War is a stage. Hamlet by William Shakespeare can be seen as the literary center of the universe because it draws upon themes of identity and morality, which are central themes in many succeeding works. War can have a metatheatrical power like Hamlet does because war can draw challenge the idea that war is simply realistic. In Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried, O’Brien writes of the experience of several members of a platoon during the Vietnam War. Various characters and stories reappear throughout the novel. Some of his stories are intangible and are dramatizations of what a reader would deem as realistic. O’Brien uses these themes as a statement that there is not one single truth in war. In The Things They Carried, O’Brien uses paradox …show more content…
The structure of a prismatic dramaturgy is that of a prism: a beam of light goes through the crystal, and out the other end is reflected multiple rays of light. The rays never comes back together and converges. In Hamlet, Hamlet plans his play within a play, the play takes place, and out is reflected what Hamlet intended: continuations of the play’s narrative. For example, the three story lines of Polonius and Laertes, Gertrude, and Claudius. In the process, the characters’ identities are revealed. Relating to Shakespeare’s structure, when O’Brien describes the event of him reading a story from his book to an audience, he demonstrates that the “war stories” he tells are prismatic dramaturgies. He writes, “She’ll explain that as a rule she hates war stories; she can’t understand why people want to wallow in all the blood and gore. But this one she liked” (80). The water buffalo in his story is a metaphor for the love and grief of losing a friend. He is mad at the woman because she does not understand that this story about the buffalo is not in fact a war story but a love story. It is a love story about the love between the men in his platoon. This passage indicates the paradox of the audience listening and O’Brien “telling.” The perception of what O’Brien presents the audience with depends on their ability to listen to what he …show more content…
In Hamlet’s famous speech “To Be or Not to Be,” Hamlet is contemplating suicide. He doesn’t want to live because he is depressed about his mother marrying his uncle. He is also afraid of death because he does not want to end up like a lonely, terrifying ghost like his dad. The life and death paradox represents that death will be the one thing that solves Hamlet’s problems, but it is what he fears. The “fear” draws upon the ideas of duality that are central to O’Brien’s argument of what an identity is. During the process of getting revenge on Jorgenson, O’Brien says “I was invisible; I had no shape, o substance; I weighed less than nothing. I just drifted” (198). He is likening himself to a ghost and having an out of body experience. Due to the fact that soldiers often called the Vietcong Ghost Soldiers, O’Brien is identifying with the enemy and demonstrating empathy and the humane connection of being able to inject oneself into into another’s life. Similar to Hamlet, O’Brien wants to separate himself from the state of being a ghost because it represents who he does not want to become, but be has to identify with the ghost because he is connecting to the fear that he is losing himself and losing his sense of identity through almost having died. In this paradox, O’Brien uses the mutual enemy and
Tim O 'Brien 's 1986 “The Things They Carried,” tells a story of how impactful war can be. It describes the struggle of overcoming grief and the struggle to deal with death; it shows the human side of war. The passage above provides an excellent example of the way O 'Brien uses first person narration to explain the complexity of war. In particular, the real meaning of “The Things They Carried” is revealed, because they show the actual burden the soldiers carried was not materialistic, but emotionally, “They carried all the emotional baggage of men who might die. Grief, terror, love,” (O’Brien 608).
For young people, the Vietnam War is a thing of the past and they can
Tim O’Brien’s book, The Things They Carried, portrays stories of the Vietnam War. Though not one hundred percent accurate, the stories portray important historical events. The Things They Carried recovers Vietnam War history and portrays situations the American soldiers faced. The United States government represents a political power effect during the Vietnam War. The U. S. enters the war to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam. The U.S. government felt if communism spreads to South Vietnam, then it will spread elsewhere. Many Americans disapproved of their country’s involvement. Men traveled across the border to avoid the draft. The powerful United States government made the decision to enter the war, despite many Americans’ opposition. O’Brien’s The Things They Carried applies New Historicism elements, including Vietnam history recovery and the political power of the United States that affected history.
The truth behind stories is not always what happened, with each person 's perspective is where their truth lies. In the beginning of the novel, you start to think that it is going to be the same old war stories you read in the past, but it changes direction early. It is not about how the hero saves the day, but how each experience is different and how it stays with you. From his story about Martha, to how he killed a man, each one is so different, but has its own meaning that makes people who have not been in war, understand what it is like. Tim O’Brien can tell a fake story and make you believe it with no doubt in your mind. He does this throughout the novel. In The Things They Carried, Tim O’Brien distinguishes truth from fantasy and the
According to the Indian Times, madness is the rule in warfare (Hebert). The madness causes a person to struggle with experiences while in the war. In “How to Tell a True War Story”, the madness of the war caused the soldiers to react to certain situations within the environment differently. Tim O’Brien’s goal with the story “How to Tell a True War Story” is to shed light on the madness the soldiers face while in the war. Tim O’Brien tells the true story of Rat experiences of the war changing his life.
