O’Brien’s definition of truth is that truth can change and isn’t always what exactly happened, but as long as the message of the story stays the same, then it’s true. When people tell stories they often embellish to make it sound interesting but when soldiers talk about war they often make up things that seem normal so that the story will seem believable. The things that seem like they are false or too outrageously unrealistic to be true, are often the only truth in the story. Because, things happen so quickly and often unexpected in a war “it's difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen”( O’brien 19). When stories about an occurrence are told, little details about certain things are more of a guess to what happened in
To write a true war story that causes the readers to feel the way the author felt during the war, one must utilize happening-truth as well as story-truth. The chapter “Good Form” begins with Tim O’Brien telling the audience that he’s forty-three years old, and he was once a soldier in the Vietnam War. He continues by informing the readers that everything else within The Things They Carried is made up, but immediately after this declaration he tells the readers that even that statement is false. As the chapter continues O’Brien further describes the difference between happening-truth and story-truth and why he chooses to utilize story-truth throughout the novel. He utilizes logical, ethical, and emotional appeals throughout the novel to demonstrate the importance of each type of truth. By focusing on the use of emotional appeals, O’Brien highlights the differences between story-truth and happening-truth and how story-truth can be more important and truer than the happening-truth.
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.
Think that O'Brien is still suffering from what he experienced in Vietnam and he uses his writing to help him deal with his conflicts. In order to deal with war or other traumatic experiences, you sometimes just have to relive the experiences over and over. This is what O'Brien does with his writing; he expresses his emotional truths even if it means he has to change the facts of the literal truth. The literal truth, or some of the things that happen during war, are so horrible that you don't want to believe that it could've actually happened. For instance, "[o]ne colonel wanted the hearts cut out of the dead Vietcong to feed to his dog..
...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.”
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 explains how the stories told about those who have passed are meant to keep the deceased's life alive. The "weight of memory" was one thing all the solders carried (14). When added to the physical weight of their gear and the emotional burdens of war, it was all too much. In response, the men altered their perceptions of the truth in order to lighten the haunting weight of memory. O'Brien suggests "in a true war story nothing is ever absolutely true," memory is altered to compensate for its weight (82). In this way, O'Brien, and the rest of the men, were able to utilize "story-truth (179)." Stories alter truth, therefore, a well-told story can actually allow the dead to continue to live on. "In a story, the dead sometimes smile and sit up and return to the world (225)." In this way you could "keep the dead alive" with "blatant lies, bringing the body and soul back together (239)." O'Brien remembers listening to a story about Curt Lemon. He recalls how "you'd never know that Curt Lemon was dead (240)." It seemed like "he was still out there in the dark" yet, "he was dead (240)." Similarly O'Brien uses story to save his childhood friend's life, "not her body - her life (236)." In his stories Linda "can smile and sit up. She can reach out (236)." He allows her to come to life and "touch [h...
He admits that some parts of his writing are made up, and he is intentionally vague about the truthfulness of other parts. When asked if he had ever killed anyone, O’Brien said that he could reply, honestly, with both “Of course not,” and “Yes” (172). He explains that even the guilt of being present when the kill took place was enough that it doesn’t matter if he himself threw the grenade or not, he would feel the same way. It doesn’t matter the exact events that took place; this story is about how he felt about seeing murder up close and personal. O’Brien explains that “by telling stories, you objectify your own experience... You pin down certain truths. You make up others” (152). Writing was a way to verbalize his past, and he told the vague details how he experienced them, if not necessarily how they happened. He was able to separate himself from his memories and remorse allowing himself to cope with his past in the war. While the reader will never know the exact truth, they can still understand the guilt and that O’Brien felt as a
In America today, when the name of honor is often adulterated by glaring headlines proclaiming the guilt of an immoral politician or the fall of a disgraced executive, it is easy to forget that the country was founded for the pursuit of truth, for only in truth can people find real happiness. Thomas Jefferson famously included the pursuit happiness as an unalienable right in the Declaration of Independence, but in an intimate letter to William Roscoe, a British historian, Jefferson wrote, “This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead.” In his flagship novel, All the King’s Men, Robert Penn Warren embraces the Founding Father’s principles with his characterization of both Willie Stark and Jack Burden. Warren’s novel is an American classic because it traces the lives of two lost men as each man follows his personalized compass pointing towards complete understanding. After elevating him to unprecedented heights, Willie’s interpretation of truth returns to drag him down to the Underworld. Only when Jack learns that not even Willie can be omnipotent does he stop trying to understand everything. Willie Stark and Jack Burden embody the essence of Thomas Jefferson’s words because, in a sense, they both attain freedom through their pursuit of truth.
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
He implies, “The liar is a person who uses the valid designations, the words, in order to make something which is unreal appear to be real” (Truth and lies, 54). However, this is not the case with O’Brien’s writings. O’Brien mentions that a true war story is in a way that it completely sounds unrealistic, which is one detail that completely conflicts Nietzsche’s thoughts. In his story the “How to tell a true war story”, he says, “A true war story is never moral… embarrassing… unbelievable… contradictory…” (A true war story) According to Nietzsche, O’Brien is telling all lies because his stories appear unreal, and unbelievable. Nevertheless, according to O’Brien, this is the way to tell a true war story, a story that makes you feel uncomfortable, and make you ask whether it is true or not. Sticking to his statements O’Brien thinks that “Speaking of courage” is not a true war story because it sounds realistic. There is nothing embarrassing or unrealistic about that story. O’Brien mentions it in his story “Notes,” that writing “Speaking of courage” felt like a sense of failure. “Almost immediately, though, there was a sense of failure. The details of Norman Bowker 's story were missing. In this original version…I had been forced to omit the shit field and the rain and the death of Kiowa…” (The things they carried, 158) This statement shows, that unless
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.
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
Truth can be defined as conformity to reality or actuality and in order for something to be “true” it must be public, eternal, and independent. If the “truth” does not follow these guidelines then it cannot be “true.” Obviously in contrary anything that goes against the boundaries of “truth” is inevitably false. True and false, in many cases does not seem to be a simple black and white situation, there could sometimes be no grounds to decide what is true and what is false. All truths are a matter of opinion. Truth is relative to culture, historical era, language, and society. All the truths that we know are subjective truths (i.e. mind-dependent truths) and there is nothing more to truth than what we are willing to assert as true (Hammerton, Matthew). A thing to me can be true while for the other person it may not be true. So it depends from person to person and here the role of perception comes into play. As truth is a vital part of our knowledge, the distinctions between what is true and what is false, shape and form the way we think and should therefore be considered of utmost importance. We often face this situation in real life through our learning curves and our pursuit of knowledge to distinguish between what is true and what is false. The idea of there being an absolute truth or also known as universal truth has been debated for centuries. It depends on many factors such as reason, perception and emotion.