In “Ambush” by Tim O’Brien, he leaves out very little detail in his retelling. The taste, feeling, and sense of the day he killed a young man at the ambush site outside of My Khe is entirely still there. This is in total contrast to John Steinbeck's ideas in “Why Soldiers Won’t Talk”. You see, John Steinbeck concludes that soldiers who come back from war don’t talk about their experiences because their minds and bodies are dulled by wartime situations are experiences. “Ambush” has a clear control when it comes to O’Brien’s narrative of the events he’s witnessed and a strong sense of what he saw. His memory is crystal clear. O’Brien remembered how he threw, it froze, and landed at the young man’s feet. He remembers the young man’s death very
“Pass On” written by Michael Lee is a free verse poem informing readers on grief, which is one of the most difficult obstacles to overcome not only when losing a loved one, but also in life itself. “Pass On” successfully developed this topic through the setting of an unknown character who explains his or her experience of grief. Despite Lee never introducing this character, readers are given enough information to know how they are overcoming this difficult obstacle. In fact, this unknown character is most likely the writer himself, indirectly explaining his moments of grief. One important piece of information Lee provides is the fact that he has experienced loss twice, one with his grandfather and the other a friend who was murdered by the
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
...r because it seems impossible to reconstruct an event from this objective point of view. Maybe the point of telling stories is not trying to recreate the reality of a past event, but it is the message that matters because that might be in the end the only thing that does not necessarily depend on single details of the story, but on the overall picture of an event. That is why to O’Brien another important component of a war story is the fact that a war story will never pin down the definite truth and that is why a true war story “never seems to end” (O’Brien, 425). O’Brien moves the reader from the short and simple statement “This is the truth” to the conclusion that, “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 nohting much is ever very true” (O’Brien, 428). These two statements frame the entire irony of the story, from its beginning to its end. Almost like the popular saying “A wise man admits that he knows nothing.”
The truth behind stories is not always what happened, with each person’s perspective is where their truth lies. At 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.
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
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.
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
Facing hardships, problems, or obstacles shouldn’t discourage one from completing their task or job. Many of authors usually put their characters through tough complications to show the reader that no matter what happens; anyone could pull through. In the short story, “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connel, the main character Mr. Rainsford gets stranded on an eerie island with a bad reputation. He meets General Zaroff and gets thrown into a huge hunting game, where his life is on the line. In the end, he wins the game and will continue to hunt animals, but not people, as the general once did. He will continue to hunt because one, hunting means everything to him. Two, he will not continue the general’s crazy ways, and resort back to the legal and non-dangerous to other humans sport. Third, he feels powerful when he becomes the hunter and not the hunted. Giving up hunting would be like giving up his life, so just because of a minor block he had to overcome, he will not give up hunting.
In “Fool’s Crow” by James Welch, the readers themselves are caught in the battle of stories. Within the novel there are several instances of medicine and spiritual animals that are treated as entirely literal. The concept of “medicine” as it is used in Fools Crow takes place in some of the other stories as well, and readers would generally want to take it as symbolic or simply spiritual rather than real. However, we are clearly supposed to believe that Fools Crow actually speaks with raven to free wolverine, who becomes his sort of spirit animal guide. He also shares a dream with one of his father’s wives. In an extreme case, Fools Crow is able to use the medicine he has learned, a combination of herbs and animalistic actions, to cure the brother
The author uses a lengthy exposition to explain how he lost his innocence many years ago. When his daughter ambushes him with her statement, “…I guess you must’ve killed somebody,” he simply replies with, “Of course not” (131). However, he then details for the reader his experience of throwing a grenade and killing an enemy soldier from back when he was in the military. This story is Ambush’s exposition – when an author provides the reader with necessary background information. Tim O’Br...
Defiance is a movie based on a true story of four Polish Jewish Bielski brothers that were trying to survive from Nazi Army during World War II. The movie started with Hitler ordering his army to kill Poland’s Jewish Citizen. During that time, the Polish Police worked closely with Nazis and they gave the whereabout of Bielski’s location. The Nazis successful found and murdered the parents of Bielski brothers. After this event, the two older brothers, Tuvia and Zus, took the two younger siblings, Aasel and Aron, in Belorussian forest to hide and find a shelter. While they were settling in the forest, they invited several other Jews who are escaping from Nazis and create a little community in the forest. As a result, group norms were formed
Throughout the chapter O’Brien uses a technique known as point of view. The point of views in the novel comes from three characters- Azar, Kiowa, and Tim O’Brien himself. The three characters perspectives on war are interpreted entirely different. Tim O’Brien is illustrated as the most sensitive solider out of the three. “His jaw was in his throat, his upper lip and teeth were gone, his one eye was shut, his other eye was a star-shaped hole…” (124). Tim’s sensitivity is revealed when he shows how bewildered he is as he stares at the lifeless Viet Cong body. Tim allows the readers to see that he has remorse about how he took action to stop the Viet Cong solider as he thinks repetitively about the repugnant attack. Tim is also shown as the character that never really talks and is very quite which in turn shows that he is guilty and ashamed. Azar happens to be the solider that is there to complete his job and does not show any sorrow for any actions that may occur. “Oh, man, you fuckin’ trashed the fucker” (125). In the novel, Azar shows that he actually enjoys the work of war and it does not really seem to bother him. Kiowa is more sensible in realizing and understanding what Tim is experiencing. “Tim it’s a war. The guy wasn’t Heidi—he had a weapon, right? It’s a tough thing, for sure but you got to cut out that staring” (126). He knows that what Tim is feeling is really hard for him to grasp because of the astonishment “Take it slow. Just go wherever the spirit takes you.” (126). It is shown that Kiowa has an understanding of Tim but he knows how to deal with the situation at hand.
The narrator recounts the story of how Curt Lemon dies to support his statement that “it’s difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen.”(O’Brien pg. 68) When Curt Lemon dies, the narrator uses vivid imagery to describe the scene as “almost beautiful”: “…the way the sunlight came around him and lifted him up and sucked him high into a tree full of moss and vines and white blossoms.”(O’Brien pg. 67) The imagery and personification present in the story makes it seem surreal. However, the narrator explains that when someone dies, people only see bits and pieces of the whole picture as evidenced by when the narrator reports, “you look away and then look back for a moment and then look away again”(O’Brien pg. 67). Because of this, what actually happens becomes “jumbled” and influences the stories that soldiers tell, making the stories seem fake. This...
Gwendolyn Brooks' "First fight. Then Fiddle." initially seems to argue for the necessity of brutal war in order to create a space for the pursuit of beautiful art. The poem is more complex, however, because it also implies both that war cannot protect art and that art should not justify war. Yet if Brooks seems, paradoxically, to argue against art within a work of art, she does so in order create an artwork that by its very recognition of art's costs would justify itself.
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.