” Holder then states, “The poem might be said to replace judgments with facts, and Christian theology, which it finds absurd, with history.” I would argue that Hardy used irony to juxtapose the violent reality of the world by showing the Christian expectations. He's showing us the way the Christians think it was supposed to be is a way that religious framework crumbles. I would also claim that Hardy also uses this language to describe that his views on Christianity conflict with the frameworks at hand. I enjoy the fact that Hardy does this because it allows me, as the reader of the poem, to fully understand the point he is trying to get across to me. As holder writes in his criticism on the poem ‘Channel Firing,’ Bloody as it has been, the human enterprise acquires a certain substance and dignity here. Unlike the poem’s handling of God and fundamental presuppositions of Christianity, it does not undercut that dignity by subjecting it to irony. Holder tells the reader how the end of the poem has a lack of irony vs. the rest of the poem, which has a lot of irony. To understand my thesis, I am going to use a quote from Holder that says, “The initial somberness and spookiness created by guns shaking coffins, the disturbing of the dead, and the awakening of dogs who then proceed to howl in a “drearisome” manner is undercut by the distinctly unthreatening details of the mouse, the withdrawing worms, and, most of all, the drooling cow. Hardy heightens the incongruous presence of the cow by having it enter the poem in the same line that sees the entrance of God”. Not only has Holder stated the ironic outlook given to us all, but I would say this is one of the ways that religious frameworks and moral structures are interwoven into the poem and the criticism that we have received. 

Secondly, let me now address my argument that using “gaps and discrepancies” and verbal irony, Hardy creates humor to change the reader's perception that history is changing. I will start by using a quote from Hardy, “All nations striving strong to make Red war yet redder. Mad as hatters They do no more for Christes sake Than you who are helpless in such matters.”As Holder makes a note of in his criticism, While God’s statement is given a touch of the elevated and archaic by His employment of the medieval “Christés” (instead of “Christ’s”), His speech is notable for its use of the all-too-human taunting remark, “Ha, ha,” as well as for the cliché “Mad as hatters” (which alludes to the occupational hazard once faced by people who made hats because of a chemical used in their production).

I would argue that Hardy’s use of the line makes Red war yet redder shows that all these people, or as I should say the dead, are entirely blind to the fact that war is still occurring in society. For the issue of war to be stopped, people must not be blind to the fact that war is happening that they are entirely visionless to history itself.  I would argue that All nations striving strong is stated because the dead reinforce how they are attempting that war is becoming more destructive than before. I would then point out this furthers my point that people are entirely blind to history and that Hardy is attempting to change this. Mad as hatters are told because Hardy creates this effect on the audience that they are completely gone and have given up God and what he is saying to help them out. Reinforcing the idea that Hardy is using irony, I will use a quote from the poem. “And many a skeleton shook his head. Instead of preaching forty years, My neighbor Parson Thirdly said I wish I had stuck to pipes and beer”. I would like to argue that the irony used in this quote is that the dead realized if they did not take all this time preaching, they could have just relaxed and chilled out. The dead understood that they could have been sipping beer and smoking out of pipes rather than trying to fight wars and push for other concepts. They did not see history the right way. 

What we can now understand about my argument is that Hardy is engaged in historical blindness through the poem and Holder's criticism. What we can now understand about rewriting religion through the use of irony that causes religious frameworks and moral structures to crumble. My argument has revealed that historical blindness can be taken very seriously. We can now see that it was not clear before how Hardy used irony to create gaps and discrepancies throughout.