“Weakened by his wound and the long summer day of fasting and watching on the roof, he revolted from the sight of the shattered mass of his dead enemy. His teeth chattered, he began to gibber to himself, cursing the war, cursing himself, cursing everybody.” In “The Sniper,” Liam O’Flaherty depicts war as a dark, deadly endeavor. Foreign nations often clash over ideological and cultural differences, but civil war like the one that provides the backdrop for this short story is considered particularly gruesome. Why is this so? Are there any political motives worth dying for? Worth sacrificing family ties over? What is the purpose of the sniper’s insistence upon referring to his subject as “the enemy”? Consider what the irony at the end of the story says about the nature of armed conflict as a means of resolving national dissension. I encourage you to use biographical information and O’Flaherty’s personal experiences from your classmates’ presentations in your response. (250-300 words, due NLT 11 April)
en102.art.blog 
Civil wars are considered particularly gruesome because soldiers are less able to dehumanize their enemy. In wars between foreign nations, such as the Vietnam War, soldiers characterize their opponent as non-human based on cultural/physical differences, which makes killing them feel less “wrong.” However, in civil wars, soldiers are fighting against people just like themselves and can more feasibly place themselves in their enemy’s shoes. This is why the sniper insists on referring to his subject as the enemy; he wants to villainize and disassociate from his opponent so that it is less emotionally traumatic to harm him. However, no matter how hard he tries to shut off his humanity, he still feels the full impact upon turning the dead body over and seeing his brother’s face. This symbolizes the PTSD that many soldiers experience once they return from war, no matter how tough they appeared during battle. O’Flaherty, who suffered from PTSD himself following WW1, used this to create an emotional appeal against war. He believes that killing other humans in war, even if we are not actually related, is just the same as killing a brother. Whether the sniper saw his biological brother upon flipping over the dead body, or a “brother” in that they were two young men born of the same nation, both are comparable even though we try to justify the latter. He emphasizes that armed conflict, rather than solve issues, only heightens tensions, harms citizens, and intensifies dissension.
LikeLike
Civil wars are especially gruesome because they involve like fighting like. In other conflicts, it can be argued that militant groups are different because they are from different places and have different cultures. However, in a Civil War families potentially fight each other, it is an internal conflict where people are killing people they know. I can understand fighting because of political motives because some may be very protective over their rights; however, I do not believe there is anything worth killing your blood and sacrificing family ties. By the very definition of family, you are supposed to be a cohesive unit that works together, not people who are trying to kill each other. In O’Flaherty’s short story “The Sniper,” the sniper insists on calling his subject “the enemy” because, as previously discussed, civil wars are horrible, and it is highly likely you are fighting someone you know. Therefore, to combat the feeling of murdering a friend or family member, it is imperative to maintain the mentality that they are evil, and you are protecting from their world view. The irony from the end of the short story shows how arms resolution Is not always the option. At the end of the story, the sniper had killed his brother, and when he killed him, he was happy because he had survived, but now he is filled with regret as he committed fratricide. This parallels Liam O’Flaherty’s life because during World War I, he had to fight against the Irish independence movement, which consisted of people he knew.
It is entirely likely that he killed people he was friends with before the war, and that was a contributing factor to the PTSD he experienced post-war. Armed conflict should never be a means of resolving national dissension because, like O’Flaherty and the sniper in his short story, there will be situations where you hurt someone you care about; and then have to live with it.
LikeLike
Civil wars, like any war, are fights that to some extent involve fighting over political objectives. Political objectives fought over in a war are usually a manifestation of some underlying ideological value that is at stake. In the case of the Irish Civil War, it was a matter of whether to have a partially united Ireland, or a fully united Ireland. It split the country and its people. It pits friends and neighbors against each other. Civil wars like this one in many cases are so bad because they split families. The American Civil War is a great example, as it split the nation upon lines of values shared by members of specific regions of the nation. Sometimes with families spread around the country, they became divided. This is what appears to have happened in Ireland as well. The sniper calls who he is fighting “the enemy”, in order to make it easier to fight and kill them. Instead of classifying them by where they are from, or if they are related to him, or that they’re his countrymen, he just calls them what they are to him. He finds out that he has killed his brother, who is serving with the Free State government at the end of the work. This shows how civil conflicts, and really national conflicts as a whole, tend to divide instead of unite. We are shown though that there are things worth fighting your own countrymen for, but we are left asking ourselves the question of whether we should fight our own family.
LikeLike
O’Flaherty’s background contributes greatly to the themes that are worked into the short story “The Sniper.” The story covers the brief encounter of a sniper with “the enemy”, who he briefly exchanges shots with, ultimately killing an enemy soldier, informant, and sniper. He himself is injured in the battle as well. At the end of this battle, he curiously goes to view the body of the enemy sniper. Upon closer inspection, it is the body of his brother. This story, which depicts war as dark and disturbing, is unique and powerful for multiple reasons. For one, it questions the purpose and value of war. O’Flaherty, who gave up a path to priesthood in order to join the First World War, understand better than most exactly what it means to sacrifice everything for war. This story seems to ask an important question, “Is it worth it?” The unnamed sniper experiences all of the emotions of war in this story. He is haunted by death, giddy with survival, appalled by war, and eager to kill. His actions seem almost counter intuitive, as, in the space of a short time, he represents many different reactions to war. His personality is not representative of one of these emotions, but rather a mix of all of them. The story attempts to show every aspect of a soldiers thought in its pursuit of answering the question. But, more important than anything else, what makes this story so unique is that it does not answer the question it poses. After finding out the enemy was his own brother, the story ends. We never get to see the emotions or reactions of the Sniper. Any feelings regarding the discovery are entirely our own, making the reader answer for himself, “was it worth it?”
