A statement, in the child's own words
The Night You Died
addressed to a sister · recorded in the aftermath

The Deliberate ClichéBulwer-Lytton — The Worst Opening in Fiction"It was a dark and stormy night" is the opening line of Edward Bulwer-Lytton's 1830 novel Paul Clifford. It is so infamous for purple prose that a literary contest — the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest — is held annually for the worst possible opening sentence. A child narrator would use this phrase unselfconsciously, having absorbed it from stories. The author's choice to open here is simultaneously a child's reflex and a deliberate literary gesture: the most notorious bad opening to one of the most affecting pieces in this collection.→ Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest (Wikipedia) – the night you died. I remember because the rain washed your blood into one of those storm drains that they put on the sidewalk. I can't tell you how many tennis balls I've lost down those things. I remember watching you fall to your knees, almost like you were about to beg, before you just flopped over and I knew you would never see the stars again.

You liked stars. You would point them out to me whenever we used to go for walks when Mom was away on business. I liked those walks, just you and me, back when you were the best big sister in the whole wide world. You would always show me Orion, because you said
The ThesisThe Story's Argument, in Two SentencesThis is the most important pair of sentences in the story. The child does not understand what they are saying. They mean: "I was present at the moment Orion was absent." An adult reader hears: "I became the protector — and my protection killed you." The child has replaced Orion. Their act of "protection" is the act that ends the sister's life. The full weight of this only arrives at the final line, when we understand how the child understood what they had done.

You had come home early. I remember because
The Child's WorldTakeshi's Castle — A Measure of TimeTakeshi's Castle was a Japanese obstacle-course game show, widely broadcast in dubbed or commentary versions across many countries in the late 1990s and 2000s. Its presence here places the story's setting and era, but its function is more important than its content: the child measures the world by television schedules. The sister's early return is registered not in clock time but in the fact that a particular show is still on. This is how children know time. Everything that follows is equally calibrated to a child's frame of reference.→ Takeshi's Castle (Wikipedia) and you usually only got home after the late night movie. I always used to wake up when you came home, it didn't matter how late. We used to have midnight milkshakes, but
The Pivot"Before Gavin" — How the Child Divides the WorldThe child organises time into two eras: before and after Gavin. This is the child's way of saying that Gavin's arrival changed everything — the milkshakes stopped, something in the household shifted. The reader understands: Gavin is an abusive partner whose presence altered the sister's behaviour and the family's atmosphere. The child doesn't have that word or concept; they only have the before and the after. The midnight milkshakes are shorthand for everything the relationship took away. But I still woke up, always, because then I knew for sure that you hadn't left us like Dad.

You never told Mom why you got home early. But that was because she didn't ask. Mom never asks. I didn't need to ask. I knew why. Your bag was already packed, but you had left the dress I made you for your birthday. And your charm bracelet that you stopped wearing because you said it was too small. You also didn't pack your toothbrush.

Mom always said you would run away. I never believed Mom – you used to say that she only made sense when she was screaming, and she wasn't screaming when she said that. But you also said you wouldn't leave me alone with her or Dad when he was still with us, but you had packed your bags so I didn't know if I could believe you either. But you didn't leave right away, you stayed to help me with my homework, which didn't help because you were always awful at math, and math was the only homework I had.

You stared out the window for ages while I watched Doctor Who that night. It was one of the old ones; the one where the Daleks ask the Doctor for help. You used to love Doctor Who, but I think you were waiting for something. Or maybe it was because you'd seen that one so many times that you didn't want to watch. I kept telling you when the best bits were coming but you ignored me like I wasn't even there. I was used to it but I didn't like it. You never used to pretend I wasn't there. That was Mom's job.

You tucked me in though. I liked that part. That was when the thunder started and you told me I was safe, even though you knew that I wasn't scared of thunder anymore. You stayed until I closed my eyes, but I didn't go to sleep. I was waiting for Mom to start screaming. But she didn't start screaming. I waited and waited and waited and I didn't hear anything, so I got out of bed and put on my socks so that you wouldn't hear me and tell me to go back to bed.

