Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Civil war research essays
Sketch the character of sniper
Analysis of the sniper by Liam O'Flaherty
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the short story “The Sniper,” author Liam O’Flaherty deals with a conflict that still has divided ireland since the civil war ended, showing few signs of lessening. The fighting takes place in the heart of Dublin, Ireland, after sundown. The Irish Republican Army is engaged in a civil war with the Free State. The youthful main character, the Republican sniper, has been affected by the war and is now a fanatical looking soldier, forced by warfare to grow up too fast. The sniper needs to operate as a seasoned warrior in order to live. If he fails to develop as a cunning fighter, he will not survive. “The Sniper” emphasizes a profound irony of civil war: A brother is pitted against his own brother---who, ironically, is poised to kill the republican …show more content…
sniper if given the opportunity. The Republican sniper outwits the Free Stater into being careless, and this carelessness costs the Free Stater his life. “The Sniper”shows several of the worst horrors of war: War makes life seem cheap and worthless. The story also shows us that in war, carelessness leads to certain death. Yet in the end, the story shows the absurdity and futility of fighting against individual human beings. War makes life seem cheap by reducing human beings to mere objects.
Soldiers shoot at the enemy, not individual people. Enemy targets don’t have names or faces, so they aren’t considered valuable human beings. They are nothing more than objects to be shot at from a distance. To support this O’Flaherty refrains from naming any of his characters. For example, in the story the author introduces our IRA sniper protagonist without ever mentioning the character’s name. O’Flaherty writes, On a rooftop...a republican sniper lay watching.”(p.8) for the rest of the story only the pronouns of he, him,and his refer to the protagonist. The antagonist, a Free State enemy soldier on an opposite rooftop is indirectly mention when the writer narrates, “...a bullet whizzed over his head...it came from the opposite side of the street.” (p.9) Even when we learn that enemy sniper just killed is our protagonist’s brother, this character still is not named. Furthermore, a lady killed on the street is only referred to as’... an woman, her head covered by a tattered shawl.” (p.9) She never gets specifically named, expect the readers are told that she is an informant. The author purposely avoids naming the characters to show us that in war people’s lives are not worthy of consideration. This is important to understand because the author is illustrating that the enemy will always shoot to kill without considering people as
individuals. Furthermore the story shows us that in war, carelessness and relaxed security leads to certain death. The sniper security was let down when he ate a sandwich, drank whiskey, and smoked a cigarette. The narrator stated placing a cigarette between his lipses struck a match inhaled smoke and immediately a bullet hit itself against the parapet of the roof.(p.9) Another way the sniper off guard was a lady. The sniper lost his guard from the lady because he was watching her surrounding for she didn’t get shot. “Suddenly from the opposite roof a shot range out and the sniper dropped his ritie with a curse.”(p.9) The last thing was that the other sniper let his guard down. He let it down because he thought he killed the sniper popped out with his revolver and shot the other sniper. Third part of the story shows the absurdity and futility of fighting against individual human beings, as war knows no boundaries. It does not discriminate on age, gender, family ties, location, or even the time of day. This is saying that in war you really don’t know who you’re gonna kill, or who’s gonna kill you. Like so the narrator said “The woman whirled round and fell with a shriek into the gutter.” (p.9) a woman was walking down the street and the sniper shot and killed. Another thing is that the narrator stated, “The revolver went off with the concussion and the bullet whizzed past the sniper’s head.” P.11 so basically he shot randomly. Finally when he killed the sniper he wanted to check if he knew the person. While he was going to check the body a enemy vehicle was shooting. Since he was getting shot he had to run across and leap into cover with the dead body. When he turned the body over and turns out to be his… brother. As I have stated in paragraph 2 was that people let their guard down like the sniper was drinking whiskey, eating a sandwich, and smoking a cigarette because of that he was getting shot from the sniper. In paragraph 3 talks about that age, gender, family ties, location, or even time of day. This was saying that in war you really don’t know who you’re gonna kill like the sniper killed the other sniper (his brother). When the sniper went to go see the body he found out it was his brother. The universal truth is that you really don’t think about anything else besides staying alive so you’ll do anything to stay alive even kill someone you know.