LikeLike
Civil war, as depicted in the story, is considered so particularly gruesome because the two opponents live so close together. Traditionally in war, the enemy is someone from another nation, someone you have never met nor have any connection to, which makes it easier to dehumanize them and commit violent acts against them. However, in civil war, the opponent is someone from the same nation, a person that you likely have shared experiences with. It is not as easy to dehumanize someone who you see as so similar to yourself, which is why it’s so important that the sniper keeps referring to his subject as “the enemy.” Because for the sniper, that’s the only identity he can give to his opponent without bringing up their shared nationality. There is no hostility between the two sides other than a political or ideological difference. In everyday life, these differences don’t often come up, so neither side is used to considering the other as so different from themselves that they can commit violent acts without reeling backwards at times. In O’Flaherty’s story, this is emphasized by “the enemy” being his very own brother. Inter-family violence is common in all civil wars, showing just how drastically the conflict can cause a shift within the warring nation. To the question of whether any political motives are worth dying or cutting family ties for exist, I’d say they definitely do. Whether it’s the freedom of an oppressed people, retaliation for acts of violence, or anything else that people are strongly committed to, some issues just can’t be solved with words, and sometimes those issues are bigger than an individual’s life or one person’s relationships. Priorities must be set by each individual person, and they are up to that person as such.
LikeLike
The sniper in O’Flaherty’s story is likely a personification of the feelings he felt when civil war raged on in his country. The main aspect that is quickly made apparent is the snipers disassociation with the situation he is in. He does not classify his targets, rather identifies them with what they are doing that is against him. There is a clearly defined good and bad under this system of belief, which allows him to take out his enemies without contemplation. O’Flaherty himself likely appreciated this mental technique during his service in WW1 against foreign nationals that had different languages and cultures, but when he saw this occurring during Ireland’s domestic battles he began to view it in a different way. The sniper represents Irish people tearing each other apart due to connection to different national beliefs, even though they held more similarities than differences. The sniper casually remarked about the possibility of having killed a man he served with in previous conflicts, making it apparent that the clear distinction of enemies extended to people he knew, at least in theory. This is shoved back in the snipers face when he finds out that it was his actual brother who he had vilified and then shot from the rooftop. By highlighting the person behind the ‘enemy’, whether it be brother, friend, neighbor, or just someone you had seen around town O’Flaherty wanted to encourage people on both sides to consider what they were doing as they clashed with each other across the countryside. He published the story while the war raged on, making it more of a pleading glimpse through the mirage of battle than something designed for passive contemplation.
LikeLike
Liam O’Flaherty’s short story, “The Sniper”, tells a story of a Republican sniper in the early days of the Irish Civil War, more specifically the Battle of Dublin. Briefly, the Irish Civil War was a conflict over the ideas of home rule in Ireland as an independent nation as opposed to being ruled by the British monarchy as a dominion. This Civil War saw soldiers who had fought alongside each other in the earlier Irish War of Independence now fighting against each other. What had once been the Irish Republican Army had split into the army of the Free State, those who supported a treaty which made Ireland a dominion of Britain in hope of using that as a path to independence, and the Republicans, those who wanted independence immediately. The main character of this story is one such Republican who used guerilla tactics to attack the technologically superior Free State army. Civil Wars are often murky affairs from the perspective of morale. Forces are usually motivated so strongly by their own beliefs that compulsion to fight is not always needed yet, the opposing side of such conflicts are essentially their countrymen. Personal ideologies have led to many committing atrocities particularly highlighted by the sniper shooting the woman on the street. Vague descriptions of their opponents, like “the enemy” as the sniper consistently uses, are used because traditional propagandist dehumanization is not effective when fighting your countrymen. The sniper in the story recognizes this idea of fighting against his former comrades. Upon discovering the corpse of his slain enemy to be his brother the story ends leaving the reader in the same state of shock as is assumed the sniper is in. Any conviction strong enough to put oneself at odds with their family must be all-encompassing to the individual.
LikeLike
The civil war depicted in O’Flahraty’s “The Sniper” had a remarkable effect on what these wars can actually do to one another. I do not believe in dying for political motives unless those who were put in charge of power are risking the lives of its people. Even in today’s society in America, many households and friends can be on opposite sides of the spectrum when it comes to politics. However, it is when we let those differences define our relationship that we get into trouble. The purpose of the sniper referring to the subjects as “enemy” is because of the fact that he can’t have those personal ties. If he truly feels like his beliefs are worth killing for, then who he is killing, regardless of who they are or what they mean to him do not matter to him. Ironically, at the end of this short story, it becomes evident that his own brother is the one he killed. Yet, i believe it was not the bullet and the rifle that did the killing, it was the snipers clouded mind and judgement that made him think that politics were worth killing over. In a world where violence and hate have become the answers to the worlds problems, this story shows the real life impact of what that hate can keep hold of. Weather it be in the for of jealously, political views or any other cultural views that separate us, it is those separations that make this world amazing. It is what should be uniting us, not what is tearing us apart.
LikeLike
In “The Sniper” Liam O’ Flaherty tackles a dilemma which the world still faces today. With a large portion of deaths as a result of battles, war remains a grim subject. In this story he recounts the events where two snipers are in a deadlock, yet when presented to each other, they realize they are brothers. In this civil war they are fighting on opposite sides. One side fights in favor of an unifying Irish treaty, while the other fights against it. In essence, O’ Flaherty uses this situation as a metaphor for domestic and international war. He uses the two brothers to symbolize the close bonds people share, yet the treaty to demonstrate the futility of war. He paints the civil war in a gruesome light because he wants to convey that a relationship as strong as fraternal can be ripped by the petty events which bring about civil war. Further, he makes the point that there is no just reason to tear apart countrymen, who he claims are brothers. By having the main character consistently classify the other as his “enemy” demonstrates how war can bitter ties between people. In his lifetime, he has witnessed the Irish struggle for independence from Britain, as well as the heartbreak and sorrow it has caused. As a soldier himself, he has a unique perspective which provides vivid insight regarding the gruesome war. Evident in “The Sniper,” Liam O’ Flaherty has formed a negative opinion on war due to the symbolic message conveyed in the story. He pushes to prove that war, specifically civil, tears apart relationships and bonds. Further, the reasons behind these wars provide no justification for their consequences.
