Tim O’Brien uses distortion in The Things They Carried to say the truth in a way that readers can relate. One time that O’Brien uses distortion is in his chapter “Speaking of Courage” in it he gives readers the perspective of a man driving in a circle around the lake after the war. This story has a deeper meaning. O’Brien is attempting to get the readers to understand that this is what it is like for soldiers after the war. The man feels like he has no purpose and that no one understands him. He talks to his dad about losing a friend and he seems disinterested. Readers should distort this story to see what O’Brien is really saying. He is telling us that life after the war is hard to transition to and the soldiers feel like no one can understand him. If it was told realistically as O’Brien says in the next chapter it would be the story of a soldier who came home and could not hold down a job and had the support of his family and friends. However, O’Brien distorts it to tell readers the real …show more content…
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
There are over thirty genres of books in the world. All of stories are told and written in many different forms from written to spoken, action to romance, or fiction to non-fiction. But, all stories have something in common--a theme that is intended to make a difference to the reader. No matter what the story is about, it is centered around a strong theme. The author of The Things They Carried, Tim O'Brien., uses a separate theme in each of his vignettes. But, these themes aren't always depicted through truth. "I'm forty-three years old, true, and I'm a writer now , and a long time ago I walked through Quang Ngai Province as a foot soldier. Almost everything else is invented"(171). O'Brien uses story-truth and happening-truth in The Things They Carried to show a great theme. In certain cases in the book, story-truth shows theme better and happening-truth isn't used and vice versa. In the vignette "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
What O’Brien sees as the purpose of the storytelling, and fictionalizing his experiences in Vietnam, can be seen through the “style” of his writing. It’s more than just a collection of stories. It’s a way for him to let go and start a new beginning. It is labeled “fiction” to make the story seem more engaging and to bring up the question, “Did this really happen?”
O’Brien’s choice of diction creates an angry tone that clearly mirrors how he felt after he was shot. He expresses anger at Bobby Jorgenson and frustration that he cannot be on the move with the rest of his platoon while he recovers from his injury. Jorgenson’s terrible job of treating O’Brien’s wound leaves a lasting effect on him because he cannot rest until he gets his revenge on the young medic. It is natural for one to feel upset after someone fails to come to one’s aid in a time of need. This can lead to one feeling resentful and distrustful for long periods of time after the event took
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
...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.
A true war story isn’t always true, no matter what the author states about it. The moral of it is probably the only true part, with the other pieces being made up to grasp the reader’s attention. O’Brien stepped foot into Sanders’ shoes to find the moral under all the lies, and he did. Kidder met an man named Bill and found out his time in Vietnam, even though he made some parts up to make himself sound cooler.
The novel The Thing They Carried is a compilation of short stories that share underlying themes and characters. One of the stories is called “How to tell a True War Story”. In this story the narrator expands on a central theme of the distinction between truth and fiction when writing a war story. The story, like most of the other stories in the novel jumps erratically between events, which oftentimes creates confusion and a sense of the surreal in the story. Throughout the story the narrator repeatedly shows that when writing a war story the “story truth is truer sometimes than happening truth.”(O’Brien pg. 171) This quotation encompasses the theme and supports it. The narrator’s use of stylistic devices coupled with stories such as “How to Tell a True War Story” and “Good Form” exemplifies how fiction can fully represent the truth whilst the facts fall miserably short.
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...
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.
He even tells his reader to not pay attention to the details. In “How to Tell a True war Story” O’Brien states, “In any war story, but especially a true one, it’s difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen. What seems to happen becomes its own happening and has to be told that way.”(pg. 67-68) This “what seemed to happen” can be referred to as the story truth. O’Brien is telling his readers that sometimes memories get blurred and the brain can forget what really happened. He later writes, “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” to further prove this point. (pg. 68) Without the normal stuff being told, the reader would not believe all of the traumatic events that took place in this war. While being compared to the crazy memories, the brain sees the normal stuff as a pointless memory. The brain therefore doesn’t see the necessity to remember this unimportant memory. So, when trying to tell this event later on, the human brain makes up a false memory to fill the lost memory’s place and to make the story seem more
According to O’Brien, after something occurs, it becomes difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen as time moves along. In “How to Tell a True War Story,” he explains that “when you go and tell about it, there is always that surreal seemingness, which makes the story seem untrue” and that “the pictures get jumbled; you tend to miss a lot” (71). In these two quotes, O’Brien is essentially saying that the greater amount of time that passes, the more obscure a story is in O’Brien’s memory. This effect that time has on memory seems to largely contribute to O’Brien’s ideas on the difference between story-truth and
He wants the readers to be able to feel how he felt and understand how everything happened as he tells the story. He wants to provoke the emotional truth. O’Brien tries to prove that imagination is not completely a bad thing and that it is also a good thing. O’Brien starts to create stories about what could have happened and what he could not do at the war, in addition to the original war story. With the power of imagination, O’Brien is able to talk about something that he could have done but did not do in his past.
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