Liam O’Flaherty’s “The Sniper” and the Irish Civil War, by Megan Johnson

Liam O’Flaherty’s “The Sniper” and the Irish Civil War --McCrimmon Award Runner-up-- (Megan Johnson)

The period of 1921-23 in Ireland and Great Britain was one of turmoil, violence, and political opposition. Debates over religion, Home Rule, and the Irish Free State (what is now Northern Ireland), divided the small island nation into many factions which fought in the streets of Dublin and across the countryside. Amidst the turmoil, Liam O’Flaherty, a World War I veteran, produced literature which described in vivid detail the horrors of war and the effects violence could have on both civilians and soldiers.

At the opening of his 1923 short story, “The Sniper,” O’Flaherty describes the scene as “enveloped in darkness but for the dim light of the moon […] heavy guns roared […and] Republicans and Free Staters were waging civil war” (1). The protagonist is an unnamed soldier who waits on a rooftop in 1922, hungry and tired, to perform his sole task- to kill. He is a Republican, one who favors Home Rule and the unification of Ireland. The enemy sniper is a Free Stater, one who supports the separation of the six counties of Ulster or Northern Ireland. The fighting takes place near the Four Courts of Dublin, the seat of Irish Parliament. “The Irish Civil War [of 1922] began with the Free State’s bombing of the Four Courts” (“Irish”) and continued for roughly one year, including the skirmish detailed in “The Sniper.”

One of the main appeals of “The Sniper” is the surprise found in the final sentence. O’Flaherty shocked his audience when the sniper “reached the laneway on the street level [and] felt a sudden curiosity as to the identity of the enemy sniper whom he had killed” (3). Because of the nature of the war his is involved in, the sniper thinks he might know his victim, “then the sniper turn[s] over the dead body and look[s] into his brother’s face” (3). The shock and brutality of this ending leave the reader stunned by the ideas of such monstrous occurrences, but such events were not uncommon in the Ireland of 1922 and 1923. Unfortunately, “it is a curious fact that the Irish Civil War of 1922-23 often found brothers fighting on opposite sides” (Boyce 106). Divisions also occurred between parents and children, or one parent and some children against the rest of the family. To many, the Civil War was known as the Cogadh na gCarad or “War of the Friends” (106).

To some readers it may seem odd that the sniper wishes to know the identity of the man whom he killed, but when so many former friends face each other across battle lines, it makes sense that he would want to know. He could have easily walked away from the body, gone back to his unit, eaten and slept, as soldiers in other wars would have likely done. Instead, the situation compels him to check the identity of his adversary, who “was a good shot, whoever he was” (O’Flaherty 3). The fact that the sniper shows interest in the identity of his victim helps to indicate his humanity and the humanity of the entire war. The contrast between this generic epithet and the brotherhood discovered throws stark light onto the issues facing Ireland in 1923. Although written remarkably close to the events which it portrays, “The Sniper” succeeds in addressing issues which most of the population could relate to in some way.

O’Flaherty recounts the entirety of his story in the concise, detailed manner which he later became well known for. When the sniper is threatened by an armored car and a civilian informer, O’Flaherty tells of the murders simply saying, “The sniper raised his rifle and fired. The head fell heavily on the turret wall […] the sniper fired again. The woman whirled round and fell with a shriek into the gutter” (2). The sniper shows no reaction to the murder, as he was immediately distracted by gunshots fired in his direction. The way O’Flaherty focuses on those events observed and understood by the sniper, rather than emotion, allows the reader to better understand the thought process of a man hardened by war and killing.

The shots the sniper fires into the street give away his position to the enemy sniper across the road. The enemy fires, and the bullet pierces his right forearm. The sniper focuses on nothing but his injury and his mission as he dresses the wound; “There was no pain—just a deadened sensation, as if the arm had been cut off” (O’Flaherty 1). Once bandaged, he immediately assesses the situation, and decides to trick his opponent by placing his cap over the muzzle of his rifle and holding it where the enemy can see. Once the enemy fires, the sniper convincingly drops his rifle and cap, luring his opponent to a false sense of security, and stands up. The Republican sniper fires, and though O’Flaherty says, “his right arm was paining him like a thousand devils (2), he takes aim and fires with his pistol some fifty yards across to the opposite building.