LikeLike
The short story “The Sniper” describes war through the lens of a Republican Sniper, engaged in fighting the Free Staters in Dublin, Ireland as part of a greater Civil War. The story is full of tense, life-or-death moments, and plenty of morbidity. By the end of the tale the reader witnesses the sniper kill a machine gunner, a female informant, and finally an enemy sniper. It is important to note that the sniper only ever refers to the enemy sniper as “the enemy.” This practice of his can be attributed to how soldiers have historically dehumanized their enemy in order to make it easier for them to live with killing another man/woman. It is interesting in that it foreshadows, and later contributes, to a greater sort of thematic irony that surrounds the short story at its conclusion. The type of war portrayed in “The Sniper”, a civil war, is proven to be especially horrific by the protagonist’s revelation at the story’s end: The enemy sniper that he had killed was his brother. The background of the author, Liam O’Flaherty, provides further context into why civil war is portrayed as a particularly awful mode of conflict in the story. Liam O’Flaherty fought in the Irish Civil War, and suffered significant PTSD from his participation in it, as well as from his participation in WWI. He saw firsthand how civil war can tear families and society apart, and it moved him to compose literature such as “The Sniper.” O’Flaherty would undoubtedly be of the opinion that there are no political motives worth dying for, let alone sacrificing family ties over. The morbid sort of irony that he places at the conclusion of “The Sniper” is evidence of such. By this literary device, O’Flaherty asserted his opinion that armed conflict is not an appropriate means of resolving national dissension.
LikeLike
I think any civil war or conflict as presented in “The Sniper” has an element of intimacy that conventional wars between nations does not have. The likeness of cultures and societies between the two (or more) opposing forces requires a greater effort to dehumanize the enemy from opposing sides, which significantly contributes to individuals taking the war to a much more personal level in the sense that war crimes and other immoral acts become more justified in the face of this dehumanization. Such as the fire bombing that occurred in the Irish Troubles.
Overall, sacrificing family ties over something a political disagreement appears rather foolish and overall intolerant as political opinions can often change (especially those who are quite radical and hence might be more the topic of this question). However, I think to use an absolute as a baseline for such a choice is the wrong way to go about it. For myself, which I think might change, if a family member chooses to walk a political path that would end in the destruction of the family, I think that warrants losing the family tie with that person as they have now become a destructive element in the familial culture. The only issue that arises is the myriad of grey areas that someone would have to understand and examine to determine if someone else’s ideology is truly that destructive.
To go back to the intimacy of civil wars, part of referring to the subject as the enemy is a way to dehumanize and in turn control his own emotions regarding the task he wishes to accomplish. In a way this is a conformation that he understands he is in a very morally grey area of humanity’s experiences and must attempt to justify his actions in order to not feel guilty for them.
LikeLike
Liam O’Flaherty has seen battle firsthand when he fought for the Irish Guard in WWI, so his recount of battle in The Sniper are accurate and valid. Beliefs an Ideologies have driven civil wars all throughout history. Liam O’Flaherty became the founding member of the Communist Party in Ireland, which definitely caused a political divide. In my opinion, communism is definitely worth sacrificing family ties over and is well established that it is worth dying to prevent its spread. The sniper’s insistence on referring to his subject as “the enemy” because he must dehumanize his opponent to be able to fight against them. Understanding that the enemy was once a brother in arms makes it hard to be able to pick up a rifle against, but fighting for the cause is worth it, so they must dehumanize and defamiliarize themselves with their opposition. At the end of the story, his main opposition throughout ends up being his actual brother, signifying that this civil war is putting brothers up against each other. Armed conflict is a do or die reality in that if he had no killed his brother, his brother would have killed him. The sniper battles with instant remorse, which quickly fades when he messes around and his revolver accidently sends a round by his head, making him realize that he had to kill, or he would have been dead. Liam O’Flaherty brought communism into Ireland which brought in the country and also fought in a World War I, so has much experience with armed conflict causing a divide in his life.
LikeLike
The conflict in “The Sniper” slightly resembles that of WWI which Liam O’Flaherty fought in as a soldier. The emotion he captures with the sniper being tense, risking a smoke, using his cunning to fool the other sniper, and the feeling the sniper gets after firing a difficult shot from his revolver capture the snipers change in emotions. The reason why civil wars are considered particularly gruesome is represented at the end of the story where he realizes he killed his own brother. Those types of wars can split families and friends and create an uneasy environment where you question your friends or if your foes are really your enemies. As for are there political motives worth dying for that depends on the person you ask some people feel that politics are worth dying for and almost all wars are fought due to politics and intertwining relations. Specifically, and to relate this back to Liam, WWI was fought due to intertwining relations between countries who had made treaties and it eventually pulled all of them in. I think the idea of the sniper referring to everyone as the enemy it is because they don’t really know who the enemy is exactly if that makes sense. Armed conflicts can cause you to do things you don’t mean or want to do like in this snipers case killing his own brother. It is ironic because the sniper fights himself in between enjoying what he does and hating what he does. O’Flaherty’s personal experience with conflict defiantly helped him write this story and convey it in a convincing and emotional way. It is interesting that he chose to do a civil war setting opposed to the WWI setting that he is familiar with although there are obvious similarities with the armored vehicles. However I think he chose this setting because trench warfare wouldn’t produce the same effect as brother to brother conflict in a small/large town setting.
