Some authors choose to write stories and novels specifically to evoke certain emotions from their readers as opposed to writing it for just a visual presentation. In order to do this, they occasionally stretch the truth and “distort” the event that actually occurred. The Things They Carried, by Tim O’Brien, is a compilation of short stories about the Vietnam War with distortion being a key element in each of them. Several stories into the novel, in the section, “How to tell a true war story”, O’Brien begins to warn readers of the lies and exaggerations that may occur when veterans tell war stories. “The vapors suck you in. You can’t tell where you are, or why you’re there, and the only certainty is overwhelming ambiguity. In war you lose your sense of the definite, hence your sense of truth itself, and therefore it’s safe to say that in a true war story nothing is ever absolutely true.” (Pg.88) He states that as a soldier, there is so much to soak in from war scenes that it all becomes a muddled mess. Therefore, the story of the moment can be different from each soldier’s perspective due to the parts where each man puts in his own ideas. This leads to some speculation as to whether or not O’Brien’s stories are true or false. One of the later entries in the book called “Good form”, helps alleviate the suspicion of dishonesty in the stories by bluntly telling the reader that all the other entries are a mix of both fact and fiction. O’Brien feels the need to make up parts of his stories due to the fact that he wants the reader to experience emotions as opposed to mental visuals. He describes these emotion-laden scenes as “story-truth” due to the fact that they are part story and part truth. The parts that are only for emotio... ... middle of paper ... ...or himself with fillers to shape and create the people that he imagined them to be. At this point, readers can fully understand why distortion occurred in the book because O’Brien writes his thoughts out as the book progresses. As O’Brien learns more about his reasons of being an author, the reader learns more about why his war stories wouldn’t be the same if he hadn’t altered them. Stories, both factual and manipulated, present different things to a reader. Factual writings help readers visualize the actual moment, but may not have them feeling the same as the author felt. Manipulated writings however, are superior in the fact that emotion through writing can actually help readers see a situation for what it really is. Distortions in manipulated writing are beneficial to the reader by providing more sensory imagery, even if it costs presenting the complete truth.
Before O’Brien was drafted into the army, he had an all American childhood. As talked about “His mother was an elementary school teacher, his father an insurance salesman and sailor in World War II” (O’Brien). He spent his tour of duty from 1969 to 1970 as a foot soldier. He was sent home when he got hit with a shrapnel in a grenade attack. O’Brien says as the narrator, “As a fiction writer, I do not write just about the world we live in, but I also write about the world we ought to live in, and could, which is a world of imagination.” (O’Brien)
When the quote says “that part of the story is my own” it must mean O’Brien had taken some true details from personal stories. Could O’Brien taken true information but tried to throw the readers off to keep some privacy for the men the stories were based off? Some of the stories present within the book are completely out of the water. How could O’Brien imagine those ideas up without a base of what actually happened? I believe O’Brien switched the names of the soldiers but kept the stories. If he did the name switching it could emphasize on how the reader could focus on the ideas and situations, not the people. O’Brien would showcase how these situations can affect everyone. Another challenging aspect for me is if the stories are partly true why not honor those written about. Do the soldiers feel shame reading about their failures? O’Brien wrote his novel upon the hopes of helping his PTSD and it could have helped the veterans read and receive help. Along with help the vets it could supply the vets with the honor they
In his short story, O’Brien unravels step by step the irony in the double meaning of truth, implied in this first statement, “This is true”, to the reader which is then woven through the entire story. By trying to characterize what constitutes a true war story, but never really achieving this goal, the true irony of his short story is revealed. Even though in some instances giving away his opinion explicitly, the sheer contradiction of honesty and reality becomes even more visible in an implicit way by following O’Brien’s explanations throughout the story while he deconstructs his first statement. The incongruity between his first statement and what is actually shown in his examples does not need any explicit statements to drive home his message.
“In many cases a true war story cannot be believed. If you believe it, be skeptical. Often the crazy stuff is true and the normal stuff isn’t, because the normal stuff is necessary to make you believe the truly incredible craziness.” Pg. 71 This is very true. It follows the saying “You can’t handle the truth” because if one hears it, they think it’s a lie, or the truth being stretched. The use of imagery allows the author to express the emotion he had when he was at war.
The truth to any war does not lie in the depths of storytelling but rather it’s embedded in every person involved. According to O’Brien, “A true war story does not depend on that kind of truth. Absolute occurrence is irrelevant. A thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth” (pg. 80). Truths of any war story in my own opinion cannot be fully conveyed or explained through the use of words. Any and all war stories provide specific or certain facts about war but each of them do not and cannot allow the audience to fully grasp the tru...
