Analysis This Passage is significant in many ways. O’Brien has a vague yet vivid memory of throwing a grenade and killing a young Vietnamese soldier in the midst of war and what really struck him was the corpse of the young man. He is dejected because of what he has done, and was even speaking in the third person and constructing fantasies as to what the man must have been like before he was killed. Weaving the story of the young man’s life into something similar as his own. The way O’Brien achieves this is through certain literary techniques. One is being Imagery. On the top of page 127 he says “The nose was undamaged. The skin on the right cheek was smooth and fine-grained and hairless. Frail-looking, delicately boned” (O’Brien 127). On the top of page 128 he also says “Along the trail there were small blue flowers shaped like bells. The young man 's head was wrenched sideways, not quite facing the flowers, and even in the shade a single blade of sunlight sparkled against the buckle of his ammunition belt. The left cheek was peeled back in three ragged strips. The wounds at his neck had not yet clotted, which made him seem animate even in death, the blood still spreading out across his shirt.” (O’Brien 128). O’Brien uses words like …show more content…
This highlights the guilt he is feeling for killing the young man and he basically talks about himself when he is making up this person’s life story because O’Brien says "the young man would not have wanted to be a soldier" and in the chapter ‘on a rainy river’ he tells us that he never wanted to go to war and almost fled to Canada. Specifically, O 'Brien views this man as himself, as what he will transform into if incidentally he loses his life in war. In his fantasy of what the young man’s life was like he finds similarities, and these similarities are not wanting to be in war and the fear of shame if you don’t go to war which was a lose lose
This form of writing appeals to the audience’s emotions by making the connection seem more personal, as if O’Brien is speaking directly to each reader. The constant changing of forms of writing within a single novel is unusual, and sometimes they appear to not make sense. O’Brien uses a variety of writing forms in order to make the novel a “true” war story, rather than a novel for purely entertainment purposes. In this chapter the audience is first told of O’Brien’s purpose within the novel: to feel the way he felt. The sometimes confusing and unexpected changes of forms of writing allows the readers to better relate to O’Brien’s own
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.
O’Brien uses a lot of imagery and sensory detail in his stories, many of which make me wonder if these stories are in fact fiction. “His jaw was in his throat, his upper lips and teeth were gone, his one eye was shut, his other eye was a star shaped hole…” pg. 124 The detail of the dead soldier’s body almost seems illusory; as if it was made for the sole purpose of frightening the reader and letting them know the horrors of war.
In this chapter, O’Brien contrasts the lost innocence of a young Vietnamese girl who dances in grief for her slaughtered family with that of scarred, traumatized soldiers, using unique rhetorical devices
"War is hell . . . war is mystery terror and adventure and courage and discovery and despair and . . . war is nasty (80)." When it all happened it was not like "a movie you aren't a hero and all you can do is whimper and wait (211)." O'Brien and the rest of the solders were just ordinary people thrust into extraordinary situations. They needed to tell blatant lies" to "bring the body and soul back together (239)." They needed to eliminate the reality of death. As ordinary people they were not capable of dealing with the engulfing realities of death and war therefore they needed to create coping skills. O'Brien approaches the loss of his childhood friend, Linda, in the same way he approaches the loss of his comrades in the war as this is the only way he knows how to deal with death. A skill he learned, and needed, in the Vietnam War.
The violent nature that the soldiers acquired during their tour in Vietnam is one of O'Brien's predominant themes in his novel. By consciously selecting very descriptive details that reveal the drastic change in manner within the men, O'Brien creates within the reader an understanding of the effects of war on its participants. One of the soldiers, "Norman Bowler, otherwise a very gentle person, carried a thumb. . The thumb was dark brown, rubbery to touch. . . It had been cut from a VC corpse, a boy of fifteen or sixteen"(O'Brien 13).
Tim O’Brien is doing the best he can to stay true to the story for his fellow soldiers. Tim O’Brien believed that by writing the story of soldiers in war as he saw it brings some type of justice to soldiers in a war situation.