The style O’Flaherty uses sheds light on the attitude with which he viewed the world. An injured veteran of World War I, O’Flaherty was able to describe war-like situations with vivid detail. He clearly understands the concept of ‘kill or be killed,’ which many people of the time period could relate too, since every street and town in the country was a potential battlefield. O’Flaherty also describes hunger, boredom, and injury convincingly, one might assume from real-life experience. The cool, collected attitude of the sniper, even after injury, helps the reader to understand the mentality of a soldier. In war emotion cannot exist; there is only the desire to live.

“The Sniper,” Liam O’Flaherty’s first published work of fiction, presented issues surrounding the Irish Civil War while the events were still transpiring. Best known until recently for his novels (several of which are based upon or during the Irish Civil War), O’Flaherty has gained more acknowledgement for his short stories in which he “builds in deceptively simple stories vivid images of the basic instincts of man” (O’Brien 93). His stories are short, easy to read, and easy to relate to. An audience in 1923 would most likely have been torn over such a blatant, violent, and personal narrative. Mothers reading the piece may have wondered if one of their sons had killed another, and soldiers may have wondered if the last man they killed was their brother, cousin, or father. With the sudden and abrupt realization that the sniper has killed his brother, O’Flaherty makes “the revelation that brother has shot bother the final atrocity in a barbaric world” (O’Brien 96).

Liam O’Flaherty, however, was an Irishman who had served his country during World War I. It seems unlikely that a veteran who had seen death and unspeakable violence would use such topics as a means of exploiting a Civil War within his own country. O’Flaherty specifically leaves both snipers unidentified- the enemy is not even identified in the story by his beliefs or the side on which he is fighting, just ‘the enemy.’ “The Sniper” was O’Flaherty’s attempt to convey a message that Civil War is a horrifying experience for all involved, both directly and indirectly. Parts of the work may seem insensitive and unfeeling such as the description of the enemy’s death; “Then the dying man on the roof crumpled up and fell forward. The body turned over and over in space and hit the ground with a dull thud. Then it lay still” (O’Flaherty 2). Despite the harsh reality of the scene, it relates directly to the political and social climate in Ireland at the time. O’Flaherty does not exploit the pain of families or individuals in “The Sniper,” but rather provides some comfort in the fact that murder, in war, is an act of self-preservation and there is no logical way to explain why some soldiers and civilians died while others survived.

In modern times, the main themes that can be addressed through “The Sniper” are the horrors of war, especially civil war, which can tear nations, neighborhoods, and families apart to an irreparable extent. Literature written about any atrocity or human cruelty will surely raise concerns and tempers among readers, but I feel that it is better to discuss terrible events such as war, terrorism, and genocide, than to sweep them under the rug as if they never occurred. Philosopher George Santayana said, “Those who cannot remember history are condemned to repeat it;” this can be exemplified by the genocide which took place in Russia and then Iraq, despite the world’s previous dealings with the Holocaust. Through the boldness and audacity of authors such as Liam O’Flaherty, it can be assured that the atrocities of war, hatred, and violence will not be forgotten, and thus may hopefully be avoided by future generations.

Works Cited

ed. Boyce, D.G. The Revolution in Ireland, 1879-1923. London: Macmillan Education Ltd, 1988.

"Irish Civil War and Before." U.S. Naval Academy Literature Department. 11 November 2007 .

O'Brien, James Howard. Liam O'Flaherty. Cranberry, New Jersey: Associated University Presses, 1973.

O'Flaherty, Liam. "The Sniper." Kelly, ed. A.A. Collected Stories. Palgrave Macmillan, 2000. 96-100.

Zneimer, John. The Literary Vision of Liam O'Flaherty. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1970.

Assignment

Paper #3: Art & Atrocity

With Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, Foer wrote one of the first (and most popular) works of 9-11 fiction, leading some critics to cry that it was too soon, gimmicky, or exploitative. In this piece, you will examine how popular culture or art has tried to comprehend, re-create, and represent a cultural atrocity or human suffering. German intellectual Theodor Adorno famously observed, “Writing poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric.” Reflect on his statement. How do we tell future generations about what has happened? What responsibilities do we bear to the victims? Where is the line draw between education and exploitation? Whose story is it? Should it be left to the survivors, or can someone else tell it? Consider the “burden of memory.” For example, one can address the Holocaust in context a film (Schindler’s List, La vita è bella, or Au Revoir, Mes Enfants), a book (Maus, Number the Stars, or Night), or a work of art (the paintings of David Olère).

This is a textual analysis and opinion paper; research is not required, but surely not discouraged.

