Remains (AQA GCSE English Literature)
Revision Note
Written by: Deb Orrock
Reviewed by: Kate Lee
Remains
Each poetry anthology in the GCSE contains 15 poems and in the poetry question in the exam you will be given one poem on the paper – printed in full – and asked to compare this given poem to one other from the anthology. As this is a “closed book” exam, you will not have access to the other poems, so you will have to know them very well from memory. Fifteen poems is a lot to learn. However, understanding four things about each poem will enable you to produce a top-mark response:
The meaning of the poem
The ideas and messages the poet wanted to convey
How the poet conveys these ideas and messages through their methods
How these ideas compare and contrast with the ideas and themes of other poems in the anthology
Below is a guide to Simon Armitage’s Remains, from the Power and Conflict anthology. It includes:
Overview: a breakdown of the poem, including its possible meanings and interpretations
Writer’s methods: an exploration of the poet’s techniques and methods
Context: an exploration of the context of the poem, relevant to its themes
What to compare it to: ideas about which poems to compare it to in the exam
Overview
In order to answer an essay question on any poem, it is essential that you understand what it is about. This section includes:
The poem in a nutshell
A ‘translation’ of the poem, section-by-section
A commentary of each of these sections, outlining Armitage’s intention and message
Remains in a nutshell
This poem was written by poet laureate Simon Armitage as part of a collection of poems inspired by a Channel 4 documentary called “The Not Dead”, shown in 2007. The documentary was about the impact of war on soldiers returning home and the poem was created in order to raise awareness of PTSD and encourage better recognition of the condition in society.
The first person narrator is a soldier fighting during the Iraq war, who is haunted – even after he returns home – by his involvement in the shooting of a bank looter. Armitage uses a conversational style and vivid imagery to offer a realistic portrait of a person hugely affected by grief, guilt and trauma. The poem, therefore, explores the effects of trauma both during and after active duty and suggests that the effects of war linger long after the soldiers leave the battlefield, leading to inner conflict and turmoil.
Remains breakdown
Lines 1-4
“On another occasion, we get sent out
to tackle looters raiding a bank.
And one of them legs it up the road,
probably armed, possibly not.”
Translation
The poem starts with the speaker in the middle of a conversation, implying that he has been talking about his experiences for quite a long time
The phrase “we get sent out” indicates that the speaker is working as part of a team or unit, acting under somebody else’s orders
The term “looters” is normally given to thieves raiding buildings during war time
The speaker uses the slang term “legs it”, indicating that they run away quickly
The speaker is unsure whether the man is carrying a weapon or not
Armitage’s intention
The poet uses a colloquial opening to the poem, as if the soldier is speaking to an unknown third party
This suggests the soldier has to deal with things like this on a regular basis and the speaker’s tone implies an element of weariness
Armitage does not believe there is glory or honour in war, so this is a very human poem focusing on the realities of conflict
The use of slang could imply the speaker is quite young and not emotionally prepared for what will come next
This may be the poet making a social comment that soldiers are launched into situations that they don’t fully understand, but they just have to get on with it
The final line of the stanza is important, as it becomes clear later in the poem that the speaker is overwhelmed by the guilt of potentially killing an unarmed man
Lines 5-8
“Well myself and somebody else and somebody else
are all of the same mind,
so all three of us open fire.
Three of a kind all letting fly, and I swear”
Translation
The speaker cannot remember who was with him at the time, but there were three of them
Their training and instinct means that they all think the same thing at the same time – that the looter is a threat
The simple but brutal statement that “all three of us open fire” demonstrates that the soldiers have stopped being individual, free-thinking beings, but rather a entity that reacts on instinct and training
This is reinforced by the description of them as “three of a kind”
“All letting fly” tells us that all three soldiers open fire on the looter simultaneously
Armitage’s intention
Hazy recollection as a result of a traumatic event is commonly reported, so it is not unusual for the soldier to not remember the details of who was with him at the time
It is probably not really significant anyway – the soldiers have all blurred into one
This is emphasised by the fact they are “all of the same mind”, suggesting they are somehow joined together by war
This strips them of their individuality and suggests they are cogs in the larger mechanism of an army
The horror of the final two lines in this stanza is deliberately understated, as though it were an everyday occurrence
The stanza finishes with an enjambed line, returning the focus to the speaker, re-humanising him
Lines 9-12
“I see every round as it rips through his life –
I see broad daylight on the other side.
