Drawing analogies

 How much land does a man require and The sniper

Leo Tolstoy a contemplative prolific Russian writer has authored gobs of novels and short stories. Being a vocational writer he also written plays and essays. Tolstoy's awe-inspiring heap of literary works sees a tinge of his pensive mind. He stories and novels are full of noble ideas, moral lessons and spiritual enlightenment. Thus he is also referred to as a social reformer.

Liam O'Flaherty just like Tolstoy was an Irish novelist and a short story writer. It is interesting to note that Flaherty started his career as a soldier and participated in World War 1. Thereafter he himself has bitterly criticized war and owing to the fact that pen is mightier than sword he took it!

'How much land does a man need' by Tolstoy and 'The sniper' by O'Flaherty are both exceptionally astounding short stories drafted in simple language but having a profound mettle. Though very different in their plots they share a major trait. They both talk about the fundamental human nature and aim to put it's readers centuries after centuries into a pensive mood.

'How much land does a man need' talks about the excessive greed and the possessiveness of men, while 'The sniper' refers the futility of the warfare.  In the beginning of 'How much land does a man need' the two sisters talk about the rural and the urban life. Here the clear cut distinction between both of them is seen. The setup in which a person spends a commendable of part of his life affects his thinking pattern. The younger sister was influenced by the rural nature while the elder by the urban. It must be noted here that both of them are trying to laud their own ways of life. It is the nature of humans to have a soft corner for anything, whether living or non-living that belongs to them. However none of them are able to completely pull the other down. Variety is the spice of life. Not all have the same opinion! Everyone has their own style of thinking and are correct in their own ways, for every coin has both the sides! The attitude is all that makes people distinct. Similar is the case with the story Sniper. The people of the same country itself are not ready to accept each others' views. The Free Staters and the members of the IRA (Irish Republican Army) rage a war against one another as the Free staters are happy with the partition of Ireland into the Northern and the Southern as suggested by the British but the IRA are want an undivided nation. This conflict results into a war. Again it is apparent that humans promote their own ideas and want 'em to be thrust upon the others.

Pakhom complaints about the little land that he has and wants more to grow powerful. Here Pakhom doesn't realize that the real happiness in life lies within the humanly life and not in the materialistic. This is one of the greatest attribute of many people living. The Irish civil war wouldn't at all have taken place if this is naive fact was understood. People always are interested in the affairs of the world and often neglect contemplation.

The barina charges the peasants if their cattle happened to break into her land. This too shows that humans are too possessive of money and do not care much about anything else when it comes into the picture. Pakhom too was not happy with this but yet he too did the same thing after coming into power. This is indicative of yet another feature of mankind. The misery makes people sad and lead them to use their brains but victory means sole celebrations! Victory often makes people forget their former condition and make them self-centered. The sniper doesn't even have a tinge of humanity. He is desperate to kill. He shoots an old lady who fall into a gutter. This is simply the heights of viciousness. The agony and fear of death at the moment of being shot then makes him sensitize of his brutal actions. When he kills the old women he is exhilarated but only after being shot he feels the pain himself.

Envy is the ulcer to soul as said by Socretes. Pakhom grows envious at the success of the people around him. He wants to be at the summit and to acquire that position he is ready to do anything and everything. The Republican Sniper as well as the Free Stater sniper pose a threat to each other and thus wants to kill each other for paramountcy.

Being utterly determined and enthusiastic leads one to the terminus only and only if that determination doesn't turn into fanaticism and bigotry! Pakhom was fanatic about acquiring land while the Republican Sniper was fanatic of killing the free staters. Pakhom's greed was fired with successive fulfillment of his desires up to such an extent that he put his precious life too on stake! The sniper too conspired to kill his enemy at any cost though it could also be termed as the survival instinct. But neither Pakhom nor the sniper enjoyed the fruits of their toil.

At the end of life people are not judged on the basis of medals won, estates acquired or property gained but the times they reached out to the ignored, the times they stood by the ones when they were all alone, the love, warmth and the mirth they spread matters. Pakhom was ultimately buried in a grave just the size of his corpse in-spite of having so vast a stretch of land. Pakhom just before dying realizes the disaster his greed had bought. Pakhom's family lay devastated at this and are sure to curse him for his actions, though a little feeling of sadness might prevail. The republican sniper killed his enemy but soon realized that the man he killed was his own brother and was then remorse struck. He too regrets living though his heart craved for killing his opponent; and heaves expletives at the war. In the end he realizes the futility of war.

'The sniper' and the 'How much land does a man need' thus both revolve around the fundamental truths of the life and in a very effective and touchy manner expose the true human nature. They both aim at awakening the human population from their deep slumbers and seek to improvise the society.