The short story by Stephen Crane, “An Episode Of War,” talks about a lieutenant’s wound in war. The first irony is that the lieutenant is not shot in combat but while distributing coffee. No name given nor what war it is. He is dividing coffee in a war, trying to be just in a small matter that is magnified out of proportion, “He was on the verge of a great triumph in mathematics.” Their temporary peace and the order of civilization are destroyed in a flash by a bullet, displacing reason with emotion. The lieutenant “looked quickly at a man near him as if he suspected it was a case of personal assault.” Of course the ironic point is just the opposite, that it is a case of impersonal warfare. Although the event seems random, or a matter …show more content…
The lieutenant, carrying his wounded arm rearward, looked upon them with wonder.” Seeing the battle has become a metaphor of seeing life. These stragglers are participants who now have a detached perspective informed by experience, an objectivity that contrasts with the lieutenant’s pain and wonder. When an officer binds his wound, “The lieutenant hung his head, feeling in this presence, that he did not know how to be correctly wounded.” Appropriately, the field hospital tents are grouped around an old school-house, contrasting forms of education. The busy surgeon who attends him is a friendly person who, “seemed possessed suddenly of a great contempt for the lieutenant. This wound evidently placed the latter on a very low social plane.” A wounded soldier expects to have earned respect. To facilitate his efforts to save as many lives as possible under extreme pressure in the worst of times, the overworked battlefield surgeon must dissociate, intimidate, and even lie to wounded patients, “Come along, now. I won’t amputate it. Come along. Don’t be a baby.” Amputation was a quick fix in combat. The surgeons had too many patients to do complex operations. The lieutenant is suspicious and resists this lesson while staring at the door of the
“This is true.” (O’Brien, 420) – with this simple statement which also represents a first, three-word introductory paragraph to Tim O’Brien’s short story, “How to Tell a True War Story”, the author reveals the main problem of what will follow. “Truth” – when looked up in a dictionary, we would probably find definitions similar to sincerity and honesty on the one hand, and correctness, accuracy or reality on the other hand. When looking at these definitions, one can make out two groups of meaning: While sincerity and honesty are very subjective, correctness or accuracy are supposed to be objective by nature. One can be sincere and still not report the truth, due to the simple fact that one does not know any better. Accuracy, however, is supposed to represent facts, bits and pieces of information that paint a picture of an event, untouched by opinion or attitude.
The World War I was the first war fought after the industrial revolution that took place in Europe. The countries that were involved in this war were overly presumptuous that this war would be quick and efficient, because of the new weaponry that was the byproduct of the industrial revolution. But the soldiers realized that they were wrong about it. They thought the war would be over "before the Christmas" of year 1914. But they were wrong, and therefore found it necessary to disillusion the people back at home. Several war writers emerged who made the use of irony to expose the the brutality of the war. In short, they told it like it was - the ultimate truth about the war. Paul Fussell's theory states in his article, "Every war is ironic because every war is worse than expected."
In the aftermath of a comparatively minor misfortune, all parties concerned seem to be eager to direct the blame to someone or something else. It seems so easy to pin down one specific mistake that caused everything else to go wrong in an everyday situation. However, war is a vastly different story. War is ambiguous, an enormous and intangible event, and it cannot simply be blamed for the resulting deaths for which it is indirectly responsible. Tim O’Brien’s story, “In the Field,” illustrates whom the soldiers turn to with the massive burden of responsibility for a tragedy. The horrible circumstances of war transform all involved and tinge them with an absurd feeling of personal responsibility as they struggle to cope.
BANG, BOOM, BLAM,TAT-A-TAT, TAT. My ears are assaulted with noise, my eyes witness squirting blood a soldier is shot. I observe soldiers blown away by bombs. I see blood that saturates an infantry man. I view maimed men and observe limbs with fragmented bone. I witness militia dead on the ground. I listen to screams, grunts and gurgling blood in a man's windpipe. WHOOSH, flame throwers make a path with flames blazing burning men instantaneously. My eyes reveal the emotion that rips through my heart, tears drip down my cheek. I turn my head. I cannot watch a soldier cradle his buddy as he dies.
Resection was a process that “involved cutting open the limb, sawing out the damaged bone, and then closing the incision” (Jones, 1). Resection allows the patient to keep his limbs but it requires a great ordeal of time and skill. This also contributed to the common practice of amputation during the war. But there were cases where surgeons did use this method. Terry J. Jones said in his NY Times article, “resections were used more frequently after surgeons learned that amputations had a much higher mortality rate” (Jones, 1). In another article by Corydon Ireland, it describes Mitchell Adam’s, a Harvard lecturer, grandfather who served as a volunteer surgeon during the Civil War. In the article, “Adams was not a champion of hasty amputations, but argued for excision and other limb-saving measures. And he describes the everyday pressures of a country practice in Framingham, Mass” (Ireland, 1). This meant that not all surgeons at the time only wanted to amputate but strived for alternate methods. This new knowledge shows that some surgeons were more dedicated to thinking about the well-being of their patients than others and this opens up to other possibilities that may have occurred during the war. This allows an image to come to mind of a surgeon diligently operating on a soldier with care and compassion. However, even though there may be many possibilities, we can’t truly know every event that occurs during a
After an event of large magnitude, it still began to take its toll on the protagonist as they often “carried all the emotional baggage of men who might die” during the war (O’Brien 1187). The travesties that occurred with the brutality of war did not subside and began to affect those involved in a deeply emotional way. The multitude of disastrous happenings influenced the narrator to develop a psychological handicap to death by being “afraid of dying” although being “even more afraid to show it” (O’Brien 1187). The burden caused by the war creates fear inside the protagonist’s mind, yet if he were to display his sense of distress it would cause a deeper fear for those around him, thus making the thought of exposing the fear even more frightening. The emotional battle taking place in the psyche of the narrator is directly repressed by the war.