So we’ve hit this looter a dozen times
and he’s there on the ground, sort of inside out,”
Translation
Now the soldier focuses on every individual bullet hitting the man, tearing him to pieces
They hit the looter 12 times
He falls to the ground, with parts of his internal organs spilling out
Armitage’s intention
The poet suggests that now the soldier alone seems to understand the consequences of their actions
The continued colloquial tone helps to give more of an impression of the speaker being young and inexperienced at life
This could be taken as the moment the soldier loses his innocence, as the gruesome imagery transitions from the colloquial to the emotional
Lines 13-16
“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.”
Translation
The poem continues with the vivid image of the looter in extreme pain
We are introduced to a second person, the soldier’s “mate”, who casually walks by and “tosses” his internal organs back into his body
The use of the verb “tosses” denotes a lack of care or respect
The looter is then placed in the back of a lorry and driven away
It is unclear whether he is still alive or dead at this point
Armitage’s intention
This stanza reflects the way that soldiers often have to disengage with what is happening in order to cope with it
It also dehumanises the looter, who remains nameless and who gets “carted off” in the back of a lorry as though he were an object
On a wider scale, Armitage is commenting on how conflict causes the devaluation of human life, where gruesome death can be seen as an everyday occurrence
Lines 17-20
“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”
Translation
Although that should be the end of that story, it isn’t, as the soldier is haunted by the memory of the event
The looter’s blood stain remains on the street where the soldier has to walk
It is an imprint of his existence which the soldier cannot escape from
Then the soldier is sent home for a break
Armitage’s intention
Armitage implies that death stains a person’s conscience and memory just as blood stains the ground
The “blood-shadow” is indicating to the soldier that there will be no real way to forget or move on from the event
The use of caesura in the final line suggests that going home should be the end of things, but is followed by “but” which tells us it isn’t
The use of the word “blink” has connotations of waking up, as though from a dream or a daydream
The use of enjambment suggests the merging of reality and memory
Lines 21-24
“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 – ”
Translation
The poem breaks down into a more stream of consciousness form, as the speaker recalls what he sees every time he blinks
He relives the looter bursting through the doors of the bank again
While sleeping, the speaker wonders if the man was armed or not
His dreams are filled with the image of the looter’s body being ripped apart by bullets
The speaker has turned to drink and drugs, but even these don’t stop the flashbacks
Armitage’s intention
The poet tells us that the speaker cannot find any peace
He continues to be haunted by what happened and the flashbacks of it
It is as though the speaker is reliving the event over and over, hence the repetition of previously used lines
The speaker is clearly suffering from PTSD and does not seem to be receiving any support for it
He just has to live with the memories
Armitage uses a military term in “flush him out” to describe the soldier’s efforts in trying to dislodge the memory of the dead looter
To “flush out” means to try to get the enemy to break cover, suggesting that the memory is an enemy in itself
Lines 25-28
“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,”
Translation
The use of military terms continues, as the looter is a constant presence in the speaker’s head
He has “dug in”, meaning the memory of the looter is determined never to leave the speaker
The looter is not lying half-dead in some far off hot land, or buried in a grave in a desert
Armitage’s intention
The poet shows us that the memory is entrenched in the mind of the speaker, metaphorically forever stuck behind enemy lines
The use of the term “left for dead” also implies doubt as to whether the looter was actually dead when he was thrown into the back of the lorry
This also seems to haunt the narrator
The hazy, almost dream-like description of “some distant, sun-stunned, sand-smothered land” implies that if something has happened so far away, it should not still be having an impact
The fact that Iraq itself is not specifically mentioned means that this could be applied to any conflict
Lines 29-30
“but near to the knuckle, here and now,
his bloody life in my bloody hands.”