LikeLike
A Civil War is a particularly gruesome affair because it is so blatantly against human nature. Every instinct we have tells us not to harm or kill those who are related to us, so when ideological differences lead to people killing those who are closest to them there is an element of inhumaneness and unnaturalness that makes the whole situation particularly gruesome. I believe that the Sniper in Liam O’Flaherty’s short story insists on referring to the other man as “the enemy” in order to justify his actions towards a fellow countryman. By refusing to acknowledge the enemy as a person who shares his nationality and evidently his very bloodline, he is tricking himself into being able to turn his back on the instincts that warn against his actions. I believe that the Sniper thinks his resolve would crumble after acknowledging the humanity of the enemy because he would realize just how unnatural it was to put political motives over the health and wellbeing of a fellow countryman and brother. O’Flaherty himself fought on the Western Front in WW1 and knows the gruesomeness of war and seems to be highlighting his perceived unnaturalness of killing and emphasizes such uneasiness by discussing it in the most unnatural form: that of a Civil War. Therefore, at the end of his story, the irony of the enemy being his brother shows that O’Flaherty believes that armed conflict is not the solution to dissension, because it only cuts deeper wounds by creating the unhealable wound of fratricide across the country.
LikeLike
Civil wars face a particularly difficult situation in that countrymen are fighting against each other. This isn’t a war between two groups of people from different parts of the world living with miles and miles between them, this is a war between people that have lived together, worked together, maybe even coming from the same family as in this story. Civil wars only occur when people feel so desperate as to turn against their neighbors and fellow countrymen. A gap appears between each side’s ideals that becomes so irreversible that one decided violence is necessary. Civil war only becomes necessary when your very livelihood is at stake and all other attempts have failed. Only after every other recourse has been tried in violence justified, and even then violence with restraint is necessary. This essentially forces the main character in our story, “The Sniper”, to not even attempt to define the other shooter other than describing him as the enemy. To attempt to do more would personalize the enemy and neutralize the very motivations he has for fighting. O’Flaherty experienced the horrors of the First World War and subsequently denounced violence. Although O’Flaherty was a steely man who showed little empathic emotion, he still embraced more of a pacifist mind set. This shows in how he finishes the story in “The Sniper”. The reader experiences a sense of horror when it is revealed that it was the sniper’s brother who he killed. Based off of O’Flaherty’s experiences, it can be found that O’Flaherty intentionally ended his story in this way in order to leave the reader with a understanding of the horrors of war.
LikeLike
Liam O’Flaherty’s struggles made him the author he is today. Through his struggles, his emotions bleed onto the pages of his works. Since he was a strong nationalist, he wrote about how the Irish peoples’ fight for freedom was the political motive during the Irish civil war. The conflict was between two sides who wanted the same thing but did not want to compromise. O’Flaherty emphasizes that war tears families apart and that there are no good reasons worth sacrificing family ties over. This is displayed when the two brothers are placed against each other. The brothers did not know they were fighting each other. I believe that one reason O’Flaherty repeatedly refers to his subject as “the enemy” is that war blinds people with deception, and when participating in a war, the enemy takes on different forms and is composed of multiple factors. In the short story, the sniper says that “[he] felt reckless under the influence of the spirit“, which displays how war makes individuals do things that under normal circumstances, would never consider. War brainwashes people. During a war, both opposing sides each have an ingrained belief. One side thinks that their opposition is wrong and they are on the right side right, and the other side believes are right and the other side is wrong. This quote from the short story, “Eyes that are used to looking upon death”, supports that war places a blindfold over the truth so that the partakers in war believe that killing people normalized.
LikeLike
Civil wars are wars just like any other, but in some cases, they can tear apart families and communities more than any other type of war. With clashing ideas and different beliefs, families and communities can become divided and suddenly, soldiers can find themselves shooting at their loved ones and community members. To help with this, soldiers try to dehumanize their enemy by not referring to them as people, instead calling them “the enemy”. This distancing from the enemy probably helped soldiers with the emotional trauma of killing and shooting at other human beings. However, after the character kills the other sniper and goes to see the face of the person he killed, he realizes he killed his brother. I think O’Flahtery added this element into his story because it shows that no matter how much you try to dehumanize the enemy or not think of who you killed, you are going to experience emotional trauma, just like if you were to kill your family member. Long after the war is over, the soldier can be left questioning their actions and wondering if what they were fighting for was worth it. This shows the PTSD that so many soldiers experience when they return after war. O’Flahtery, who suffered from PTSD, used this story to show that war takes an emotional toll on soldiers and the effects can be long lasting—even long after the war is over. His helps the cause against going to war arguing that war does not resolve conflict, rather it harms citizens, causes emotional trauma, and increases tensions.
LikeLike
In Liam O’Flaherty’s “The Sniper,” the plot twist at the end of the story symbolizes the gruesomeness of war, specifically a Civil War. The story revolves around battle. O’Flaherty himself was a participant of World War I and the Irish Civil War, in which the story takes place. He suffered an extreme amount of PTSD as a result of the conflicts and was an Anti-War advocate. O’Flaherty utilized his writing skills as a weapon to expose the horrific nature of war. In the story, he depicts the emotions of the snipers when they engaged on one another. The sniper “smiled” and “uttered a cry of joy” at first when he successfully shot the enemy, but soon after “the lust of battle died in him,”. O’Flaherty emphasizes to the reader the mental horror of war by depicting this emotional change. The Snipers’ were just pawns, unaware that they were still humans. The strenuous tasks of war had made them inhumane. The Sniper “felt reckless under the influence of the spirit,” making him heartless. Another way O’Flaherty connects his anti-war message to his readers is with his ending. At the end, the sniper finds out the other sniper was his brother, whom he had just killed. Liam O’Flaherty’s way of utilizing fratricide emphasizes how people are killing their own blood during a civil war. They were lost in the ways of the war that they forgot the fact that they were killing their own people. Liam O’Flaherty uses his pencil to expose the horrendous actions of war in this story.