I had never seen Mom look so sad. She was sitting on one end of the kitchen table holding her Simba mug and she was staring at
Who Is He?The Man in the Suit — Reading the CluesThe man in the suit is never named or identified. The child doesn't know who he is. But the clues add up: he arrives at night in a car; he has a gun; he gives orders under pressure; Mom is sad but cooperating; the sister has a packed bag ready. This is almost certainly a police officer, detective, or domestic violence advocate helping the sister escape Gavin under a safety plan. Mom knows and has agreed. The sister came home early — not to run away from the family, but to execute an escape from Gavin. The man in the suit is not a threat. He is the exit. He was talking but I couldn't hear what he was saying because I was behind the door. You were looking down at the table and
The TellScratching the Nail Polish — Anxiety Across Two MenThe child has noticed — and remembered — that the sister scratches her nail polish when she is anxious in the presence of a certain kind of man. She used to do it when Dad was at the table. She is doing it now with the man in the suit. The child reads this as equivalence: both men make the sister nervous. The adult reader understands the distinction: one kind of anxiety is fear of a dangerous man, another is the tension of a difficult but necessary meeting. The sister is nervous tonight because she is leaving. The child will spend the rest of the story misreading her nervousness as confirmation of threat. But the man in the suit wasn't Dad. He was short and looked like a bulldog. I didn't want you to hear me, but I didn't want you to go. I kept wishing Mom would ground you so you had to stay, but she didn't say anything. And when she hugged you, I knew that she wouldn't stop you. I wanted to shout at you, but I couldn't, because I knew I would get in trouble for being out of bed. I didn't want you to leave. You always said you wouldn't leave me. You lied.

You didn't have an umbrella when you left, so your hair got all wet. You used to get angry when your hair got wet in the rain, but this time you didn't. You just walked to the car and got in. I know because I was watching from the window in the lounge. The man in the suit was talking to Mom by the door when Gavin's car came down the street. He was going so fast he almost crashed and the car went sliding like they do in Tokyo Drift. He got out of the car and almost fell over on the sidewalk.

The gunshot made you jump. It made me jump too. I got scared and jumped away from the window. Then the man in the suit started shouting. He was telling you to get back in the car. I don't know why you got out. When I got back to the window, you were shouting at Gavin. You weren't shouting at him like you used to shout at Mom – you looked scared. You had your hands up and you weren't listening to the man in the suit who was still telling you to get in the car. The man in the suit also had a gun. Gavin wasn't listening to you. There was another bang and I saw the man in the suit fall down, but you didn't run to him, or run away.

When you walked towards Gavin, I knew he was going to take you away. I started screaming through the window, but you didn't hear me. Mom was still standing in the door. I think she was scared too. I was yelling and yelling and I ran out into the rain. When you saw me, you told me to go inside. But I didn't listen. I screamed and screamed at you and said that I would hate you forever if you left with Gavin. And then Gavin pointed his gun at me and told me to shut up, but I didn't listen. I was so angry I started crying and Gavin started yelling at me and Mom started yelling too. She was shouting at Gavin, but I couldn't hear what she said. But then Gavin shot at her and I stopped screaming. I looked at Mom, but she was okay. Gavin had broken the lounge window.

And then
It made me so mad. It was like you didn't love me anymore, like you didn't care. You said you wouldn't leave me, but you were telling Gavin that you would go with him. You promised me. You said you would always be there and that you wouldn't leave us like Dad did. You lied. You broke your promise and it made me mad. And I picked up the man in the suit's gun and I screamed as loud as I could but you didn't hear. When I pulled the trigger it was so loud it made my ears ring and my whole arm shook and I closed my eyes.

I saw you fall down. You looked like you were going to beg. And then you just fell over and the rain started to wash your blood into the storm drain. Gavin didn't even try to catch you. He just stood there staring at me. He looked so scared.
I don't know why, but I smiled and pointed the gun at him and told him to run.

You were pretty, even though your hair was all wet. I walked over to you and kissed you on the forehead, like you used to whenever you tucked me in. I held your hand until Mom pulled me away. When the lights and sirens got close, a whole bunch of people started asking Mom and me lots of questions. They kept asking me what happened and I told them the truth.

Originally published: renegadestoryteller.tumblr.com

With accompanying reading: youtube.com

Dramatic Irony
What the Child
Cannot See

The child tells the truth, exactly as they experienced it. Every word is accurate. The account is nonetheless completely wrong — not because the child lies, but because the child is a child. Their innocence is the unreliable narrator.