Translation
The narrator then reveals the memory is “near to the knuckle”, meaning that it is not a distant memory, but it is immediate and risky
The memory is causing him pain and making it impossible for the speaker to move on
The reference to “bloody” could mean literal blood, or a curse, suggesting that this event has cursed him
The speaker’s hands are metaphorically stained with the looter’s blood
Armitage’s intention
Armitage intentionally ends the poem without resolution
This mirrors the lack of escape, respite or resolution the soldiers affected by PTSD experience for years, or even over their entire lifetime, after the event
The title of the poem, “Remains”, can mean the physical remains of the murdered looter, and also the stubborn determination of the memories that refuse to leave the narrator alone
Writer’s Methods
Although this section is organised into three separate sections – form, structure and language – it is important to take an integrated approach to AO2, focusing on the main themes of the poem and then evaluating how Armitage’s choices of language, structure and form contribute to these themes. In essence, how and why the poet has made the choices they have, in relation to their intentions and message.
Focusing on the poet’s main themes, rather than individual poetic techniques, will gain you far more marks. In the below sections, all analysis is arranged by theme, and includes Armitage’s intentions behind his choices in terms of:
Form
Remains is written in the form of a dramatic monologue in the present tense, made up primarily of regular four-line stanzas. However, despite this regularity, there is nothing normal about the rhythm, rhyme or content. The use of a very regular, ordinary form makes the content of the poem seem mundane, like a normal occurrence. The lack of rhyme, along with structural elements such as enjambment, imply the chaos and turmoil underneath. Herein lies the conflict in the poem: an extraordinary event which has such lasting implications on the individual, discussed in such a normal, conversational way.
Theme | Evidence | Poet’s intention |
Complex and imbalanced relationships | The first seven stanzas are made up of unrhymed quatrains | This gives the poem the appearance of order and regularity |
It finishes with an unrhymed couplet | This would normally indicate resolution in a poem, but here nothing is resolved | |
The speaker is trying to keep things orderly, but ultimately fails to do so | It is as if the speaker has nothing left to say | |
The poem is written in free verse, with lines that vary in length and rhythm | This makes the poem feel casual and conversational, as though it’s part of a longer conversation | |
Despite the horrific, everyday realities of war, the language does not glorify what is happening | ||
The poem is narrated in the present tense, despite the speaker re-telling an event that has happened in the past | This creates the idea that the speaker is still living in this moment, and re-living the traumatic event |
Structure
Armitage uses enjambment and caesura to add to the conversational style of the poem, but also to fragment it. This sense of confusion is further emphasised by the fact that the poem starts with the connective “another”, as if the reader is entering part way through a longer story-telling. The speaker is unnamed, meaning this could be about any soldier in any conflict. The narrator’s thoughts and feelings unravel further as the poem progresses, reflecting his inner conflict and turmoil.
Theme | Evidence | Poet’s intention |
Inner conflict and turmoil | At the start of the poem, the speaker shares the blame of the event with others, such as in the line “all three of us” | The repeated references to there being other people present seems to allude to the speaker wishing to lessen his sense of responsibility |
The focus of the poem shifts to the speaker individually from the phrase “I swear//” | The narrator not only accepts his role and responsibility for the actions, but blames himself entirely | |
Armitage here is referencing how PTSD can alter how a person views past events and memories | ||
The poet uses enjambment to make the speaker’s thoughts flow into one another, such as in the line “But I blink//and he bursts in again…” | This merges the past and the present, dreams and reality, meaning there is no escape for the soldier | |
The use of caesura in the line “Then I’m home on leave. But I blink//” implies finality | Going home should be the end of this event and its impact on him, but the use of the connective “But” suggests it isn’t | |
The caesura interrupts the speaker’s sentences, just as his mind and his life are interrupted by the trauma he experienced |
Language
Armitage not only contrasts colloquial language with gruesome imagery, but uses language to demonstrate the loss of individuality and humanity in war, and the lasting psychological impact war can have on individuals.
