oww if that’s was the case it would not be a question. It’s the more fuzzy shooting of a child who is a messenger.
I thought the child was about to warn the enemy? If so, even if the child won't pull the trigger, it will still be [partly] responsible for hostile action, and can thus be labeled a threat, no?
Personally I would have the viewpoint character(s) order one of the armed men with them to stop the child, and THAT individual hesitates. Then the characters man up, snatch the weapon, and blow the kid away before he goes and gets an airstrike called in on the civilians. At first they ignore everyone's shock, cause it had to be done. Then later on they start wondering if it was really necessary. Maybe they refuse to have the soldier brought up on charges (he or she did refuse a direct order to stop an enemy) out of guilt.
I tend to tackle these kinds of subjects - one of my protagonists kills 20 children. So far the readers of it haven't hated him and some asked for me to give him some redemption. It depends how you do it and how well you have drawn the protagonist. But then I've also tackled male rape and incest.
Thanks that is sort of the track I am trying right now. My story already has a lot of bad things going on so it really does not seem to add to it to much.
Maybe you could make it less severe by him only meaning to wound the child. He could have been aiming to incapasitate the child (Shoot it in the leg, or some such), but missfired and hit the child in the spine with a bullet. (Depending on the distance this would make sense. The further away the child is, the harder the shot would be-also, is it taken with a pistol, or some other weapon without use of sights, or something that has sights or a scope. Using a pistol would make it harder to aim accurately, and so his claim of innocence would be more justified since he wouldn't have been able to aim nearly as accurately as with a rifle) Also, I'm pretty sure getting hit in the spine by a bullet would paralyse them or some such. Lupis would feel really bad about it, and the fact he didn't mean to hurt the child too badly wouldn't be so bad. One thing though, how old is this "child"? For me the age makes a significant difference. Are they like, 10-12, or are they alot younger (8 and down?) I think killing a really young child (Say 5 or 6) would be worse than killing one who is much older (12, maybe 13) I don't really have a reason why. I guess I just view younger children as being more defenceless, and it being more cruel to kill them (A 7 year old isn't as much of a threat as a 12 year old, not just in size, but in intelligence too.) I'm guessing the child would have to be fairly old in order for them to know Lupis and Co. were and go to tell the adults. A young child probably wouldn't understand who they were. What's more, a younger child wouldn't be out on his own (What's the area like? Depending on if the climate is particularly harsh, you would need to give some reason for the child being out there on his own. Was the area dangerous, or was it not far from a village/town etc.?)
For the age of the child. Not quite set yet. The kid is not old enough to be an effective soldier( there weapons are heavier then modern ones). This probably puts him into the 12 to 15 age bracket. As for what the area like. The planet is in an ice age and is relatively cold. The area they are in is habitable and cold. As for where they are they are in a rebelling village that they thought was abandoned.
Sadly children get involved in some conflicts, and if they are being used as runners for the enemy - what is a soldier supposed to do? Answer - his job, for if he doesn't do his job and he lets the child get through to his destination with his package, the message may contain vital information that could result in disastrous consequences for the soldier's own people (maybe resulting in thousands of deaths) and don't forget that the soldier has a duty to protect his own skin e.g. 'firing squad'.
This entire debate on violence and children is more important than most people realize. If you immerse someone (anyone) into a condition or medicine, they become desensitized to it. Cram enough cartoon violence down their throats in computer game and finally the deaths of hundreds of real American GIs just looks like another "top score." My lead character got snuckered about his participation at an academy. Disgusted, he packs to leave. Another cadet says that if he does, more might die. Guilt-ridden, he decides to stay, and he's very vocal about the senselessness of violence and murder. To drive home that point--I make him do the first kill. Yes, I run the risk of the reader hating my lead. Hey, that's life. This insipid modern trend of "oh well" when we address our real social issues does not serve any of us. A former police officer and gun magazine writer, Evan Marshall, wrote an article about escalating violence in our society. He once stated that he had changed his mind. He had told his wife that if he ever saw a young person rob a convenience store, he would ask her to be silent, and they would gather a detailed description for an arrest at a later and calmer time. He said in the article that he would now shoot the kid as fast as he could. That article was written twenty years ago. The kicker to that story is that Marshall is an authority on studying the use of modern ammunition with an eye to +P loads and hollowpoints. His research is on 'one shot stops.' Not only did his attitude change, but he knows what's about to when the pistol fires. Is this the way you want 'real society' to evolve. We have a unique privilege as writers. Lots more people will read our stories than some short published letter to the editor. Books glorifying senseless violence are going to bite us. When I did some volunteer work at a vets' hospital, I saw the real costs of "surviving." Killing kills the killer.
I think it would be fine the if the protagonist did that. It shows how difficult a war setting could be. The fact that Children are used just shows that they are a pawn, and unfortunately, children dying can happen. You can just make it seem like the protagonist is distanced from the idea of killing a child by just considering the child only known as a "runner". You can still have one of the operators shoot and then have that person inform the protagonist that the runner was shot. I am guessing it is almost standard procedure to have the runners shot.
That's a good point. However, what about the conditions that breed that kind of mentality? Where one child is shot, another replaces him--to also be shot. Many years ago I saw an article about children in combat. This is happening more and more. The news reporter stopped a boy walking with some soldiers. The kid was wearing designer American blue jeans, carrying a Kalashnikov rifle and burial shroud. When the reporter asked where he was going, he proudly said, "To Palestine!" Old men making young men throw away their own lives. I hope video game designers enjoy their fancy homes. The mortar holding the bricks together is the blood of others. We should tell that story.