The child never identifies the man in the suit, and never could. But the evidence they provide, without understanding it, assembles a clear picture for an adult reader.

The sister came home early — not in a panic, but deliberately. A bag was packed (though rushed — no toothbrush). Mom was informed: she is sad, cooperating, and will eventually hug the sister and let her go. A man arrives with a car, at night, in a suit, and has a gun. He gives commands under fire. He is almost certainly a police officer, detective, or victim services professional facilitating a planned domestic violence safety exit.

This was not the sister abandoning her family. This was the sister, with institutional support and her mother's knowledge, attempting to escape a dangerous man. She came home first — not to pack up and run, but to say goodbye to her little sibling, help them with their homework, and tuck them in. She stayed as long as she possibly could. When she stared out the window while the child watched television, she was waiting for the signal that it was time to go.

The child's deepest fear — "I woke up because then I knew for sure that you hadn't left us like Dad" — is precisely the fear the sister was trying not to confirm. She didn't leave like Dad. She tried to leave safely, with help, and with her family's knowledge. The child's intervention made it impossible.

When the sister walks toward Gavin and puts her arms around his neck, the child reads betrayal: she is choosing Gavin, she is going with him willingly, she has broken her promise. The anger that follows is the anger of a child who believes they have been lied to by the person they love most.

But consider the scene as it stands. Gavin has arrived with a gun. He has already shot the man in the suit. He has fired at Mom. He has pointed his gun at the child. The child is standing in the rain, screaming. The sister is the only person between Gavin's gun and her sibling.

She walks toward him. She puts her arms around him. She kisses him. She is doing the only thing available to her in that moment: she is drawing Gavin's attention — and his gun — toward herself and away from the child. She is using her body as a redirect. Every action the child reads as abandonment and betrayal is, in fact, the sister's final act of protection. She is trying, in the only way she can, to keep the child safe.

It is the moment the child shoots her.

"You also didn't pack your toothbrush." The child notices this without knowing what to do with it. They report it as one item in a list — the birthday dress left behind, the outgrown charm bracelet, the toothbrush.

An adult reading this detail has several possible interpretations. A rushed or incomplete packing job suggests urgency or distress in the days before. An intentional omission might suggest the sister planned to be gone only briefly — or that she was too frightened to think clearly. Or it might simply be a child's honest observation of an incomplete bag, included because children notice exactly these things: the small absences that adults overlook.

Whatever its meaning, it does something important for the story's texture. It signals that the child is not editing or selecting. They are reporting everything they saw, including things they don't understand. This is precisely what makes the account both completely true and completely unreliable.

The father is gone. The child never fully explains why or how — "left us like Dad" is the phrase, offered twice, as though its meaning is self-evident. The midnight milkshakes stopped not just because of Gavin, but because something went wrong before Gavin too: "you said you wouldn't leave me alone with her or Dad when he was still with us."

This household contains, or contained, two people the child trusted — the sister and the father — and one who has failed them (Mom, who "never asks," who uses silence as her primary mode). The father left. The sister promised she wouldn't. When the sister packs her bag, the child's terror is not abstract; it is the repetition of the worst thing that has already happened.

This is the psychological ground on which everything else rests. The child does not shoot the sister out of malice or calculation. They shoot her out of a terror of abandonment so acute that they have literally internalised the sister's own teaching — "she's always with us, in our hearts" — and applied it as a solution rather than a comfort. The logic is airtight. The love is total. The outcome is catastrophic.

Technique
The Architecture
of Innocence

The story's formal choices are as carefully made as its emotional ones. The child's voice is not merely a costume; it is the mechanism by which everything works.

The story opens with the rain washing blood into the storm drain — and the tennis balls. We are already past the ending. The child is looking back at the night, recounting it to the dead sister as if she might not remember. This means the reader knows from the first paragraph that the sister is dead, and that the child was there when she died. The question is never whether the sister will survive. It is how she dies, and why, and what the child understood about it.

