You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Writers: which would you rather read?”.
-
Search It!
-
Recent Entries
- help with girls in talking, approaching, starting a convo?
- EWWWWWW there was this bee flying around and it was so gross looking!!!!!!!?
- I got a beehive, what to do?
- I got a beehive, what to do?
- I got a beehive, what to do?
- easy ten points for longest list!?
- My conainter tomato plant bloomed numerous areas, why are none of them producing fruit?
- How do cell phones kill bees?
- How to be a popular guy in school?
- How much money would I get on ebay selling my 360 game collection on ebay?
-
Links
I’m think Option B. It would serve as a better incentive for the father to talk (in order to try to save his son) rather than Option A, where talking would make no difference.
http://www.ekhichdi.com/Family-&-Relationships-8.html
Report Spam/Abuse
Option a) I’m not really sure why, I think maybe because it shows that all hope is gone, and because then he never got to see his son alive one last time if that makes sense.
Hope I helped!
http://www.ekhichdi.com/Family-&-Relationships-8.html
Report Spam/Abuse
It would be crueler to bring him on alive and then kill him in front of his father than A. And his father will be seeing that image for the rest of his life and maybe even thinking the last time he saw his sons face was when it was contorted with pain.
http://www.ekhichdi.com/Family-&-Relationships-8.html
Report Spam/Abuse
From a human rights law perspective, B) would be much more effective and convincing. When presented with dead bodies, a lot of people tend to throw caution to the wind and just figure they’ve got nothing left to lose — there is as good of a chance that he would not cooperate under interrogation as there is that he would talk. Presenting his son as still alive, on the other hand — you do the math. Presenting still-alive people as the gambit to get someone to talk has been used by many, many interrogators, from Stalin’s gulags to Guantanamo, and it is very effective. As far as clubbing the kid in the head, though — again, that brings up the ‘What has dad got to lose?’ question. Threats will always work better than violence, in that situation.
(Although the clubbing in the head technique has been used by none other than Shakespeare — In the opening scenes of Titus Andronicus, Titus uses it against the Goth queen Tamora with her oldest son, leaving the younger two alive.)
http://www.ekhichdi.com/Family-&-Relationships-8.html
Report Spam/Abuse
i agree, option b would make him talk. if he’s already dead, then what’s the point of saying anything? i would have the boy be tortured rather than the father while the father watches to get information out of the guy. just a thought
http://www.ekhichdi.com/Family-&-Relationships-8.html
Report Spam/Abuse
Option B because if he’s dead, the dad would normally just be VERY angry and destroy the place or kill himself
http://www.ekhichdi.com/Family-&-Relationships-8.html
Report Spam/Abuse
Definitely “b)” for your choice. If you choose “a)” then the father has no further motivation to say anything, and may even prefer death at that point; his captors understand this. While choosing “b)” the captors believe that the father will give up the information to spare the son.
Suggestion: why not take a few minutes and do a little re-write on this scene from the captors POV?
I hope this helps!
Report Spam/Abuse
It depends what you’re trying to achieve in the story.
Option A shows how ruthless these soldiers are and lets you show daddy going to pieces because of guilt over a death he couldn’t prevent. Option B makes daddy more likely to cooperate – or more likely to talk, anyway. He might tell them a pack of lies if he thinks it’ll make them leave his son alone.
If the soldiers have the slightest amount of sense, they’ll go for option B. If daddy knows his son is dead, he’ll think, “Frak you then – I have nothing left to lose,” and will do everything he can to make sure they don’t get the information they want. The soldiers should know that. If they just hurt the child, or threaten to kill him, daddy then has to choose who he values more – the rebel queen or his son.
The soldiers shouldn’t kill the son, at least not until they’ve captured the rebel queen. He’s too useful in making daddy talk.
I hope this helps!
Report Spam/Abuse
I like B better because there’s more chance that maybe he could stop it. When you see your son already dead in front of you, there’s nothing there. No motivation, no real desire to tell them what they want to know. All it would do would be to piss him off. Whereas, if you killed the son in front of him, he would have to live with that for the rest of his life. He would see every second that passed by would be a second more his son was dying instead of him telling what he knew. The longer he waited, the worse his son became.
It really does give a person more incentive to talk when they see the torture in front of them. It shows that because they don’t say a word, they increase the pain and the soon to be death. They don’t stop it. It’s not the people doing the pain, but it’s the father himself that is, in fact, killing his son. Because he wouldn’t talk, he is allowing these people to destroy him, kill him. And that would affect him more than anything. Knowing that he could have prevented his sons death would give more fuel to the flame, so to speak.
The way I’d think about it is if someone close to me, like my sister/best friend was brought in before me to get anything out of me, seeing her be tortured slowly to death would mean more to me than just seeing her dead body. Yeah, I’d be upset and sad to see her dead there, but it would mean more seeing her die in front of me.
I hope this helps!
Report Spam/Abuse
B.) I say the psychological shock and pressure of watching his son be murdered for the father’s noncooperation would be your option. Why would he start talking if his son was already dealt with? The damage was done, thats not gonna force a confession. You already took something precious to him. If his son were already dead, I think thats also more of an incentive not to talk. Honestly, he could choose death knowing his son would be awaiting him in the afterlife. A somewhat positive side to an elsewise tragic tale.
I hope this helps!
Report Spam/Abuse