In the excerpt “The War Escalates” by Paul Boyer, the author clearly shows how war influences the self by utilizing the descriptive literary devices tone and mood. Throughout the excerpt, Boyer informs the audience on the situation of the Vietnamese war. Boyer mentions the experience of a nurse who worked in the military aiding injured soldiers. Using the voice of the nurse, Boyer includes her experience, “‘We really saw the worse of it, because the nurses never saw any of the victories. If the Army took a hill, we saw what was left over. I remember one boy who was brought in missing two legs and an arm, and his eyes were bandaged. A general came in later and pinned a Purple Heart on the boy’s hospital gown, and the horror of it all was so amazing that it just took my breath away. You thought, was this supposed to be an even trade?’” (Boyer 2). The author expresses his tone by adding the memoir of the nurse. The nurses of the Vietnam War suffered after effects of the sights of war. This particular memoir exhibits the change in the nurse’s mentality after having to watch the horrors of injured people and deaths. The post-war devastations negatively affected ...
In the story The Sniper. The sniper develops insensitivity to death during the war. When he kills the old woman, she’s trying to run away and isn’t really a threat. He even “utters a cry of joy” when he finally shoots the enemy sniper. This shows how war can get people caught up in the cat-and-mouse “game” aspect of it and forget what they’re actually doing-killing people. People get so caught up in the “game” that they don’t think about the repercussions for their actions.
I lie huddled in a large shell-hole, my legs in the water up to the belly. When the attack starts, I will let myself fall into the water, with my face as deep in the mud as I can keep it without suffocating. I must pretend to be dead.” These soldiers went to extremes to save themselves from the raging war. Not only soldiers but officers of the army had come under the great influence of fear.
It is apparent that the topic of war is difficult to discuss among active duty soldiers and civilians. Often times, citizens are unable to understand the mental, physical, and physiological burden service members experience. In Phil Klay’s Ten Kliks South, the narrator struggles to cope with the idea that his artillery team has killed enemy forces. In the early stages of the story, the narrator is clearly confused. He understands that he did his part in firing off the artillery rounds, yet he cannot admit to killing the opposition. In order to suppress his guilt and uncertainty, our narrator searches for guidance and reassurance of his actions. He meets with an old gunnery sergeant and during their conversation, our narrator’s innocence
portrays them to be. The speaker chooses words such as “bent double, like old baggers” and “knock-kneed” (Owens 1-2) to expose the discomfort and effects that war has on young soldiers. The soldiers are discreetly compared to crippled old men which emphasizes just how badly war has affected their bodies, stripping them of their health, making them weak and helpless like “old beggars” (Owen 1). Furthermore, the speaker expresses his experience as a sold...
Throughout the historic course of literature, one story known as “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Cornell has incorporated specific types of irony for multiple differing and fundamental reasons. Situational irony is the first use of ironic elements that will be discussed in regards to the story. Situational irony is defined as “an incongruity that appears between the expectations of something to happen, and what actually happens instead ” (literarydevices.net). The story’s climax offers a unique twist to the plot as it includes an unexpected discovery, ultimately incorporating situational irony into the sequence of events. The story starts out with the introduction of the legendary hunter Bob Rainsford as he is shipwrecked and trapped on a deserted island. While staying on the island, Rainsford is introduced to the eccentric General Zaroff, who is a self proclaimed expert hunter as well. In short, the General turns out to be a sadistic psychopath who forces Rainsford into a game of “cat and mouse”, which causes Rainsford to fight for his life. This state of affair is considered to be situational irony because Zaroff defies the expectations of being a hunter to the audience. This is specifically shown in the text when Rainsford confronts General Zaroff in regards to what he is hunting:
Does a soldier have wounds that a doctor cannot see? Sometimes the most harmful effects of war are emotional wounds. Hemingway displays the theme that war causes emotional damage in his novel The Sun Also Rises. Some veterans suffer from emotional pain as a result of war, whereas others are able to grow from the experience. Hemingway’s characters exemplify the effects of combat because World War I had a negative impact on them; the veterans lead meaningless lives filled with masculine uncertainty.
One of the worst things about war is the severity of carnage that it bestows upon mankind. Men are killed by the millions in the worst ways imaginable. Bodies are blown apart, limbs are cracked and torn and flesh is melted away from the bone. Dying eyes watch as internal organs are spilled of empty cavities, naked torso are hung in trees and men are forced to run on stumps when their feet are blown off. Along with the horrific deaths that accompany war, the injuries often outnumber dead men. As Paul Baumer witnessed in the hospital, the injuries were terrifying and often led to death. His turmoil is expressed in the lines, “Day after day goes by with pain and fear, groans and death gurgles. Even the death room I no use anymore; it is too small.” The men who make it through the war take with them mental and physical scarification from their experiences.
War can destroy a man both in body and mind for the rest of his life. In “The Sniper,” Liam O’Flaherty suggests the horror of war not only by presenting its physical dangers, but also by showing its psychological effects. We are left to wonder which has the longer lasting effect—the visible physical scars or the ones on the inside?