This structure creates a specific kind of dread. Every time the child mentions the sister's kindness — the midnight milkshakes, the tuck-in, the Orion walks — the reader carries the knowledge that the child is also describing someone they will kill. The story ends where it began: the rain, the storm drain, the blood. The circle closes on the Grandma lesson. We have been living inside the explanation for why the child said no, this was not an accident.

The choice to write in second person — "you," addressed to the dead sister — deepens this. The child is simultaneously confessing and memorialising. They are telling the sister what happened on the night she died, as if the sister needs to be brought up to date. It is the most intimate possible narrative choice, and it implicates the reader in the address: for the duration of the story, we are the dead sister being told why we died.

The Grandma lesson — "she wasn't gone; she was always with us, in our hearts" — appears once, near the end of the story, and then immediately detonates into the final lines. But it has been prepared for the entire story.

The child's greatest fear throughout is that the sister will leave and be gone — as the father left and was gone. The sister has promised not to leave. She is leaving anyway. The child does not yet have the Grandma lesson in mind when they pick up the gun; they are acting on rage and grief. But when the police officer asks if it was an accident, the child reaches for the lesson to explain why it was not.

The lesson was the sister's own teaching. She gave the child a way to understand permanence after loss — and the child has applied it backwards, as a way to prevent loss in the first place. Rather than receiving permanence after death as a comfort, the child has made death the guarantor of permanence. The logic is unimpeachable if you are eight years old and terrified. "You were going to leave me, but now you're always with me, in my heart" is not a rationalisation constructed after the fact. It is the child's genuine explanation, sincerely offered, built from the only tool the sister left them with.

The story's last line is the sister's voice, returned.

The child's narrative keeps breaking its own momentum with completely mundane observations: "I can't tell you how many tennis balls I've lost down those things." "I remember because Takeshi's Castle was still on." "Mom never asks." "You were always awful at math, and math was the only homework I had."

These interruptions are the story's most precise formal achievement. They are not comic relief, though they sometimes produce a kind of horrible laughter. They are the child's natural associative movement — one thing reminds them of another thing that has nothing to do with it, but which is equally real to them. An adult narrator would suppress these associations as irrelevant. The child includes them because they are not irrelevant to a child's experience of the night. The storm drain is where the blood goes. The storm drain is also where tennis balls go. Both things are equally true.

The Simba mug — Mom's Lion King mug — is the same kind of detail. Mom has never looked so sad. Mom is holding her Simba mug. The child reports both with equal weight. The tragedy of the scene and the domesticity of the mug are not in tension for the child; they co-exist. This is how children perceive extreme events: inside the ordinary world, not separate from it.

The choice to write in second person — "you," sustained throughout — is the story's most structurally audacious decision, and one that a young author makes look effortless. Second person addresses the sister directly, creating the fiction that the child is explaining to the sister what happened on the night she died. The sister presumably knows. The explanation is for the child, not the sister.

But second person also addresses the reader. "You liked stars." "You were pretty, even though your hair was all wet." For the duration of the story, the reader is placed inside the sister's position — we are the one being described, the one being explained to, the one being kissed on the forehead by the child who shot us.

This is an old literary technique but it is deployed here with unusual precision. The intimacy is total. The reader cannot maintain distance. We are not watching the child describe someone else's death; we are being told about our own. And at the end, we are being given the child's reason. "You were going to leave me, but now you're always with me, in my heart." This is the child speaking to the sister, to the reader, and — by the terrible logic of what has happened — to a lesson they received from the very person they are now addressing.

Resources
Further
Reading

The traditions and contexts this story moves within.

The Unreliable Narrator
Unreliable Narrator (Wikipedia) The literary tradition of narrators whose account cannot be taken at face value — and the specific subcategory of the innocent unreliable narrator, where the gap is created by youth rather than deception. Literature
To Kill a Mockingbird — Harper Lee The definitive model of the child narrator who witnesses adult violence and moral complexity they cannot fully interpret — the closest literary ancestor to this story's method. Fiction
The Lovely Bones — Alice Sebold A narrator addressing her family from after her own death — the closest structural parallel to this story's second-person address from a child to the dead. Fiction
Domestic Violence and Safety Planning
Domestic Violence (Wikipedia) The context the story never names directly — the background that explains the packed bag, the man in the suit, and why the sister came home early. Context
Safety Planning — Domestic Violence Exits The real-world process the story appears to depict: a structured, supported departure from an abusive partner, often involving law enforcement or advocacy organisations. Context
Second Person Fiction
Second-Person Narrative (Wikipedia) The formal technique the story uses throughout — sustained second person, addressed to the dead sister, implicating the reader as simultaneous audience. Technique
If on a winter's night a traveler — Italo Calvino The most celebrated sustained second-person narrative in literary fiction — useful for thinking about what "you" does to a reader's relationship with the story. Fiction
The Bulwer-Lytton Opening
"It was a dark and stormy night" (Wikipedia) The history of the most famous bad opening in fiction — and why choosing it deliberately, for a child narrator, is a precise literary act rather than a mistake. Literature
The Kiss — What the Child Misreads