Length: 1,500-2,100 words

Draft 1

At the opening of “The Sniper,” O’Flaherty describes the scene as “enveloped in darkness but for the dim moon… heavy guns roared… [and] Republicans and Free Staters were waging civil war” (O’Flaherty 96). The protagonist is an unidentified Republican soldier, who waits on a rooftop, hungry and tired, to perform his sole task- to kill. As he waits, he lights a cigarette, which he immediately realizes is a mistake as a bullet whizzes by his head. Rolling across the roof, he is aware of an enemy sniper across the street. He sees an enemy armored car; an older civilian woman emerges and speaks to the man in the turret of the car, and points at the sniper’s rooftop. When the man in the turret presents himself as a target, the Republican sniper wastes no time killing him, and then the old woman (O’Flaherty).

His shots again identify his position and the enemy fires. This time, the bullet does not miss, but it takes a moment for the Republican sniper to comprehend his wounded right forearm. He focuses on nothing but his injury and his mission as he dresses the wound. Once bandaged, he immediately assesses his situation, he decides to fool his opponent by “taking off his cap, plac[ing] it over the muzzle of his rifle,” (O’Flaherty) and holding it where the other sniper can see. The enemy fires, and, convinced he has succeeded, stands up. The Republican sniper fires some fifty yards, and, though “his right arm [pains] him like a thousand devils,” he takes aim and fires. As the sniper watches his foe fall to the ground, “the lust for battle died in him.” With his mission now complete, he descends to the ground, where he is overcome with curiosity and approaches the body to look at the man he has just killed; “then the sniper turn[s] over the dead body and look[s] into his brother’s face.”

The shock of the ending and the brutality of the situations presented in O’Flaherty’s “The Sniper,” leave the reader reeling at the ideas of such monstrous occurrences. In the Ireland of 1922 and 1923, however, these events were commonplace. Debates over Religion, Home Rule, and the Irish Free State divided the small island nation into many factions who fought in the streets of Dublin, and across the countryside. The sniper in the story is a Republican, one who favors home rule and unification of Ireland. The sniper’s brother, the enemy, might be in favor of creating the Irish Free State, (what is now Northern Ireland) British rule, or both. Unfortunately, “it is a curious fact that the Irish Civil War of 1922-23 often found brothers fighting on opposite sides” (Boyce 106). Divisions also occurred between parents and children, or one parent and some children against the rest of the family. To many, the Civil War was known as the Cogadh na gCarad or “War of the Friends” (106).

“The Sniper,” Liam O’Flaherty’s first published work of fiction, presented issues surrounding the Irish Civil War while the events were still transpiring. Formerly known best for his novels, (several of which are based upon or during the Irish Civil War) O’Flaherty has recently been gaining more acknowledgement for his short stories in which he “builds in deceptively simple stories vivid images of the basic instincts of man”
(O’Brien 93). For example, by focusing the attention of “The Sniper” on the events which the protagonist can easily observe and comprehend, O’Flaherty allows the reader to better understand the thought process of a man hardened by war and killing.

An audience in 1923 would most likely have been torn over such a blatant, violent, and personal narrative. Mothers reading the piece may have wondered if one of their sons had killed another, and soldiers may have wondered if the last man they killed was their brother, cousin, or father. With the sudden and abrupt realization that the sniper has killed his brother, O’Flaherty makes “the revelation that brother has shot bother the final atrocity in a barbaric world” (O’Brien 96).

The style O’Flaherty uses sheds light on the attitude with which he viewed the world. An injured veteran of World War I, O’Flaherty was able to describe war-like situations with vivid detail. He clearly understands the concept of ‘kill or be killed,’ which many people of the time period could relate too, since every street and town in the country was a potential battlefield. The cool, collected attitude of the sniper, even after injury, helps the reader to understand the mentality of a soldier. In war emotion cannot exist; there is only the desire to live.

What is unusual, however, about this particular sniper, is his curiosity. He could have easily walked away from the body, gone back to his unit, eaten and slept. Instead, he is compelled to check the identity of his adversary, who “was a good shot, whoever he was” (O’Flaherty). The contrast between this generic epithet and the brotherhood discovered throws stark light onto the issues facing Ireland in 1923. Although written remarkably close to the events which it portrays, “The Sniper” succeeds in addressing issues which most of the population could relate to in some way, which is a rare and unusual achievement for an author under any circumstances.

