11 minutes ago, Oberon_Command said:

I interpreted what OandO said as meaning more or less what my previous post explained. Perhaps I should paraphrase more closely to their wording: "if the audience can infer something from a work, it is because the artist made that work in such a way that the audience could make that inference." Which really seems to be a statement of fact - if I make a game that involves cows in a major way, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to infer that the game is about cows.

That isn't what we are talking about it, but also isn't entirely correct. If you associate cows with the devil, and I make a game about cows, it is a huge stretch for you to conclude that I made a game about the devil.

But it isn't the concluding. I'm taking about subjectivity, interpretation and inference. I joined the debate to highlight the point that interpretation is subjective. The point is that interpretation is distinct from intent or implication, and earlier posts seemed not to understand that.

14 minutes ago, Oberon_Command said:

You appear to be interpreting what he said in a way that I don't believe he intended, but he worded his post in such a way that you could interpret it the way you did. Thereby you have proven his point (and mine).

You are suggesting that my interpretation is his fault. You've also given your interpretation of my interpretation. I interpreted his post to mean that he hates fish. If I made that interpretation, it must be because he put something in that post that made it possible for me to get that interpretation - even if he didn't. So, again, my interpretation is his fault.

17 minutes ago, Oberon_Command said:

I wouldn't make it about fault so much as that this is reality and narrowing the interpretation space in your favour is in your best interests as an artist. If you strongly feel that your work should be interpreted in a particular way, it is in your interests to write your work in such a way that it is difficult or impossible to interpret it in other ways.

Unless you don't consider that aspect, or you didn't consider that aspect... Then what?

There is a strong theme running through here that to be 'an artist' means complete and total awareness of every facet of your work, and to include every possible detail as a result of measured deliberation.

17 minutes ago, OandO said:

I'm assuming that the audience is artistically literate and knows how to approach and "read" the work, otherwise the whole thing goes out the window. In that case, if the artist chooses to ignore, or fails to take in to account the context in which their work will be viewed, or the methods by which it will be understood and as a result their intentions are distorted or lost, that is of course the fault of the artist. This applies to the work as a whole, but also to its individual components. In light of this, my original point that there is a potential metaphorical link between the war and the romance may allow for an interpretation contrary to what was intended, and it could be drawn entirely from the contents of the game.

As long as there are other possible interpretations, then the morality could be ambiguous, and as I said earlier intentional ambiguity is perfectly valid. My real concern is that the writer be aware of possible approaches and how his work may be viewed.

"I hate my yellow t-shirt". This means three things. I have a t-shirt, I hate my t-shirt, my t-shirt is yellow.

IF my hating my t-shirt, and its being yellow are unrelated, then I am making a statement that, and my t-shirt being yellow is an incidental detail.

IF my hating my t-shirt, and its being yellow are related, then I am making a statement about, and my t-shirt being yellow is a subject I am engaging in.

Similarly, "I hate my gay friend". This means three things. I have a friend. I hate my friend. My friend is gay.

IF my hating my friend, and his being gay are unrelated, then I am making a statement that, and my friend being gay is an incidental detail.

IF my hating my friend, and his being gay are related, then I am making a statement about, and my friend being gay is a subject I am engaging in.

Finally, the original poster is writing a story that features two themes, the love between two children, and the love between two soldiers. The lovers being soldiers is relevant. The lovers being children is relevant. The children being soldiers is incidental - you cannot write a story about two lovers who are children, and two lovers who are soldiers, and have them be the same lovers without featuring child-soldiers.

The fact that the story contains child-soldiers is a statement that, it is incidental, they are children who happen to be soldiers in one context, and soldiers who happen to be children in another.

If you play the game and interpret the inclusion of child-soldiers as a statement about child soldiers, you will have interpreted incorrectly. Of course, you have to think something after playing the game (and no one has suggested that you shouldn't), and, of course, you are free to interpret whatever you like - in fact, you are potentially one of 7.8 billion players, with one of 7.8 billion individual or unique interpretations. HOWEVER, your interpretation does not put words in the writers mouth, or thoughts in his or her head.

It is at the writer's discretion whether he takes steps to minimise (or maximise) the potential for incorrect interpretation, but since there are 7.8 billion possibilities, he cannot sensibly be held to be responsible for any one of them. There may be consequences based on these interpretations, some of which he could have foreseen and stopped, many of which he could not - again, you cannot transfer responsibility to him.

Your arguments that an interpretation may be possible, and thereby confers responsibility to the artist, is equally matched by the argument that an intention may be possible, and thereby confers responsibility to the audience. It is no more the artists responsibility to consider his audience's potential interpretation, than it is the audience's responsibility to consider the artist's potential intentions.

Ultimately, the problem is not having interpretations or intentions, the problem is in insistence that one trumps the other, when it does not. The artist is responsible for himself (and no one else), the audience is responsible for himself (and no one else).

The artist can freely feature whatever aspects or details of reality he wants. The artist can engage or not engage in whatever debates he wants. It is the artist's choice, and no one else's.

7 minutes ago, swiftcoder said:

On the off-chance that you aren't deploying this strawman intentionally...

The OP specifically stated concern about the acceptability of the topic (it's in the thread title), and noted that many folks consider it a "sensitive topic" (in the original post). Both of these indicate that the question is specifically in regards to how people other than the OP feel about the topic.

Your continued insistence that other people's opinions are irrelevant to you personally, is at best orthogonal to that.

The original poster is 16, and there is a very real possibility that he thinks that mentioning a topic can only cause other's to fixate on them. I'm sure that isn't at all reinforced by that being the only confirmation that he has so far received in this discussion.

