The author of this story, published in 1922, depicts the verisimilitude of the environment and the thought process of the protagonist in narrative form, from a third-person, limited omnipresent view point. The target audience was the naïve, unsophisticated, population of Ireland, whose average education ranged from the sixth to eight grades.
In this era, prior to broadcast radio, world events were typically conveyed via a single newspaper and the silent films of Fox News (which became Fox Movietone News in the “talky” era) and repeated rumor in social circles, which were typically a church setting for most of the population, and, mainly for adult males, the pubs were another venue. Complex concepts, such as the nuances of war and its effects on warriors and the population were otherwise conveyed to the population in various literary forms.
Literature often describes civil wars as “brother against brother,” describing them figuratively and depicting them literally in many notable works.
The Sniper follows this form. This short story has an intense, juvenile cadence to it. Simple sentences convey uncomplicated, but highly focused thoughts of a militia warrior fighting a guerilla-style battle; and, after his injury, demonstrating behaviors consistent with battle fatigue and shell-shock that is already morphing into what, years later, would become known as PTSD.
The author, who had previously studied for the priesthood, conveyed the humanity still present, and now coming to the surface, in this wounded warrior. Only a true psychopath or sociopath is immune to the psychological effects of killing another human, no matter how justified the action: “The lust of battle died in him. He became bitten by remorse. ...Weakened by his wound and the long summer day of fasting...” The psychological effects of his injury and pain bring to mind the unspoken biblical aphorism of “all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
The regret and crescendo of pain induced shock took its toll on the warrior; in a rage, he retaliated against his revolver, an iconic metaphor of his last homicide and a contributor, by way of recoil, to his pain. The revolver retaliated: “The revolver went off with a concussion and the bullet whizzed past the sniper's head.” bring the warrior back to his present reality. His remorse would return when he found that his target was his brother. This wouldn’t stop the war, or the protagonist’s participation –except for a few minutes while he mourns.
Other comments:
The reality is that revolver would not have fired when he threw it down. The hammer was resting on an empty shell, previously fired at his target.
There are only two ways for the weapon to fire in this circumstance:
The militia man cocked it, which, along with being incredibly stupid, means he would not have been surprised by its discharge.
The other requires a sustained force on the trigger, equal to 10 to 15 pounds (44 to 67 Newtons) (typical for the firing of double action revolvers of this era, and still common today). This is extremely unlikely to happen.
------------
I've seen it in a dozen movies. It's a typical and clichéd portrayed reaction to having used a firearm. Shooting someone was justified and necessary, but the user feels remorse – or maybe guilt... whatever – and blames the gun for what he himself had done. What a crock.
Such clichéd depictions of remorse and guilt may common in movies and literature, and blaming “guns” is certainly common in the news media for gun violence. However, in the case of this short story, there is no indication of this. The throwing of the gun is a depiction of frustrated anger and pain, not blame. It’s not much different than a depiction of a golfer throwing is club because he missed and easy putt or a carpenter throwing his hammer because he improperly framed a wall or hit his finger.
GA