Although the soldiers were united and served for the same goal, each of the men had a different motivation. For O’Brien, his motivation to join the war was the shame of running away. Almost all of the characters were afraid of being ashamed, and that served as a drive for them to do acts of heroism and similarly acts of stupidity. For example, in the story “On the Rainy River”, shame drove O’Brien to do an act of heroism as a fear of being ashamed. O’Brien wrote “For more than twenty years I 've had to live with it, feeling the shame, trying to
...ien writes this story in a completely non traditional way and manages to create a whole new experience for the reader. He takes the reader out of the common true, false diameters and forces the reader to simply experience the ultimate truth of the story by reliving the emotional truth that the war caused him. Although this may be a bit challenging for the reader, it becomes much easier once the reader understands the purpose for the constant contradictions made by O’Brien. The difference between “story-truth” and “happening-truth” is that “story-truth” is fictional, and “happening-truth” is the actual factual truth of what happened. The “story-truth” is the most important when it comes to O’Brien, and understanding his work. It is meant to capture the heart and mind of the readers and take them on a journey through war with the O’Brien, as he experienced and felt it.
...ng the grenade and killing the man. Without killing the enemy soldier, O’Brien could’ve been to blame for losing many of his comrades, and maybe even his own life. A true war hero wouldn’t be hesitant to take out an enemy to protect their comrades. They’d react instantly and do their job. “His jaw was in his throat, his upper lip and teeth were gone…” (Pg 118) A typical war hero would keep their focus on the war and their comrades. Even though fear runs through every man, a war hero would fight through the fear and do their task at hand to save their comrades and their own life. Hesitating on the battlefield can cost many lives, even their own life.
When O’Brien first arrives to Vietnam, the men of the platoon show him how the grief of war can be covered up by humor. As the men were patrolling near a village off the South China Sea they suddenly started to encounter sniper fire. The firefight only lasted a few minutes but Lt. Cross decided to order an airstrike on the village anyways. After the strike was over, the platoon proceeded to the smoldering village to find nothing but “…an old man who lay face up near a pigpen at the center of the village. His right arm was gone. At his face there were already many flies and gnats.”(). To many, this image of a destroyed village and the mutilated old man would cause horror and plight. Instead of that normal reaction, “Dave Jensen went over and shook the old man’s hand. “How-dee-doo,” he said.”(). The other men of the platoon also went up to the dead man’s body and shook his hand while adding a comment. This disturbing response the men have to the dead old man isn’t one of disrespect, it is their coping mechanism for realizing what they just did. Because O’Brien was new to Vietnam he had yet to understand why the men were all doing this. He was awestruck by the actions...
Usually when someone is murdered, people expect the murderer to feel culpable. This though, is not the case in war. When in war, a soldier is taught that the enemy deserves to die, for no other reason than that they are the nation’s enemy. When Tim O’Brien kills a man during the Vietnam War, he is shocked that the man is not the buff, wicked, and terrifying enemy he was expecting. This realization overwhelms him in guilt. O’Brien’s guilt has him so fixated on the life of his victim that his own presence in the story—as protagonist and narrator—fades to the black. Since he doesn’t use the first person to explain his guilt and confusion, he negotiates his feelings by operating in fantasy—by imagining an entire life for his victim, from his boyhood and his family to his feeling about the war and about the Americans. In The Man I Killed, Tim O’Brien explores the truth of The Vietnam War by vividly describing the dead body and the imagined life of the man he has killed to question the morality of killing in a war that seems to have no point to him.
The firm grasp of war in the chapter, On the Rainy River, puts O’Brien at a “paralysis (O’Brien, 54),” he did not want to fight and it embarrassed him. As compared to the World War One poem by Wilfred Owen, soldiers are “bent double like old beggars under sacks (Owen, stanza 1).” barely able to move and have little strength that makes them trudge along in muck. O'Brien gave himself to the war despite his fantasy about escaping to Canada, despite working for Elroy to hide from the call of war. He gave in to it because of the strong, intense pressure he felt and pressure he still feels now he tells the reader in chapter 9. He was put at a crossroad and plunged into the world of war of what Owen describes as being “ecstasy of fumbling (Owen, Stanza One).” The consequence for resistance is difficult as O’Brien deals with the man he killed later on. An aching nightmare that parallels to the poem’s descriptive, gruesome imagery, “he plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning, (Owen, Stanza 3). An image O’ Brien cannot escape and cannot cope with. To escape his nightmares is impossible, as demonstrated in the chapter The Man I killed, because he put himself in the place of the soldier, to him, “He was both a citizen and a soldier (O’Brien, 119).” There is no escaping morality in war but sometimes morality is
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