### What the child sees

The sister walks toward Gavin. She puts her arms around him. She kisses him. The child reads this as the fulfilment of every fear: she is going with him willingly, she doesn't love the child anymore, she has broken her promise. The rage that follows is the rage of a child who believes they have been lied to by the only person who ever reliably kept them safe.

### What is actually happening

Gavin has already shot the man in the suit. He has fired at Mom. He has pointed his gun at the child, who has run out of the house into the rain and will not stop screaming. The child is the most exposed person in the street. The sister is the only one who can redirect the threat.

She walks toward Gavin. She puts her arms around him. She kisses him. She is drawing his body, his attention, and his gun toward herself and away from her sibling. It is not a choice about love or loyalty or keeping promises. It is the only available move. It is, entirely, an act of protection — the last one she will make.

### The terrible irony

At the moment the child reads as the proof that the sister has stopped loving them, the sister is dying for them. The child's response — "you lied, you broke your promise" — is immediately followed by the gun. The story's most devastating gap is here: in the space between what the child sees and what is happening, a child kills the person trying to save them.

The Monster from Under the Bed

### The inversion

"It was like I was the monster from under his bed. I liked being the monster and not the scared kid."

This is the story's most psychologically precise observation, and the child offers it without fully understanding it. The child has been the scared kid — in this family, with this father, with this Gavin — for their entire life. They have been the small person in the dark, waiting for things to be okay. Now, with a gun, they have become the thing that other people are afraid of.

### What the child likes about it

The child says they liked it. They do not say they are glad the sister is dead; they say they liked the specific sensation of being feared rather than afraid. This is the psychology of a child who has lived in a household full of unpredictable adult behaviour — a father who left, a mother who screams and then falls silent, a sister whose boyfriend arrived with a gun. The child has always been the smallest, most vulnerable person in every room. For one moment, holding the gun and watching Gavin run, they were not.

### What this tells us about the shot

The child did not shoot the sister from a position of calm decision. They shot from a place of terror, rage, and grief — and then the terror inverted into something that felt, briefly and horribly, like power. The smile, the pointed gun, the command to run: these are not the actions of a calculating person. They are the aftermath of an unbearable release. The child is eight or nine years old. They have just killed the person they love most. They are pointing a gun at a grown man. They are smiling because they don't know what else to do.

The Grandma Lesson — The Story's Engine

### The lesson as it was given

When Grandma died, the sister told the child: she's not gone. She's always with us, in our hearts. This is the standard comfort offered to children about death — an attempt to make loss bearable by reframing the relationship as internalised rather than ended. The sister meant it kindly. The child received it and stored it.

### The lesson as it was applied

The child applies the Grandma lesson not as a comfort after a loss they could not prevent, but as a justification for an action they chose. The logic runs: if death means the person is always with you in your heart, then killing the sister means she can never leave. The fear of abandonment — the same fear that made the child wake up every night to confirm the sister had come home — finds a solution in the sister's own teaching.

The child is not cynical. They are not manipulative. They genuinely believe this, and they offer it to the police officer as the honest truth because it is, to them, the complete explanation. "You were going to leave me, but now you're always with me, in my heart." It is a sentence the sister might have said. It is what the child learned from the sister. It has been turned into a reason to shoot her.

### The final line

The story ends on this sentence, and it carries everything: the child's love, the child's terror, the sister's own voice returned to the wrong context, and the whole terrible logic of what has happened. The story does not ask us to judge the child. It asks us to understand — which is, in some ways, harder.