A Student in Arms: Second Series — Context and Discussion

Voices in Dialogue

The volume makes extensive use of dramatic dialogue, particularly in the 'Imaginary Conversations' sections. In one excerpt, soldiers Dodd, Whiston, and a Lance-Corporal debate presentiments of death. Dodd admits he has been 'absolutely certain that I was not for it,' while Whiston calls such fatalism 'a damnable doctrine.' The Lance-Corporal offers a middle ground: 'I think you goes when your time comes.' This exchange captures a central tension in the book—between the need to act responsibly and the desire to surrender to fate. The dialogue form allows Hankey to present conflicting viewpoints without resolving them, letting the reader overhear the arguments that soldiers actually had.

The Cost of Survival

A later dialogue between Hancock and Smith dramatizes the psychological aftermath of loss. Hancock, grieving the deaths of Dodd and Whiston, cries out, 'Why just the fellows we can't afford to lose?' Smith responds with pragmatic cynicism: 'What the hell's the good of going on like that?' The exchange escalates into a bitter argument about courage and worth. Hancock insists that the dead are 'the lucky ones,' having 'earned' their end, while Smith accuses him of being 'frightened into religion.' Hankey does not side with either man; instead, he exposes the raw, unprocessed grief that survival can bring. The scene is notable for its refusal to offer comfort, ending instead with Hancock's fierce contempt for Smith's self-preservation.

Recurring Motifs: Romance and Reality

The word 'Romance' appears prominently in the prefatory material, but the excerpts repeatedly undercut any simple idealism. The biographical sketch calls Hankey's life 'a Romance,' yet the same paragraph recounts a literal knockdown. Later, the dialogues show soldiers using religious language—'Resurrection and life and Heaven'—alongside profanity and sarcasm. This pattern suggests that Hankey is interested in how men hold onto meaning in a setting that seems to deny it. The tension between the romantic framing and the gritty dialogue is not a flaw but a deliberate structural choice, forcing the reader to question whether romance can survive the trenches.

Readers approaching this second series should attend to the way Hankey uses multiple voices—the biographical narrator, the essayist, and the characters in dialogue—to create a polyphonic account of war. The excerpts do not reveal the full arc of the book, but they suggest a writer more interested in asking questions than in providing answers. The tensions between faith and doubt, duty and self-preservation, are left unresolved, inviting the reader to sit with the discomfort that the soldiers themselves could not escape.

The muddy fatalism Hankey records—men joking about death because crying was useless—reminded me of an old journal I kept during a long illness. That same hollow calm returned when I later read The Story of a Siberian Exile; Followed by a Narrative of Recent Events in Poland — Reading Notes. Both books whisper the same truth: endurance isn't heroic, it's just what remains when hope has quietly left the room.