But is 4-on-1, with two guns really a weaker party? The story has elements of "go good guys!" in it, but if their pistol didn't misfire, he'd probably be dead.
All other things being equal, maybe. But all other things aren't equal. I can understand where you're coming from, but I'd extend it to the taking of any life. He was trained to be able to kill as a soldier, but this is still diferent. [This is also why I could never be a soldier. I don't know that I could kill someone else, except perhaps to defend in the moment my family - both present and hypothetical.]
I do think his reluctance to claim the hero mantle does show that he understands the seriousness of what happened.
4 comments:
So he had to kill a young woman? I wonder how he feels about that.
Bad, I'd imagine, but at the same time he seems to feel he was fighting for his life.
A History of Violence is an interesting take on the theme. It is, of course, violent.
I'd imagine I'd be conflicted if I had to kill what would otherwise be considered a weaker party to save my own life.
But is 4-on-1, with two guns really a weaker party? The story has elements of "go good guys!" in it, but if their pistol didn't misfire, he'd probably be dead.
All other things being equal, maybe. But all other things aren't equal. I can understand where you're coming from, but I'd extend it to the taking of any life. He was trained to be able to kill as a soldier, but this is still diferent. [This is also why I could never be a soldier. I don't know that I could kill someone else, except perhaps to defend in the moment my family - both present and hypothetical.]
I do think his reluctance to claim the hero mantle does show that he understands the seriousness of what happened.
Post a Comment