When the quote says “that part of the story is my own” it must mean O’Brien had taken some true details from personal stories. Could O’Brien taken true information but tried to throw the readers off to keep some privacy for the men the stories were based off? Some of the stories present within the book are completely out of the water. How could O’Brien imagine those ideas up without a base of what actually happened? I believe O’Brien switched the names of the soldiers but kept the stories. If he did the name switching it could emphasize on how the reader could focus on the ideas and situations, not the people. O’Brien would showcase how these situations can affect everyone. Another challenging aspect for me is if the stories are partly true why not honor those written about. Do the soldiers feel shame reading about their failures? O’Brien wrote his novel upon the hopes of helping his PTSD and it could have helped the veterans read and receive help. Along with help the vets it could supply the vets with the honor they
O’Brien, Tim. “How To Tell a True War Story.” The Compact Bedford Introduction to Literature. Ed. Michael Meyer. Boston: Bedford St. Martins, 2003. p. 420-429.
O Brien's point of view is an accurate one as he himself because he is a Vietnam veteran. The title of the short story is meaningful because it describes each soldier’s personality and how he handles conflict within the mind and outside of the body during times of strife. The title fits the life of a soldier perfectly because it shows the reality that war is more than just strategy and attacking of forces. O’Brien narrates the story from two points of view: as the author and the view of the characters. His style keeps the reader informed on both the background of things and the story itself at the same time.
In the story, “The Sniper”, The sniper showed that he was an intelligent soldier. In the beginning, after Being shot by the enemy sniper the sniper took care of his wound and was able to compose himself and think of a plan. Thinking he had won the battle after the snipers successful decoy the enemy sniper dropped his guard and the second he did the sniper
In Liam O'Flaherty's "The Sniper," all of these. are brought to an acute reality in a single war-torn city. Strong cerebral convictions and opposing philosophies, due to which people want to destroy the seemingly “wrong” plague this world and are the ones who are the ones who are the main reason for the plight. To aid in his creation of such emotional conflict, turmoil and plight, the author has portrayed the sniper as a very controversial character in the story. This story is oriented around one character in the Civil War which he should not even be in as he is. mentioned to be a “student” in the story.
Murder is a reprobate action that is an inevitable part of war. It forces humans into immoral acts, which can manifest in the forms such as shooting or close combat. The life of a soldier is ultimately decided from the killer, whether or not he follows through with his actions. In the short stories The Sniper by Liam O'Flaherty and Just Lather, That's All by Hernando Téllez, the killer must decide the fate of their victims under circumstantial constraints. The two story explore the difference between killing at a close proximity compared to killing at a distance, and how they affect the killer's final decision.
His quick thinking and desperate attempts to avoid an intricate situation ends with him killing his enemy, but the consequence is later revealed at the end of the short story. O’Flaherty writes, “Then the sniper turned over the dead body and looked into his brother’s face” (4). In other words, the enemy that the Republican sniper shoots at the end of the passage was not only his enemy, but his brother. The action of killing his brother shows that the Republican sniper is to blame because he takes action, without much thought, and does not consider that he is shooting his own flesh and blood. The Free Stater sniper is utterly the same as the Republican sniper because he views his enemy the exact same way. He does not ruminate on whether his enemy lives a different life outside of the war. Another sentence that is prominent in showing the mindset of the snipers wanting to create bloodshed from each other is, “ He must kill that enemy…” (3). O’Flaherty writes this to showcase the Republican sniper’s thoughts and feelings through his elaborate plan to assassinate the opposing sniper. The Republican sniper merely deliberates on how he will eliminate his
As a socialistic society we live in we find ourselves in positions were conflicts arise between friends or family. 'The Sniper'; was written by Liam O ' Flaherty to express a subtle yet powerful opinion on such a conflict. With references this essay will analyse the short story bringing to light the structure used to contribute to the theme.
In conclusion, the Sniper is, interestingly, a complete contradiction in himself. He is both experienced and amateur, cold and emotional, lusting after war and hating it, self-assured and vulnerable, and logical and mad. This stark paradox may create much of the inner conflict that goes on within the Sniper, and also reflects the outer conflict of the Irish war- a war where both sides are essentially opposing parts of the same whole.
