War is a terrible organised attack for supremacy leaving someone debilitated and even to pushing one party into some incurable destruction. Pirandello here taking an instance to speak against the implications of war. Born in Sicily, Italy and spent his crucial time through the crucial events of World War first that took his both sons, he has a lot to tell about it, Yes indeed he has.
As its a protest against against WW I, the story revolves around some people who are travelling in a train, exchanging their bitter stories regarding war. Waiting for Salmona leading tracks to be cleared now they stationed in Fabriano.
From that station there entered a woman, she had been mourning as she got into the train, followed by her husband, weak and uneasy.
They started conversing each other and it diverted into their bitter experience with the war they were into. The old man started sharing his broken story. Their son had already been got the wire to volunteer for the war front so they are on their way to meet him. He cursed war as it was taking their son away from them. And there showed up another man whose two sons had already been in the warfront.
So some slight arguments can be seen between them. Old man said they have only one son so a life without him would become inexplicably terrible. The other passenger replies that his two sons and nephews are there so what difference does it make. The other man says he had spoiled his son by giving too much care and something. As a parent we must love our children without any partiality. Iove is not a kind of bread that cannot be break into pieces and give among the children. Instead we must give full some bread of love to each child without breaking it, on equal basis.
Other man says, defending his own argument that, if your only one son kills in the war his father also dies. And there finishes his agony. You may cry for one month then you forever forget such. But for the father who is having two son and if one kills in the war, that father must survive spending his rest of life in anxiety, about the remaining ones' life, although his life. So says he, to the protagonist father, which of the two positions is worse.
Then there comes another passenger, a fat one with bloodshot eyes. He then starts a sermon outwitting the comments made by other two.
He says, when children become twenty they have to follow their interests. They actually never belong to us. They belong to the country though. We usually never think of our country as we give birth to them. They must born sustaing our life with them. Our life belong to them not us in return. They naturally show love towards our than to us. It's not at all necessary for them to look after their old ones at home and simply sit at home.
"If country is a natural necessity like bread
of which of us must eat in order to die of
hunger, somebody must go to defend it"
as says the boodshot eyed man. They will also die but at least they are not dying out of any ugly sides of life. They die at their younger age for defending their country. So stop crying he said.
He too had a son and while dying he wrote to his father saying
" He was dying satisfied at having ended his
l ife in the best way he could have wished. "
So he says just because of that natural awareness he won't cry anymore. But actually as he was explaining this he was trembling hard, couldn't resist the inner emotions regarding her only sons' death.
Anyway other passengers releaved by his long sermon and that lady got up from her melancholic hiding she had been in. She suddenly threw a question at him that was his son really dead or not. At this he couldn't stop crying that reality. He broke into tears then.
That's all about the war and the impacts that had saved some terrible memories on them. The story is a plain outcry against the war matters.