I'm sure also that his draft including no mention of child-soldiers in any connected context is entirely irrelevant to this detail.

9 minutes ago, swiftcoder said:

On the off-chance that you aren't deploying this strawman intentionally...

Your continued insistence that other people's opinions are irrelevant to you personally, is at best orthogonal to that.

You understand hypocrisy, right?

Forget it, I'm done with the discussion.

OP. Your script is fine, and the subject matter of child-soldiers doesn't feature in the way that you think that it might.

My career and degree are in theatre, trained in play/screenwriting and direction in both academic and practical terms, I'm currently employed as a composer for a series of theatrical productions, and my day-job is in an art gallery.
OP, your script might be fine.

If you achieve any level of success (here's hoping) someone will undoubtedly fixate on the child-soldier aspect and you're right to approach it with caution, particularly with the exploitation of minors being such a focus of the media here in the UK of late.

I do believe to include it at as a premise without either justification or discussion would trivialise a sensitive and important issue, so if you don't want to delve too deeply in to that, the best option would be to create a solid reason for child-soldiers being necessary. As a minimum creating a plausible reason will help to show that you're not ignorant of the issue. Works of fiction come up with justifications for children to do battle all the time, but be aware that in your case there seems to be some sort of authority controlling it, which is where the real controversy may lie. This will also help you ground your characters, and give much needed context to their motivations and conflicts.

On a motivation-related side note: You're in danger of writing a stereotypically weak female character with Clare, she's too dependent on male approval at the moment. Keep in mind that Clare isn't just the love interest for Ethan, they are love interests for each other. You've already shown a weakness in Ethan when approaching her, which is a step in the right direction. Keep balance in mind here to avoid negatively portraying one gender and it will serve you well.

I hope you find this useful, and whatever you do, don't do this:

4 hours ago, SomeoneRichards said:

I can shrug responsibility for an audience reaching a conclusion that I did not intend for them to reach.

It's lazy and disrespectful of your audience.

2 hours ago, SomeoneRichards said:

Unless you don't consider that aspect, or you didn't consider that aspect... Then what?

 There is a strong theme running through here that to be 'an artist' means complete and total awareness of every facet of your work, and to include every possible detail as a result of measured deliberation.

Then I'd say you're not acting in your own best interests. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's not that being an artist requires "complete and total awareness" (that's obviously impossible), I'd say it's that being a good artist means being a good communicator and being a good communicator requires empathizing with your audience and taking into account how they are likely to perceive your utterances. Obviously, mistakes can be and are made in that regard.

2 hours ago, SomeoneRichards said:

The children being soldiers is incidental - you cannot write a story about two lovers who are children, and two lovers who are soldiers, and have them be the same lovers without featuring child-soldiers.

 The fact that the story contains child-soldiers is a statement that, it is incidental, they are children who happen to be soldiers in one context, and soldiers who happen to be children in another.

Chances are very good that such a story will not be exclusively the romance. Would that story really be all that interesting without the worldbuilding and character building that goes into establishing the characters involved in that romance? And therein would be the engagement, implicit or otherwise, with the idea of child soldiers.

I would also point out that in some cases a lack of engagement with a topic can send a message just as well as engaging with said topic does. Take the original Star Trek series, for example. It didn't call attention to the fact that it had non-white individuals in positions of high rank. The famous Kirk/Uhura kiss wasn't a big deal in the actual story wherein that happened. In fact, the engagement with racial politics in ST:TOS was mainly allegorical; on-screen, racial differences between humans were not highlighted (even if national stereotypes were). 
In 1960s America, that sent a message.

2 hours ago, SomeoneRichards said:

Your arguments that an interpretation may be possible, and thereby confers responsibility to the artist, is equally matched by the argument that an intention may be possible, and thereby confers responsibility to the audience. It is no more the artists responsibility to consider his audience's potential interpretation, than it is the audience's responsibility to consider the artist's potential intentions.

In an ideal world, that would be the case. But as of 2018, we don't live in an ideal world, do we? We live in a world where your audience misinterpreting what you're saying can lead to such fun things as "ostracization from one's own industry," "financial ruin" (unless you're too big to fail), and even "hordes of angry people on the internet harassing you and sending you death threats for the rest of your life." Regardless of whom the responsibility truly falls upon, practically-speaking an artist who doesn't want to be tarred and feathered in the public eye really ought to take their audiences interpretations into account.

I contend that it doesn't really matter if the artist or the audience is "right" in their interpretation if the audience's "wrong" interpretation leads to negative consequences to the artist.

If you have not already done so, I encourage you to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

Changed my mind about reengagement with the discussion...

8 minutes ago, NanaMarfo said:

That's not saying a lot, but OK.

Sorry. I meant, you're not (yet) using the topic in any way that is likely cause concern beyond the fact that you are using the topic. When/if one of your characters says something about the topic, or the specific nature of the situation arises, then it might be worth considering a stance - because at that point you may well be taking one.  But, as it stands, the fact that your characters are child soldiers does not, in itself, offer any statement or stance that the reader is not providing.

There are other themes (some potentially controversial) that could be picked out of it, but it would primarily just be to make that point. In the same way that your characters being child soldiers would (at this point) hardly be worth noting if it wasn't the subject of this thread.

If you want practical advice regarding the development of your characters, then you should take some time to write those characters in other scenes (not just those related to the game script). It will give you an opportunity to see how your characters respond in different situations, and flesh them out more fully, which will feed back in to the scenes you are going to be using.

When you're thinking of the background of your characters, try to avoid reducing that history to a collection of summarising points. Whilst people are often described in terms of the events that have happened to them, it is the details of the event, and not the event itself that, makes them who they are.