O’Brien’s unique verisimilitude writing style fills the novel with deep meaning and emotion. Analyzing the novel through a psychological lens only adds to its allure. Understanding why characters act the way they do helps bring this novel to life. The reader begins to empathize with the characters. Every day, the soldiers’ lives hang in the balance. How these soldiers react to life-threatening situations will inspire the reader. Life has an expiration date. Reading about people who are held captive by their minds and who die in the name of war, will inspire the reader to live everyday as if they are currently in the
The mood of the story is dark and weary. In this scene the sky is gloomy and there are Republican and Free Starter soldiers fighting in the Irish Civil war, “The long June twilight faded into the night. Dublin lay enveloped in darkness but for the dim light of the moon that shone through the fleecy clouds.. machine guns and rifles broke the silence of the night, spasmodically” (O’Flaherty 1). Although the mood of the story is creepy and dim for the most part, it is silent with the sudden sounds of guns firing. As the story progresses, the sniper’s emotions begin reflecting on his actions. He begins to feel guilt and remorse for killing someone and the mood shifts to tension and violence.
Tim O’ Brien’s narrative, How to Tell a War Story depicts the livelihood and experience of American soldiers during the Vietnam War. More so evaluating the life Tim O’ Brien and several other characters in his platoon. The sequences of stories reveals the thoughts and behavior of many post-Vietnam veterans and also can be related to the behavior of many veterans today. Throughout the segments of stories, “How to tell a War Story”, “Speaking of Courage and Notes”, and “The Things They Carried”, O’ Brien illustrates a common theme of guilt and sacrifice among the key characters Lieutenant Cross, Rat, and O’ Brien himself. Each character are presented with an unexpected responsibility and are forced to serve their state. A sense of discomfort
O’Brien wanted people to see that war isn’t full of heroes and glory, but more of evil and gore. His book is different from the majority of other war stories. It doesn’t focus on the typical heroic/cowardly characters because in a war there aren’t simply heroes or cowards. Actions that may seem heroic at first are often done out of fear of being judged by other soldiers, and what is seen as cowardly might be the bravest thing for the soldier himself. By this and many other stories O’Brien shows the horrible effects the war has on the soldiers, how the innocent, young boys drastically change. For example, in one of the stories, Rat Kiley talks about Mary Anne who changes from an innocent girl into a ruthless killer. “You come over clean and you get dirty and then afterward it’s never the same”. (109) Instead of stereotypical war heroes, the soldiers in O’Brien’s book are just ordinary people with normal fears and desires which makes it easier for the readers to see the not-so-glorious reality of war.
Tim O’Brien describes “The Man I Killed” to present the reader with a parallel illustrating a deceased enemy’s life prior to the war, and his own life before the war in order to allow the reader to view similarities of the enemy and himself. In all, readers can look beyond the fiction of the novel to assume many soldiers of the time felt the same as O’Brien did. Ignoring what is fact and fiction, we can relate to the war each in our own way. The two chapters intertwine with the entire book to establish a presence of sobering humility, and above all else we view the world inside the mind of a soldier who viewed the minds of others.
Usually when someone is murdered, people expect the murderer to feel culpable. This though, is not the case in war. When in war, a soldier is taught that the enemy deserves to die, for no other reason than that they are the nation’s enemy. When Tim O’Brien kills a man during the Vietnam War, he is shocked that the man is not the buff, wicked, and terrifying enemy he was expecting. This realization overwhelms him in guilt. O’Brien’s guilt has him so fixated on the life of his victim that his own presence in the story—as protagonist and narrator—fades to the black. Since he doesn’t use the first person to explain his guilt and confusion, he negotiates his feelings by operating in fantasy—by imagining an entire life for his victim, from his boyhood and his family to his feeling about the war and about the Americans. In The Man I Killed, Tim O’Brien explores the truth of The Vietnam War by vividly describing the dead body and the imagined life of the man he has killed to question the morality of killing in a war that seems to have no point to him.