LikeLike
While war itself is often gruesome, civil war is on a whole other level. Fighting wars against people who are culturally, politically, religiously, etc. different makes it easier to fight. It is easier to rationalize excuses or reasons that one may be killing another. Civil war on the other hand, is fought be people who are extremely similar. When fighting people who are more alike you than they are different, it can be difficult to cope with. People in civil war often share very similar walks of life because they are both part of the same group of people, yet one minor political difference can change them into “enemies”. Even though the opposition may be labeled “enemies”, they are not enemies at heart. Sniper labels his opposition as enemies in order to create a distance between himself and the others. He can feel less guilty if he isn’t fighting his own people. Liam O’Flaherty fought in the Irish Civil War. Sniper is a version of Liam O’Flaherty that O’Flaherty writes through to express the graveness he experienced in the Irish Civil War. In the short story, sniper killed his own brother. This could possibly convey the actions of O’Flaherty in the real Irish Civil War. Although he may not have killed his own brother, he was likely fighting against people he knew and people he loved. I think if you asked O’Flaherty, he would that there is no political motive worth sacrificing family over. He lived it, and his experiences left him with PTSD.
LikeLike
While all wars have situations that are gruesome and violent, Civil Wars are considered particularly gruesome because it involved fighting people you knew, grew up with, or are related to. A Civil War is unique because it involves people who know each other fighting against each other for what they believe in. As seen in the story, the sniper ended up shooting his enemy, who upon closer inspection, is revealed to be his brother. Political motives that you believe in can be a reason to fight, if it enacts the change that you desire, but I don’t think it is worth killing your family over. This is exemplified in the story as the sniper refers to others as a broad category, such as “enemy” or “informer.” This is primarily to prevent attachments, and to push the idea that those he is facing are also people. He experiences this flush of emotions upon killing the enemy sniper as he was excited with his kill but then devastated about the destruction caused. This leads to the irony of the story as he discovers he killed his own brother, someone he would not have wanted to kill. The irony of a Civil War is that everyone gets hurt, and no matter who wins everyone still loses something. Relating to O’Flaherty’s personal life, he did fight in a Civil War where he likely killed people he knew and cared for. In the story he remarked how he was curious if his enemy was someone he served with in the past. If he did kill people he knew before, it would be a contribution to his PTSD, furthering his resolve to write stories that show how much wars negatively affect people.
LikeLike
All violence should be equally horrifying. Yet somehow, a civil war that turns people against themselves is harder to digest. Liam O’Flaherty, in his story “The Sniper”, depicts a scene from the Irish Civil War. This narrative serves to symbolize the horror of a country at war with itself by having two actual brothers, driven by their respective fanaticisms, hoping only to kill the other. It serves as a warning. Devotion to a cause, especially a divisive one, can radicalize a people to the point where they are blind to the humanity of those they are at odds with. We see this dehumanization through the constant referral to the “enemy”, and even to the “sniper” himself. The “sniper” is given no identity. Apparently, he was once a student, someone with a promising life ahead of him. He has lost that identity to his cause. Both brothers are become consumed with their respective ties, convinced that the only label that matters to a person is the side they fight for. In reality, these men are essentially the same person, united by nationality and even family. Their commonality is completely overruled by the war. The sudden wave of realization that comes over the sniper after his kill shows that there is no point to conflicts such as these. The story, and its lesson, are given further weight through the experience of O’Flaherty, who himself participated in the very conflict he discusses. His words serve as a recollection and warning of a conflict that turns a country against itself.
LikeLike
Civil War is often depicted as more gruesome than foreign wars because rather than fighting against a foreign enemy who more often than not speaks a different language, has different customs, and is often of a different culture. A civil war is fought between people of the same country. Not only is the death toll higher for that country because a death on either side counts, but they are fighting to kill people that could be their own neighbor, friend, or brother. The only political reason worth dying for would be the political reason for your country being founded. The opposing side would have to be domestic and a physical threat to your current life. Fighting a war to spread your countries ideology is not necessarily worth dying for because that country has a completely different history, culture, and structure that cannot be changed over the course of one campaign. If you are fighting for your country’s beliefs on home soil against an enemy who has invaded and want to change your way of life, I believe that fighting for the ideas your country was founded on is a political motive worth dying for. If political tensions get to the point in a country where family ties are completely broken beyond repair, I believe that that country is not a stable environment for anyone to live in. The sniper refers to his subject as the enemy to try to dispel the fact in his head that they are people from his country. It is a way to dehumanize who he is fighting so he can do his job. I believe the short story is sending the message that no political conflict is so great that family should have to kill one another to resolve the conflict. The people in power are not doing the fighting and instead, families are being torn apart for the sole purpose of deciding on who will run the country under what ideology.