O Brien 's point of view is an accurate one as he himself because he is a Vietnam veteran. The title of the short story is meaningful because it describes each soldier’s personality and how he handles conflict within the mind and outside of the body during times of strife. The title fits the life as a soldier perfectly because it shows the reality that war is more than just strategy and attacking of forces. O’Brien narrates the story from two points of view: as the author and the view of the characters. His style keeps the reader informed on both the background of things and the story itself at the same
O’Brien begins The Things They Carried with a story of the same title, and in this memory O’Brien lists all of the things that the members of the squadron carry. In the description of what each person carries, the reader can get some image of what each character is like in appearance and personality. Also in this story, O’Brien describes one instance of destroying enemy tunnels which ends with one of their company, Ted Lavender, dying. “Love,” the second story is about Lieutenant Cross visiting O’Brien after the war has ended and discussing his love Martha. The next story, “Spin,” is a bit more relaxed and less violent in remembering fragmented memories of days when no battles are fought. O’Brien received his draft notice in “On the Rainy River,” and with this new information he runs away to Canada, but not before stopping at Tip Top Lodge to think about his decision; he decides to go and fight in the war. “Enemies,” and “Friends,” are the next two stories that tell the story of how Lee Strunk and Dave Jensen were foes that became friends. O’Brien prefaces “How to Tell a True War Story” saying that it is true. This story is the only one that has this proclamation. This story is more of a love story than a war story because after Curt Lemon dies, Rat Kiley writes his sister including in the letter all the great stuff that Lemon did. In “Dentist,” Curt Lemon’s story and fears are expanded. O’Brien tells a story Rat Kiley told him about the Song Tra
O’Brien takes time to develop all the characters in the book. Some he develops fully in one chapter and by the end he shows us there demise. Others O’Brien chooses to develop slowly throughout the book. picking those that people can relate to, who truly show what war could do to a person. Henry Dobbins was the tough guy that we all know but who truly had a sweet inside and believed in being nice to everyone and live on respect. Well on the other hand Norman Bowker was the good kid who wanted nothing more but the approval of his father and blamed everything that went wrong on themselves. In the end when he felt like he didnt get that approval that he wanted for. So he stayed lost and searching (out more).
Tim O’Brien’s novel The Things They Carried challenges the reader to question what they are reading. In the chapter “How to Tell a True War Story”, O’Brien claims that the story is true, and then continues to tell the story of Curt’s death and Rat Kiley’s struggle to cope with the loss of his best friend. As O’Brien is telling the story, he breaks up the story and adds in fragments about how the reader should challenge the validity of every war story. For example, O’Brien writes “you can tell a true war story by its absolute and uncompromising allegiance to obscenity and evil” (69), “in many cases a true war story cannot be believed” (71), “almost everything is true. Almost nothing is true” (81), and “a thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth (83). All of those examples are ways in which O’Brien hinted that his novel is a work of fiction, and even though the events never actually happened – their effects are much more meaningful. When O’Brien says that true war stories are never about war, he means that true war stories are about all the factors that contribute to the life of the soldiers like “love and memory” (85) rather than the actual war. Happening truth is the current time in which the story was being told, when O’Brien’s daughter asked him if he ever killed anyone, he answered no in happening truth because it has been 22 years since he was in war and he is a different person when his daughter asked him. Story truth
A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain ...
O’Brien gives the reader an example of a true war story when he tells of the soldier that jumped on a grenade to save his friends however the grenade took all their lives away. On page 61, O'Brien states that this is a true war story that never happened. This is a true war story because it fits his criteria about how a war story should be but the story never actually happens. This is a true war story because it is sad because shows loss despite the soldier’s effort to save his
O’Brien explicitly asserts that “A thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth” (139). O’Brien, as demonstrated here, is not interested in the physical reality of what happens, rather he is writing from an emotional standpoint. He also directly states “I feel guilty sometimes. Forty-three years old and I’m still writing war stories” (61). Writing war stories and guilt are clearly related things in his mind and he writes in order to cope with this guilt. This entire work, every little story, every random detail, and every character is a direct reflection of O’Brien working through his guilt in the only way he knows how:
O’Brien later says that he distorted the story; this did not actually happen. He says that what happened was that he was a soldier and he pulled the trigger and is not certain whether his bullets hit people or not. If O’Brien said that however, readers would not understand the way he felt as he pulled the trigger. He gives the story how he threw a grenade and killed the man because that was the way he felt. He tells of his grief afterwards and, as civilians, readers are able to grasp why he felt that way. It would be difficult to sympathize with him if he said that he didn’t know if he killed but felt the grief anyway. The distortion of the story makes it more effective because readers can understand the way he feeling and as O’Brien says, a war story is about the human heart. The distortion of this story allows readers to grasp the story that O’Brien wanted to
The truth plays little to no part in a truly good story. Mostly, there is one main difference between good stories and bad ones; the use of facts. Poor storytellers get hung up on every inane detail of the truth, good storytellers provide room for interpretation by the reader (McLeod). By focusing more on feeling and not the truth, readers are able to connect more with a story. If the pure facts are predominant, a story becomes too exact, boring even. In Tim O’Brien’s book “The Things They Carried,” Tim remembers his friend Norman wanting Tim to write a story about him. The first version ended up being a disappointment, so Tim rewrote it and said “The piece has been substantially revised,
This allows the reader to see what takes place rather than what is perceived. O’Brien’s main objective is to expose the subjectivity that lies within truth. To point out a specific contradiction within truth, he uses war to highlight this difference. He writes, “The truths are contradictory. It can be argued, for instance, that war is grotesque. But in truth war is also beauty” (77). The truth has two different meanings and it all depends on who is interpreting it. One person may think one truth and another person can see the complete opposite. To go along with this ambiguity within truth he states, “Almost everything is true. Almost nothing is true” (77). He once again shows that truth is up for interpretation. There is not a single, universal truth, however, there are many variations of it. As previously mentioned, O’Brien claims that he honestly admit that he has both never killed a man and has in fact killed somebody. Here he is stating that there can be completely different answers that all seem to be the truthful. Whether or not O’Brien killed someone, he felt like he did, but could answer that he didn’t. It is this discrepancy that proves that it is all relative. When it comes to telling the story it becomes “difficult difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen,” (67). This is what causes the subjectivity, the unknowingness of the situation. Since