As students we are brainwashed by ancient myths such as The Iliad, where war is extolled and the valorous warrior praised. Yet, modern novels such as Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried (THINGS) challenge those very notions. Like The Iliad, THINGS is about war. It is about battles and soldiers, victory and survival, yet the message O'Brien gives us in THINGS runs almost contradictory to the traditional war story. Whereas traditional stories of war take place on battlefields where soldier battles soldier and the mettle of man is tested, O'Brien's battle occurs in the shadowy, private place of a soldier's mind. Like the Vietnam War itself, THINGS forces Americans to question the foundations of their beliefs and values because it calls attention to the inner conscience. More than a war story, O'Brien's The Things They Carried is an expose on personal courage. Gone are the brave and glorious warriors such as those found in the battle of Troy. In THINGS, they are replaced by young men who experience not glory or bravery, but fear, horror, and a personal sense of shame. As mythic courage clashes with the modern's experience of it, a battle is waged in THINGS that isn't confined to the rice-patties, jungles, and shit-fields of Vietnam. Carrying more than the typical soldier's wares, O'Brien's narrator is armed with an arsenal of feelings and words that slash away at an invisible enemy that is the myth of courage, on an invisible battlefield that is the Vietnam veteran's mind.
The Civil War, World War I, the Vietnam War, World War II, and the conflict in the Middle East are all wars that have been fought over the difference of opinions, yet come at the cost of the soldier 's fighting them; Humans killing other humans, and death is just one of the many emotional scars soldiers of war face. Why do we go to war when this is the cost? For many it is because they are unaware of the psychological cost of war, they are only aware of the monetary cost or the personal gains they get from war. Tim O 'Brien addresses the true cost of war in "The Things They Carried". O 'Brien suggests that psychological trauma caused by war warps the perception of life in young Americans drafted into the Vietnam War. He does this through Lieutenant
The very act of engaging with fiction necessitates recognizing the possibilities and the limits of words. The audience of, for example, Hamlet obviously recognizes that the aim of words is not always to accurately describe reality. Yet, this recognition brings along with it a frightening realization: even when one tries, it is next to impossible to use words to accurately describe reality. In his 1951 article The Word In Hamlet, John Paterson argues that this crisis alarms Hamlet because of its relation to the greater chasm between appearance and substance; and that the crisis is ultimately solved by a reunion of word and deed in the play’s end. Yet, a closer reading of Hamlet’s death scene, while recognizing some superficial union of word and deed, suggests the ultimate failure of words to capture reality.
Through the elements of technique portrayed in this essay, it is clear to see that Shakespeare is able to influence the reader through soliloquies, imagery, and dual understanding. This overall influence being both the communication of a deeper meaning, and a more complex understanding of the events and statements within Hamlet.
These differences in character, though seemingly small, lead the audience to draw two very different conclusions about the characters’ situations and why they are placed in them. The analyzation of the characters changes from Shakespeare’s written play to Hoffman’s rendering of A Midsummer Night’s
In Hamlet, the protagonist Hamlet faced many dilemmas that led to his transformation throughout the play. The people around him and the ghost of his father dramatically affect him. Seeing his father’s ghost had changed his fate and the person he had become. The path he chose after his encounter with his father’s ghost led to his death.
As a Shakespearean tragedy represents a conflict which terminates in a catastrophe, any such tragedy may roughly be divided into three parts. The first of these sets forth or expounds the situation, or state of affairs, out of which the conflict arises; and it may, therefore, be called the Exposition. The second deals with the definite beginning, the growth and the vicissitudes of the conflict. It forms accordingly the bulk of the play, comprising the Second, Third and Fourth Acts, and usually a part of the First and a part of the Fifth. The final section of the tragedy shows the issue of the conflict in a catastrophe. (52)
Many would perceive madness and corruption to play the most influential role in Hamlet. However, it could be argued that the central theme in the tragedy is Shakespeare's presentation of actors and acting and the way it acts as a framework on which madness and corruption are built. Shakespeare manifests the theme of actors and acting in the disassembly of his characters, the façades that the individuals assume and the presentation of the `play within a play'. This intertwined pretence allows certain characters to manipulate the actions and thoughts of others. For this reason, it could be perceived that Shakespeare views the `Elsinorean' tragedy as one great puppet show, "I could see the puppets dallying".
Shakespeare’s play Hamlet is a complex and ambiguous public exploration of key human experiences surrounding the aspects of revenge, betrayal and corruption. The Elizabethan play is focused centrally on the ghost’s reoccurring appearance as a symbol of death and disruption to the chain of being in the state of Denmark. The imagery of death and uncertainty has a direct impact on Hamlet’s state of mind as he struggles to search for the truth on his quest for revenge as he switches between his two incompatible values of his Christian codes of honour and humanist beliefs which come into direct conflict. The deterioration of the diseased state is aligned with his detached relationship with all women as a result of Gertrude’s betrayal to King Hamlet which makes Hamlet question his very existence and the need to restore the natural order of kings. Hamlet has endured the test of time as it still identifies with a modern audience through the dramatized issues concerning every human’s critical self and is a representation of their own experience of the bewildering human condition, as Hamlet struggles to pursuit justice as a result of an unwise desire for revenge.
King Lear and Hamlet, by William Shakespeare, are two plays that reveal similar thematic elements, yet possess fundamentally different plot structures. Driven by the suffering and rage of two complementary characters, both plays suggest injustice through ‘good’, but ultimately flawed characters. This shared overarching theme is, however, conveyed differently within each of the works, as one employs two mainly disparate plot threads, while the other relies more heavily on the interaction between the two central plots. Yet the ultimate purpose of this dualism remains the same within both King Lear and Hamlet, in that Shakespeare’s use of the double plot illuminates the tragic elements within both plays, emphasizing core injustices through the interwinding parallelisms of two distinct groups.