LikeLike
While wars between foreign nations typically involve two peoples that have little in common, a civil war is between a single people that share everything in common aside from their one large ideological difference. While “The Sniper” is likely about the Irish Civil War and their relationship to Britain, in the United States Civil War the issue that caused the ideological divide in families was slavery. I do believe that there are political motives worth dying for, the American Civil War is a great example of that. When issues involving the future freedom of any segment of the nation’s population are at stake, I would say that that certainly warrants a large, possibly violent, response. The Irish probably felt the same way on both sides of the conflict. I believe that family is family and ideological differences should not result in the complete severing of ties, however I think that there is something to be said for a healthy debate. You cannot solve problems without violence if there is no dialogue. In the story, the sniper needs to be able to dehumanize his targets in order to keep a hold on his sanity. It was fragile enough in the first place that even just the killing the enemy sniper sent him into something like shock. I suspect that O’Flaherty detested conflict as a means of resolving national dissension, as evidenced by the sniper’s realization that he had killed his own brother at the end of the story. It appears to me that O’Flaherty did not believe the Irish Civil War needed to be fought at all, however I can certainly see how some of the Irish population would feel their freedom was under attack.
LikeLike
Civil war is particularly difficult on nations because they cause twice the suffering. All the hardship and sacrifice made by each side weighs upon one nation once the war is over. Civil Wars around the world are notoriously hard on families. Often, members of the same family fight on opposite sides. This becomes a very important theme in The Sniper. In this short story. The main character engages in an extended struggle against a hostile sniper hiding in another building nearby. At the end of the firefight, the sniper prevails, only to find that the enemy sniper was his brother. We can learn from this situation that the sniper questions his morals and reasons for fighting when he realizes the true cost of his actions. He refers to the hostile combatants simply as ‘the enemy’ because it dehumanizes them. It helps him to forget that these people he fights and kills are members of his own country pitted against each other by politics that may not even concern them personally. In this specific situation, dehumanizing the enemy is not an option because it turns out that the enemy is somebody he loves, and would not have shot if he knew their identity. We can infer that the sniper would not have sacrificed his family tied if he knew what the consequences of the conflict would be. O’Flaherty adopted this anti-war sentiment after experiencing World War One. This explains his motivations for writing this story. He believes that the horrors of war outweigh the goal of resolving a disagreement. Most often, war only accomplishes destruction, pain, and suffering.
LikeLike
The Irish Civil war was unique in nature as it was not just a struggle against nations as most wars are but more so a conflict over ideals. The idea of freedom and injustice resonated strong within different demographics which in some cases put neighbor against neighbor solely on the belief that one another was fighting for a cause in which they deemed was worth fighting for. The sentiments held by individuals who once shared meals and conversations, could now be put to the test in the crucible of conflict and all ties held before that struggle become null and void. This would be done more effectively by demonizing ones adversary to make them less human and making the plurality of fighting one another more feasible. It is not easy to just take arms up against individuals who you once held comradery with at one time or another. But if in the pursuit of a higher goal one most do what is necessary to accomplish the mission and over-arching goal that is in question. Is someone believes in something enough, a human will go to great lengths to see it through and no that even if their life is in jeopardy that the higher goal is worth more than one life that someone is willing to give.
LikeLike
O’Flaherty’s background contributes greatly to the themes of the short story “The Sniper”. The story recounts the brief encounter of a sniper with “the enemy”, with whom he briefly exchanges fire, ultimately killing an enemy soldier, an informer and a sniper. He was also injured in combat. At the end of this battle, you will curiously see the body of the enemy sniper. On closer inspection, it is his brother’s body. This story, which describes the war as dark and disturbing, is unique and powerful for several reasons. On the one hand, it questions the purpose and the value of war. O’Flaherty, who abandoned the priesthood path to join the First World War, understands better than most what it means to sacrifice everything for war. This story seems to ask an important question: “Is it worth it?” The unnamed sniper experiences all the emotions of war in this story. He is haunted by death, stunned by survival, horrified by war and eager to kill. His actions seem almost counterintuitive, because in a short time he represents many different reactions to war. His personality is not representative of one of these emotions, but rather of a mixture of all. The story attempts to show all aspects of the thinking of a soldier in his quest to answer the question. But more important than anything else, what makes this story so unique is that it doesn’t answer the question it poses. After discovering that the enemy was his own brother, the story ends. We never got to see the sniper’s emotions or reactions.
LikeLike
It is curious that an author who has been criticized for romanticizing violence would also be the creator of “The Sniper.” The ironic end of the short story seems to be a staunch criticism of violence. The main character never expresses the slightest reason for his action. The only distinction between friend and foe is that targets are called “enemies.” The only emotions mentioned in the piece are remorse, after fooling the other sniper, and curiosity, to determine the identity of the fallen enemy. The heat of battle is described with intentionally little emotion. There is no adrenaline, no pain, or any feeling at all. Just a job, and a series of unjustified actions. O’Flaherty’s commentary, in this case, is very clearly in opposition to the senseless human activity that is violence.
O’Flaherty’s perspective is hardly a surprise given his personal experiences with war. He experienced shell shock from World War I. O’Flaherty, like so many other veterans, dealt with the long-term fallout of war on his own mental health. However, O’Flaherty also developed a very serious interest in advocacy for Irish freedom. Thus, his writing displays the conflict between the need for violence as a means of obtaining Freedom and a fear of the fallout of violence. I believe that in “The Sniper” O’Flaherty’s priority is on the importance of a having purpose for fighting, not on criticizing violence itself. O’Flaherty ultimately desires that the people of Ireland will find a unified national identity and be free to pursue it.
LikeLike
Civil wars are considered particularly gruesome because the war is between people of the same area and in some cases, like the one in “The Sniper”, families were fighting against one another. A civil war, unlike a war against another nation or country, requires fighting against people who are familiar with each other and share similarities with one another. When fighting against other countries, the people who are fighting against each other have much less in common and because it is war it is still gruesome but there is much more horror that comes with fighting against people who are potentially your family. The Sniper refers to his subject as the enemy because it allows him to dehumanize and view his opponent as hostile instead of potentially a family member or somebody he knows. He had to constantly tell himself he was fighting the enemy in order to accomplish his tasks. Although war is gruesome, it depends on the situation to justify dying for and sacrificing family ties in order to accomplish a political motive. The irony at the end of the story is that the man who the Sniper was referring to as the enemy and killed was his brother. It is unclear whether the man is his actual brother, somebody close to him that he referred to as his brother, or if his “brother” is just a figure of speech for anybody who was fighting in the war. The irony also plays a role because the audience never sees the emotions or reactions of the Sniper and he never gives a clear answer of whether the cause was worth killing a brother. It is left for the reader to decide.