Theme | Evidence | Poet’s intention |
Loss of humanity | The poet uses colloquial language to talk about a horrific event | This suggests that soldiers become desensitised to the horrific reality of war |
The disturbing imagery used to describe the act, such as “sort of inside out” to describe the looter’s internal organs, suggests that war normalises extreme violence | The speaker’s use of everyday language highlights that this is an ordinary person carrying out extraordinary acts | |
Soldiers are used as tools of war. The phrases “three of a kind” and “all of the same mind” suggest that all the men are trained to think as one | Soldiers are not supposed to question their orders, or the morality of what they are being asked to do | |
It is only afterwards that the soldier begins to consider the full implications of what he did | ||
The shot man is only ever referred to as the “looter” | This removes the element of humanity from this person, which may be another attempt by the speaker to lessen the sense of responsibility he feels about what he did | |
Psychological impact of war
| Armitage uses anaphora in “probably armed, possibly not” suggesting internal conflict over whether the soldier’s action was justified | This technique mirrors the repetition of the image of the bullets ripping through the looter in the soldier’s mind |
He turns it over and over in an endless cycle of traumatic memories, which is what can happen with PTSD | ||
References to blood are repeated in the poem | This suggests that blood symbolises the speaker’s guilt, as something that he will never be able to erase |
Context
Examiners repeatedly state that context should not be considered as additional factual information: in this case, context is not random historical facts about Simon Armitage, or the Iraq war that are unrelated to the ideas in the poem. The best way to understand context is as the ideas and perspectives explored by Armitage in Remains which relate to power and conflict.
Armitage’s intention in this poem was to explore the reality of war and its lasting impact on those involved, which gives us the sub-heading for context:
The Nature of War and its Impact
Remains is part of a collection of poems called “The Not Dead”:
These poems focus on the testimonies of ex-soldiers who had served in several conflicts
This particular poem was based on the stories of a young soldier who fought in Basra, Iraq
Armitage himself has never been to war, so his poetry is based entirely on other people’s experiences
However, the speaker in the poem is not named, nor a gender identified:
This helps the speaker feel like an everyman or everywoman
In other words, just a regular person thrown into facing horrifying circumstances and situations
This idea is further supported by the use of colloquial language and British slang
Armitage wanted to highlight what soldiers experience compared to the general population
Armitage also does not identify a specific war, although the references to the desert suggest the Middle East:
The references to machine guns and trucks suggest that this is a tale about modern warfare
The soldiers involved in Middle Eastern conflict were subject to heavy casualties
Many have suffered severe mental health issues following their return home
The poem relates some of the symptoms of PTSD, such as disturbed sleep and flashbacks:
Armitage, therefore, explores the idea that, regardless of how much time has passed, it is no healer when it comes to soldiers who have been psychologically scarred by conflict
In a more abstract sense, the poem is also set in the speaker’s mind
Ultimately, the poem focuses on the reality and horror of warfare, and the moral ambiguity which so often features in decisions that are made in the heat of battle
This is referenced as well in the imagery of blood in the final couplet, symbolising the guilt the characters feel
What to Compare it to
The essay you are required to write in your exam is an integrated comparison of the ideas and themes explored in two of your anthology poems (the one given on the exam paper and one other). It is, therefore, essential that you revise the poems together, in pairs, to understand how each poet presents ideas about power or conflict, in comparison to other poets in the anthology. Given that Remains focuses mainly on the lasting impact of war, the following comparisons would be a good place to start:
For each pair of poems, you will find:
The comparison in a nutshell
Similarities between the ideas presented in each poem
Differences between the ideas presented in each poem
Evidence and analysis of these similarities and differences
Remains and Bayonet Charge
Comparison in a nutshell:
This comparison allows an exploration of how an individual soldier’s experience of conflict and war is presented, as well as its psychological impact.