It can be argued that the plot of “The Sniper” exploits the circumstances of the Irish Civil War and the pain associated with it. The concept of one brother killing another seems harsh and cruel in a time and place when such events are happening to real people every day. Liam O’Flaherty, however, was an Irishman who had served his country during World War I. It seems unlikely that a veteran who had seen death and unspeakable violence would use such topics as a means of exploiting a Civil War within his own country. O’Flaherty specifically leaves both snipers unidentified- the enemy is not even identified by his beliefs or the side on which he is fighting, just ‘the enemy.’ “The Sniper” was O’Flaherty’s attempt to convey a message that Civil War is a horrifying experience for all involved, both directly and indirectly. Although the plot may seem insensitive and unfeeling, it relates directly to the political and social climate in Ireland at the time. O’Flaherty does not exploit the pain of families or individuals in “The Sniper,” but rather provides some comfort in the fact that murder, in war, is an act of self-preservation and there is no logical way to explain why some soldiers and civilians died while others survived.

In modern times, the main themes that can be addressed through “The Sniper” are the horrors of war, especially civil war, which can tear nations, neighborhoods, and families apart to an irreparable extent. Literature written about any atrocity or human cruelty will surely raise concerns and tempers among readers, but I feel that it is better to discuss terrible events such as war, terrorism, and genocide, than to sweep them under the rug as if they never occurred. Spanish-born philosopher George Santayana (1863-1952) said, “Those who cannot remember history are condemned to repeat it.” Through the boldness and audacity of authors such as Liam O’Flaherty, it can be assured that the atrocities of war, hatred, and violence will not be forgotten, and thus may hopefully be avoided by future generations.

Works Cited
ed. Boyce, D.G. The Revolution in Ireland, 1879-1923. London: Macmillan Education Ltd, 1988.
"Irish Civil War and Before." U.S. Naval Academy Literature Department. 11 November 2007 .
O'Brien, James Howard. Liam O'Flaherty. Cranberry, New Jersey: Associated University Presses, 1973.
O'Flaherty, Liam. "The Sniper." Kelly, ed. A.A. Collected Stories. Palgrave Macmillan, 2000. 96-100.
Zneimer, John. The Literary Vision of Liam O'Flaherty. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1970.

Draft 2

The style O’Flaherty uses sheds light on the attitude with which he viewed the world. An injured veteran of World War I, O’Flaherty was able to describe war-like situations with vivid detail. He clearly understands the concept of ‘kill or be killed,’ which many people of the time period could relate too, since every street and town in the country was a potential battlefield. The cool, collected attitude of the sniper, even after injury, helps the reader to understand the mentality of a soldier. In war emotion cannot exist; there is only the desire to live.

In modern times, the main themes that can be addressed through “The Sniper” are the horrors of war, especially civil war, which can tear nations, neighborhoods, and families apart to an irreparable extent. Literature written about any atrocity or human cruelty will surely raise concerns and tempers among readers, but I feel that it is better to discuss terrible events such as war, terrorism, and genocide, than to sweep them under the rug as if they never occurred. Spanish-born philosopher George Santayana (1863-1952) said, “Those who cannot remember history are condemned to repeat it.” Through the boldness and audacity of authors such as Liam O’Flaherty, it can be assured that the atrocities of war, hatred, and violence will not be forgotten, and thus may hopefully be avoided by future generations.

Process Memo

When we were assigned this paper, I was determined to make mine different than others in the class. I figured the Irish Civil War was kind of an uncommon topic so it would keep things entertaining.

I made sure to get the historical background on the setting of “The Sniper” as well as some analysis of Liam O’Flaherty’s work from Strozier. Researching ahead of time made writing the paper go much more smoothly. I did, however, end up writing the paper in the middle of the night, so the organization was a little sloppy. I regretted that later.

In the first workshop, I felt like I didn’t really accomplish much. It was one of those days when my half of the room was refusing to cooperate (sorry about all those, by the way) and we kept getting distracted, so not much peer editing took place. I did however, edit the paper before bringing it to conference, and added about 200 words of analysis to help bring it to the 1,500 word total.

My conference went reasonably well, the main complaint being the organization. I summarized the entire plot at the beginning of the paper, and then proceeded to analyze and comment afterwards. You told me to summarize and analyze alternately throughout the paper to provide more interest and continuity.

Reorganizing was difficult, as visible in my second draft. I first had to re-divide the paper, then regroup. The excessive amounts of highlighting were to make sure I included all of the points I had originally included.

The second workshop was more helpful than the first. The comments I received were to discuss more of the education vs. exploitation within the story, along with positive feedback.

I scheduled another conference to go over the paper one last time. The organization was much improved and you only made a few comments on things to edit and add. And now I’m done! Yay!