LikeLike
Liam O’Flaherty’s “The Sniper,” follows a Republican sniper and his encounters with enemies during the Irish Civil War. Civil War’s are particularly gruesome as depicted in this story, because you are fighting your own people, and purely a clash in ideologies, so it is harder to truly consider them and enemy, which may lead to the snipers insistence on referring to the other side as “his enemies” rather than saying the country they are from like most other wars. The big irony at the end was that the sniper killed his brother, which could signify how O’Flaherty felt as if civil wars only lead to killing your own people and blood. O’Flaherty’s experience in WWI and shell shock trauma he suffered from the war is what could have made his story particularly vivid and gruesome, as if he was reliving the scenes of war inside his story. Through “The Sniper” we see that they believe there are political motives worth dying for such as freedom and independence, yet they will always come at costs such as family. Although, without referring to the enemy and trying to put separation between them and yourself, it is hard to take action. If the Sniper knew who he was shooting at and trying to kill, would he have continued? Would it still have been worth sacrificing your own blood over? I think through this story we see how you have to blind yourself with your believes to try and accomplish your task, even if it gives negative impacts that you will need to deal with later.
LikeLike
Although foreign nations clash over ideologies and differences, civil wars are often more devastating for a nation or group of people. The emphasized gruesome nature of civil wars is due to the nature of pitting countrymen, neighbors, friends, or even relatives against each other in a war. Just the idea of having to turn on people that you see in your everyday life because of political motives is disturbing. However, history tells us that people have made the decision to put political motives over personal relationships. O’Flaherty describes the situation very well in “The Sniper.” Rather than describing a raging battlefield, the setting for the sniper battle is a community where the main character knows the streets by name, which is evident in the way that “He peered around the corner into O’Connell Street,” (The Sniper). Not only does the character know the streets, he knows his opponent! Unbeknownst to him at the time of the fighting, the main character kills his own brother over a political motive. Although there was no way of knowing that his brother would be the opposing sniper in the summer night, the reader can only assume that the main character might have known that his brother was fighting for the opposition, and he continued to engage in the fighting for the Republican cause. Aside from the brothers putting their lives on the line, an old woman risked her life to be an informant. O’Flaherty’s scene with brothers, an old lady, and a familiar town describes the devastation of civil war. The reader also must assume that the sniper is referring to his subject as “the enemy” to reaffirm the belief that killing community members, including the old lady, is justified, because they are the enemy, the bad guys. Ironically, the ending reveals the message that the war is more devastating than the national dissension that is trying to be resolved by fighting.
LikeLike
In “The Sniper” by Liam O’Flaherty the potential for tragedy in the Civil War was really depicted. It displayed how politics and ideological differences can lead to people willing to sacrifice their own life and even break familial ties. However, this story shows how despite that it can make you question if these differences are worth fighting and killing each other for. I believe that the emphasis on making the sniper calling his foe the “enemy” is to highlight how in most conflicts and wars you don’t know who you are fighting. In many cases it is just the “enemy” to help rationalize the loss of life making the realization of the main character in this story even more shocking. In the story the “enemy” turns out to be the snipers brother creating the shock and makes the reader question if any ideological difference is worth killing family for. I believe that only in the most dire circumstances that these sort of conflicts should take place because how else would someone be able to live with themselves if it wasn’t for a cause that will help make the world a better place. The irony at the ending makes a very strong statement on the usage of armed conflict to put an end to national dissention. It compels the reader to really think about who really wins in this sort of situation. Was the loss worth and pain worth it? These are the types of questions that I believe O’Flaherty wants you to think about when you read this short story.
LikeLike
Civil War is always more gruesome than any other war, because in a civil war the two opposing sides were at one time on the same side. This causes civil war to be more personal that other wars and more difficult to fight in. Civil war often causes more PTSD and trauma than regular war, and we see this in O’Flaherty’s case. In this story, the sniper refers to his subject as “the enemy” to try to dehumanize him and make it easier to fight him. This was necessary, because in a civil war one may be fighting someone they know. The irony in the story is that the sniper kills his own brother and regrets it. This symbolizes how civil war with armed conflict is not necessary to resolve national disagreement. The sniper and his brother represent how civil war turns people from the same origin against one another. Sometimes, it is people of the same religion, culture, or race but in other times, like in this case, it is people who are blood related. O’Flaherty shows that there are no political motives that are worth breaking family ties over. The sniper said fighting his brother felt like fighting himself and the war made him do things he would not have ever done before. This shows that civil war destroys both sides no matter who wins. This same idea is also why O’Flaherty experienced PTSD from his time fighting for Irish communism. Civil war causes emotional trauma and destruction which could be avoided by solving conflicts without traditional armed war.