Similarities:
Topic sentence | Both poems explore the psychological impact of being an active soldier in war | |
Evidence and analysis | Remains | Bayonet Charge |
The poem starts with the speaker in the middle of recounting his personal experience of war | The poem opens in media res, in the middle of the action, with the soldier either literally or metaphorically awakening | |
The poet utilises gruesome imagery, such as “tosses his guts back in his body”, to convey how horrific the reality of this situation is | The poet uses vivid and violent imagery, such as the bullets “smacking the belly out of the air” to convey the brutality of war | |
The psychological impact of war is explored via the symptoms and lasting impact of PTSD | Similarly, in this poem, the psychological impact of war is explored via the soldier realising the futility and pointlessness of war | |
In Remains, the soldier acts as one with his comrades on instinct, with their training kicking in. They are not individuals | In this poem, the soldier is merely a cog in a larger mechanism, unsure what he is actually doing there | |
In both poems, the soldier is unknown, and the specific war is not named, serving as a universal soldier in a universal conflict | ||
In both cases, the poets themselves had never personally experienced war | ||
Differences:
Topic sentence | Whilst both poems explore the horrific reality of war, Remains is focused on the lasting impact on the individual, whereas Bayonet Charge also explores the impact on nature | |
Evidence and analysis | Remains | Bayonet Charge |
This poem is recounting an event that has happened in the past, although the memories make it seem as though it is still happening | This poem is written in the present tense, in the middle of the action, adding to the sense of confusion and fear | |
The speaker’s doubts and sense of confusion are focused on his actions and his own feelings of guilt | The speaker’s doubts in this poem are focused more on the futility of his actions and how there is no honour or glory in war | |
This poem concentrates more on the lasting mental impact of war on the individual | Hughes also comments in this poem on how war upsets the natural world, as represented by the “yellow hare” and “green hedge” | |
War Photographer and Remains
Comparison in a nutshell:
Both Duffy’s War Photographer and Armitage’s Remains highlight the suffering inflicted through haunting memories in the wake of war.
Similarities:
Topic sentence | In both poems, the psychological impact of war has lasting effects | |
Evidence and analysis | Remains | War Photographer |
In Remains, the speaker is haunted by the memory of a horrific event he was partly responsible for | In Duffy’s poem, the narrator describes a photographer reliving the horrors of “a hundred agonies” as he develops photographs from "spools of suffering” | |
The speaker is unable to escape this memory, as even “the drink and the drugs won’t flush him out” | The photographer sees a “half-formed ghost” twisting before his eyes, suggesting he is haunted by the suffering he has witnessed | |
Despite the use of a couplet at the end of the poem, there is no resolution for the soldier. The memory stays as fresh as the “here and now” | The speaker in War Photographer acknowledges the futility of his job as he returns to yet another warzone at the end of the poem, aware of the indifferent response the public will have | |
In both poems, vivid or gruesome imagery is used to reinforce the harsh reality of conflict and its effects on individuals | ||
The poems’ protagonists are both caught between the present and past throughout the poem, suggesting the relentless nature of their trauma | ||
Differences:
Topic sentence | While both poets explore the suffering of individuals reliving memories of conflict, the poets present different perspectives | |
Evidence and analysis | Remains | War Photographer |
In Remains, the first person perspective conveys how personal his psychological pain is | The third-person perspective of the photographer is more distant and detached | |
In Armitage’s poem, the speaker slowly unravels as the poem progresses, showing symptoms of PTSD | Although the photographer is haunted by the memories, his tone is one of apathy and resignation | |
The war continues to be fought in the speaker’s head, via flashbacks and the reliving of the memories | Wars will continue to be fought, as demonstrated by the fact the speaker returns to a warzone at the end of the poem | |
For the soldier, he will never forget what he did or the memories, as the looter is “in my head when I close my eyes” | Duffy also suggests that the public easily forget the images of war they see in the newspapers, as “The reader’s eyeballs prick with tears between the bath and pre-lunch beers” | |
Although both poets criticise the trauma associated with conflict, Duffy’s speaker conveys a tone of detachment and apathy which contrasts with the emotional and poignant tone of Armitage’s speaker | ||
Duffy shows the external world of conflict via a photographer and the public, while Armitage explores the experience of a soldier from the inside of conflict | ||
Last updated:
You've read 0 of your 10 free revision notes
Unlock more, it's free!
Did this page help you?
