A good question that digs at the central themes of this story; in war, we strip the humanity away from ourselves and our enemies, in order to make the jobs of survival and killing easier. The ironic ending, and the reveal that the sniper's enemy was his brother, throws this abnormal existence into stark relief.
The morality in this story is all about proximity to the person being acted upon; if we were to ask...
A good question that digs at the central themes of this story; in war, we strip the humanity away from ourselves and our enemies, in order to make the jobs of survival and killing easier. The ironic ending, and the reveal that the sniper's enemy was his brother, throws this abnormal existence into stark relief.
The morality in this story is all about proximity to the person being acted upon; if we were to ask the sniper, or anyone, "how do you feel about killing your brother?" they would probably say that this is wrong. However, take away that relationship, reduce your brother not just to an anonymous person, but to a person trying to kill you, and the response would probably change. De-humanizing one's enemies makes difficult choices easier; if the sniper had hesitated when shooting the old woman, thinking instead about how she had a name, a family, and so forth, then he would have decidedly put himself at a disadvantage, because she was doing things that would lead to his death.
The sniper is probably not named because we are meant to reflect upon him as he reflects upon himself; he can't afford to be whoever he was before the war began, and has simplified himself down to his role; sniper. It might also be the author's choice to do this in order to encourage us to see the sniper as no different from any other combatant, and his depersonalization makes his choices easier to understand.
No comments:
Post a Comment