LikeLike
The Irish Civil War was particularly gruesome as its foundations were not only political but religious. Religion, especially when concerned with salvation, can tear apart families and pit brother against brother. One could believe that their family ties were worth severing if it went against themselves being saved. Moreover, with nationalism on the rise following World War I, one could also believe a unified Ireland meant more to them than their family. The Protestant North versus the Catholic South made for a bloody war where anyone who assisted the “enemy” could be killed. This action was demonstrated in “The Sniper” when an elderly woman provided information to a soldier and was subsequently shot. During the story, the sniper consistently referred to the opposing faction as “the enemy” even though “the enemy” was his fellow countryman. The purpose of this was to psychologically condition himself to not think twice about shooting at his fellow Irishman. At the same time, the sniper was a war veteran himself and did not want to think about shooting one of his former brothers in arms. The irony lays in the idea that if you must psychologically condition yourself into not thinking about killing a former comrade, maybe you should not be shooting at all. At the end of the story, the irony turns to despair as the sniper turns over the enemy he just killed to see it is his own brother. To use Clausewitz’s cliché, “War is a continuation of policy through other means,” but maybe in the case of domestic conflicts, war should not be considered at all.
LikeLike
This short story is set during the Irish Civil War – a war in which people with close ties found each other on the battlefield at opposite ends of a rifle. It is a critique of war, with O’Flaherty’s motive for writing it being that war is brutal, and crosses boundaries that shouldn’t be crossed. In this case, the boundary that was crossed was family ties. O’Flaherty writes into the story that the main character shoots his own brother. His use of the word “enemy” is symbolic; it shows the reader that regardless of who this other person is, he’s still on the wrong side of the battlefield. O’Flaherty uses this to show the dehumanization that war is based upon. There are some political motives worth dying for. I believe that if you feel strongly enough about something that you are willing to lay your life on the line, it is a cause worth dying for. Regardless of how noble a motive it is, as long as it is worth it to the person, it is a cause worth dying for. Is this cause worth severing family ties over? If the family ties are out to kill you, I believe that it is in your best interest to sever the ties. However, this is very dependent on the person. I don’t know if I could fight knowing my brother is on the other side. It would take a huge toll on my mental state knowing that at any time either of us could be in a firefight against each other. Through O’Flaherty’s own life, he experienced trouble with his mental state, especially during and after fighting the very war he writes about. It is very evident in his writing and experiences that he was troubled.
LikeLike
As already noted by many classmates, a Civil War is not the same as a normal war. It is different to kill a stranger than to kill a friend. It is this that causes the difference in mental clarity after the action is committed. As for the comments that nothing is worth killing your family over and political conflicts is not reason for war, I completely disagree. Many wars are over a conflict in political opinion over what freedoms people should have. Our own country fought the Revolutionary War because of “Taxation without representation”. The Civil War ended up to be over slavery and the South separating. Both seem to be very political. I think as much as we would like to say that we wouldn’t kill our own family over a political issue it is different when it comes up. We have to put ourselves in the position of our family member taking away our gun rights, or tearing apart your marriage through immigration laws, it changes things. My point is I see a lot of judgments for war from difference in political view, but that changes in relation to perspective and the time period. Furthermore, O’Flaherty’s had to fight against the Irish and people he knew. In the short story, the sniper calls the other side enemy in attempt to segregate it in his mind what he is doing is okay. We all do this when we make a decision we know is wrong. Both the sniper and O’Flaherty have PTSD from killing people they know because of the added mental aspect. Murder does not seem to be a natural thing for people to do and thus effects them more than say stealing. The irony in the ending is that war was supposed to be seen as fixing the problem, but in this case it made tensions higher and the citizens more emotional. However, I feel like this is a misrepresented irony. Even though he is upset and conflicted, as many of the other people from the war, the story doesn’t explain the things the Civil War accomplished in its closure.
LikeLike
All wars are horrible, but civil wars are considered particularly gruesome because of the idea that “brothers” are fighting one another. It is the idea that people that are supposed to be on the same side are killing one another. Personally, fighting against family and friends does not seem plausible, but it is also difficult for me to say that confidently as civil war has found its way in the histories of numerous countries including our own. Throughout the story “The Sniper” by Liam O’Flaherty the subject is referred to as “the enemy” because it is a way to separate the idea of family and allows one to kill and hate someone so similar. The become more like an item easy to fight against. The author’s tone of war being dark and deadly most likely comes from his own experiences. As described in my classmates’ presentations O’Flaherty had his own understanding of the gruesomeness of Civil War seeing his own country fight in the Irish Civil War. O’Flaherty first handedly knows what it may feel like to see his loved ones fighting against “the enemy” that also belongs to Ireland. The Irish Civil War was not the worst of it. Prior to returning to Ireland O’Flaherty fought in World War One and suffered injuries and later PTSD. These two wars showed O’Flaherty the direct pain war can inflict, as well as pain on others that is inexplainable like in a civil war. These emotions of being against war are displayed by the ironic ending. For the sniper to have killed his own brother emphasizes O’Flaherty’s point that war is not always the solution, especially when it pits family against one another.
LikeLike
I think what is particularly gruesome about civil war versus wars fought by opposing countries is that it affects each sides’ homeland and only their homeland. For example, in World war II, the United States was involved, however, the United States itself was not harmed nearly as much as England, Germany, Japan, or Italy. With civil wars, brother can be turned upon brother and families are destroyed. In this case, the sniper even killed his own brother. There are political issues worth dying for. Considering the American Civil War, I think a vast majority of people would agree that the political change that resulted was worth dying for. As cold as it will sound, wars are about more than each individual act- they are about the grand picture. Specifically, in O’Flaherty’s story, I do not think that O’Flaherty thought the Irish Civil War was a cause worth dying for. He himself even left Ireland during the war despite having been a strong communist supporter and a solider himself. When he wrote the story, it continues to show that he thought the war was not worth the destruction of families that it caused. The reason that O’Flaherty referred to the opposing sniper as “the enemy” during the story goes to show that he believes war causes people to detach themselves from their feelings and morals. If the sniper had referred to him as another man/student/family member, it would have made it very difficult for the sniper to have killed him. Many people during wartime do things, that in peacetime, they would consider being horrific.
LikeLike