I think that the main point in the situation of O'
Connor's story is to illuminate a condition of humanity during war. It is a condition
that in which critic Patricia Robinson suggests O'Connor suggests that "in war, hatred
and revenge drive out ethical and moral intelligence.’’ In a condition in which people
are supposedly enlightened and endowed with the gift of rational thought, the point in
O'Connor's story is to show that in war, humans do not necessarily embody such a lofty
perch. Rather, they become creatures that retreat into duty and other domains in order
to evade the personal responsibilty and agonizingly brutal consequences that go with it.
For majority of the story, the English captives and Irish
captors seemed to get along quite well. The animosity of war and the intensity of the
conflict had been kept at bay while both soldiers recognize one another as soldiers and
not partisans. In the hue of such a condition, the Irish soliders and British soldiers
refer to one another as "pals" and "chums." Yet, when the order to execute the British
soldiers becomes evident, the Irish soldiers do not take action in the name of
friendship forged. Rather, they retreat into the cave of duty to evade responsibility.
The main point of the story is to illustrate the lack of "ethical and moral
intelligence" in war. No cause is honorable enough to cause such primal elements of
humanity to be abandoned so easily. Noble objects to the mission, but does nothing
about it. He digs the holes in the ground for the bodies. Bonaparte wishes that the
English soldiers would escape, but he also does nothing to act on what he knows is
right. In the end, the bonds of tenderness and friendship are abdicated in the nebulous
realm of duty. Both Bonaparte and Noble do not feel honored in what they are to do, but
both do it anyway. It is this condition, illustrating how there is a lack of "ethical
and moral intelligence" in war, that becomes the main point illustrated in O'Connor's
story.
No comments:
Post a Comment