what'd you do in the war grandma:?

Though both Hardy and Laurence’s passages concerned the same major issue, the writings seemed to focus on completely different aspects of that event. Still, both writers expressed some parallels. Personally, I enjoyed Hardy’s writing more. For one, her style was insightful to read, and had me taking note of the techniques she used to convey ideas. More importantly, the subject matter was more focused on the war’s daily effects on a particular person rather than the generalized idea Laurence wrote of containing only conversations and descriptions from a navy jet.

It was interesting how hardy’s story got me thinking about the after effects of war on the victor. Whenever “war” comes to mind, I tend to think of the side that was defeated-the people they’ve lost, the mess to be cleaned up, how they are to recover. Never have I considered the effects (besides celebration) of the winning side. Its possible citizens of that country were unsupportive of the war, or maybe some even had social ties with the defeated country. It just never crossed my mind how there can be negative emotions felt on the winning side. Hardy illustrated this point when she asked, “…do you think we should have done this thing?… it[’s] sort of like kicking a dead horse-brutally.” In contrast to the people that wanted to end the war, whatever the cost, the narrator is depicting a greater realization about humanity.

A change occurred in the narrator during the story. From the start, she was leaving her family to actively do something to end the war. She didn’t want to stand on the sidelines. However, the “end” that she imagined for the war was completely different form the solution she later turned out working towards. In the end, she was not satisfied whatsoever with the solution the country enforced. “…how could such a thing [the atomic bomb] make a just end to our just cause?” a pivotal question she would have directed to the president. I wish I could see the response he would have given her. Yes, the bomb solved the issue, but it was so overdone and not all necessary to that degree of casualty. This article appeals to emotional and rational reasoning in a means to end.