For readers, I believe it would be a negitive. Kind of like the black hat cowboy. Good guys don't shoot kids. But in real life, kids are used in terror and wars in direct war encounters(attack or defending) and in suppport. I think if you show the good guy is emotional about it, while trying to reason it out that he had to shoot the child, will help the reader know it was needed. People at war still have feelings, and it will affect the person emotionally to see a child shot/killed by them, justified or not. That is one reason kids are used, they get that extra second of doubt that might allow the child to kill the enemy. You can do anything as a writer, how you write it will decide if it believable and the reader connects with the characters.
What if one of the people in the protagonist's group shoots the child almost as a reflex. That way your protagonist doesn't look bad and he can come down on the person that did it. In this way it can still sow division, but your protagonist's slate remains clean. There was a suggestion that the protagonist can shoot the child after a period of indecision and then you can make him pay for it afterwards, this is also a pretty good way of doing it. Can make for a interesting story... Bottom line is that the child can pose a serious threat to your group even though it is a child, so shooting it can be one of those realities of war. It does paint a pretty strong picture, but can be believeable under the proposed circumstances. That child delivering the message could have resulted in the annihilation of your group...
"I think it would be fine the if the protagonist did that. It shows how difficult a war setting could be. The fact that Children are used just shows that they are a pawn, and unfortunately, children dying can happen." - Meganheld I agree with alot that has been said on this page. If you haven't, try researching how children are used in war. Don't worry about offence that your story may cause from the killing of a child because if all authors worried about whatever they put to paper nothing would ever be written. Try reading Donald Ray Pollock, Tim Willocks, Don Winslow, James Ellroy.. there are plenty who push boundaries and make it work and if you think just killing a messenger boy is terrible reading... try reading 'Happy like murderers' by Gordon Burns, written in DETAIL about the child murders, torture and rape committed by Frederick and Rosemary West. It's tough and uncomfortable stuff to say the least. The killing of any child is abhorrent but Im not put off a jot from reading a book that includes it. Without sounding patronising, the world is a very ugly place with ugly things that happen every day and including this in your story would, unfortunately, only be a tip of a very big true to life iceberg of how children are used in conflict. Don't worry about any offence you think you might make, just have a good think and let the story write itself....
"I think it would be fine the if the protagonist did that. It shows how difficult a war setting could be. The fact that Children are used just shows that they are a pawn, and unfortunately, children dying can happen." - Meganheld I agree with alot that has been said on this page. If you haven't, try researching how children are used in war. Don't worry about offence that your story may cause from the killing of a child because if all authors worried about whatever they put to paper nothing would ever be written. Try reading Donald Ray Pollock, Tim Willocks, Don Winslow, James Ellroy.. there are plenty who push boundaries and make it work and if you think just killing a messenger boy is terrible reading... try reading 'Happy like murderers' by Gordon Burns, written in DETAIL about the child murders, torture and rape committed by Frederick and Rosemary West. It's tough and uncomfortable stuff to say the least. The killing of any child is abhorrent but Im not put off a jot from reading a book that includes it. Without sounding patronising, the world is a very ugly place with ugly things that happen every day and including this in your story would, unfortunately, only be a tip of a very big true to life iceberg of how children are used in conflict. Don't worry about any offence you think you might make, just have a good think and let the story write itself....
That’s part of my issue. It comes up and I read it a lot happening now in my day to day life, and also young kids getting shot hear is nothing new. So I see it as a eahhh it happens thing to me. My concern is my perspective would be too far outside of the norm and intolerable to may.
I don't have a problem to hurt or kill any character, child or adult, if necessary for my story. Or even puppies. As long as it has other purpose than simply shocking readers. In the war or rebellion, there is no 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. It depends from whose side you're looking at it. Each side will have their own truth, their own reasons to fight. From the point of view of resistance, that child is a war martyr and the proof of brutality of the other side. From the point of view of other faction, the child is a threat that may cause death of other people. Also, it can be seen as the proof of cruelty and manipulation of the other side - because they let the children do such dangerous work. It has a huge potential for the story.
You know your characters thought processes and attitudes better than anyone. Are their any characters in your ensemble that would shoot a child in that context? If not...I wouldn't force it just for impact because then you spend the rest of your story trying to justify that characters actions with other actions. You should only do it if it's natural. If you HAVE to do it, and you don't have a character you think would then you need to take someone, and re-rewrite them from the ground up so their actions make sense. Better than Forcing the action using one of your side characters, you just wouldn't get the impact you want. My personal opinion. If you are going to kill children in a story, make sure you're message is clear. Impact is great, but if it doesn't mean anything more profound than just shock violence then I would rethink your motivations. I hope that helps.
Just erect some sort of heavy remorse afterwards and no one will bash you for creating such horrid imagery.
I think that it would help if the death was written sympathetically from at least one character's point of view. In the Hunger Games, when Rue dies Katniss covers her in flowers and salutes her. Whilst this might be a little too much for your story, the character could think about a tragic waste of life or something. Also, if the child is presented negativley, or if there isn't much known about them then it might alleiviate the hatred of whoever shot them. Generally, I don't automatically hate a character for killing someone though as it really depends on the circumstances.
Sorry, but I can't delete my repeat post as I'm on this at school and page 3 is always filtered for some reason.
