Create a list of O'Brien's criteria of how to tell a true war story and give an example of each criteria in outline form.
I. Immoral/ No Happy Ending/ Not what the reader expects
Rat’s friend, Curt Lemon, dies and Rat writes to Lemon’s sister honoring him but sadly the sister does not write back; ironically she ignores Rat because she perceives the story as disturbing and horrible. The reader would expect Lemon’s sister to respond honoring her brother or thanking Rat but ironically she does not respond making all of Rats efforts go in vain. This is sad and Immoral because the sister does not care and O’Brien writes, “...So incredibly sad and true; she never wrote back” (51).
II. Emotional pain
When Curt Lemon dies and Lemon’s sister refuses to write back, Rat
…show more content…
stumbles upon a baby buffalo which is tied to a tree. Rat shoots at the buffalo but does not kill it. His intention is to watch the buffalo suffer to ease his emotional pain from losing his best friend. III. Gruesome/ reality of war Curt and Rat were playing together in when Curt steps on a trap which blows him up. The gruesome part is that O’Brien and Rat see this happen and afterwards O’Brien and Dave Jensen go a tree to peel him off, the pieces of skin and yellow intestines. This examples shows that the soldiers had to go through harsh gruesome experiences. IV. A mix between reality and one's conscience Sanders tells a story about a group of soldiers who hear mysterious sounds on the mountains and so they call for an airstrike to obliterate the whole mountin. When the colonel ask why the called the airstrike the do not respond. The next day Sanders admits that he fabricated some of the story and this goes to show the reader that most war stories are exaggerated with the storytellers emotions for effect. 2.
What does O’Brien mean when he says that a true war story is never about war?
When O'Brien says that a true war story is not about war he means that a war story is not about death, fighting or war, it is about the soldiers grim experiences. O’Brien writes “A true war story in never about war… It's about love and memory. It's about sorrow” (62). The quote demonstrates that O'Brien's definition of a war story does not describe what happens but it describes the feelings and emotions that were felt because of what happened. A true war story does not focus on what happened but it should focus on the pain that the soldiers felt.
3. What does O’Brien mean when he writes, “Thas is a true war story that never happened.”
O’Brien gives the reader an example of a true war story when he tells of the soldier that jumped on a grenade to save his friends however the grenade took all their lives away. On page 61, O'Brien states that this is a true war story that never happened. This is a true war story because it fits his criteria about how a war story should be but the story never actually happens. This is a true war story because it is sad because shows loss despite the soldier’s effort to save his
friends. 4. What is the significance of the scene where Rat Kiley shots at the baby buffalo but does not kill it what does this scene symbolize. The baby buffalo scene is ment shows the reader Rat’s emotional and mental state. This scene symbolizes that one must look beyond war to understand the emotional pain of the soldiers. O’Brien writes, “A true war story in never about war… It's about love and memory. It's about sorrow” (62). This quote demonstrates O'Brien's argument that there is more to war then just fighting; the reader has to look past the buffalo being shot at to see the emotional suffering that Rat experiences for losing his friend. This scene symbolizes that war is not just about fighting but one must look past the fighting to witness the suffering and emotional pain the soldiers felt. 5. What transforms Mary into a predatory killer. When Mary begins spending time with the Greenies, who are a specialized unit that are more involved with physical confrontation with the enemy. Mary comes in the to vietnam as an innocent sweet girl but when she leaves with the Greenies for for three weeks and goes on an ambush she changes into a predatory killer. Mary says to Fossie, "’You hide in this little fortress, behind wire and sandbags, and you don't know what it's all about.... I want to swallow the whole country—the dirt, the death—I just want to eat it and have it there inside me’”(71). This quote clearly demonstrates the change in Mary because know that she has seen reality with its death, hardships and the struggle to survive she is awaken by reality and she is now a soldier like the Greenies. After her experiences she learns it is kill or be killed. 6. Does it matter that Mary Ann is a woman? It does not matter whether Mary Ann is a woman because like men, women also have feelings and emotions. O'Brien mentions that the alpha company is composed of all men and when one of their men got shot the burned the whole village afterwards. This also represents the kill or be killed mindset because in the jungle there is no such thing as being civilized. To survive EVERYONE has to become a predatory killer because if the do not they will die. Also like Mary the men in the Alpha Company also lose their innocence and one example is when Curt Lemon dies and his body parts are removed from the tree by the men. It is evident that Mary has also witnessed something similar when she tells Fossie that he is shielded in a fortress away from reality. 7. Does this story fit O'Brien's criteria of a true war story? This story fits O'Brien's criteria of true war story because it has all the elements that make up a war story. The story faces reality and the ending is not happy because Mary Ann runs away and leaves Floosie and there is no more marriage. Also the story exposes how gruesome war is because Mary is changed from an innocent girl to a predatory savage. The story also outlines the emotional pain that soldiers felt when Mary Ann becomes emotional disturbed and loses her sanity due to her exposure of death with the Greenies. 8. Why is it Mary Ann is the One to turn into a predatory killer but not Fossie who was been in Vietnam a longer period of time. Unlike Fossie, Mary embraces Vietnam and is open minded to learning new things. A couple weeks in Mary learns a few words in vietnamese and can even help in administering morphine to patients. Mary’s curiosity leads her to expand her knowledge and she decides to go with the Greenies on an ambush without a weapon. Unlike her, Fossie in not open minded and he chooses to ignore Vietnam. Fossie’s personality is weak hearted compared to Mary because he looks for her companionship and comfort which is why he brings her. This also shows that Fossie's character is not the war type and Mary Ann even tells him, “‘You hide in this little fortress, behind wire and sandbags, and you don't know what it's all about” (71). It is evident that Fossie does not embrace the war while Mary Ann fully embraces the war despite how gruesome it is.
Before O’Brien was drafted into the army, he had an all American childhood. As talked about “His mother was an elementary school teacher, his father an insurance salesman and sailor in World War II” (O’Brien). He spent his tour of duty from 1969 to 1970 as a foot soldier. He was sent home when he got hit with a shrapnel in a grenade attack. O’Brien says as the narrator, “As a fiction writer, I do not write just about the world we live in, but I also write about the world we ought to live in, and could, which is a world of imagination.” (O’Brien)
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
O’Brien, Tim. “How To Tell a True War Story.” The Compact Bedford Introduction to Literature. Ed. Michael Meyer. Boston: Bedford St. Martins, 2003. p. 420-429.
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 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 of 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 time.
Several stories into the novel, in the section, “How to tell a true war story”, O’Brien begins to warn readers of the lies and exaggerations that may occur when veterans tell war stories.
The truth to any war does not lie in the depths of storytelling but rather it’s embedded in every person involved. According to O’Brien, “A true war story does not depend on that kind of truth. Absolute occurrence is irrelevant. A thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth” (pg. 80). Truths of any war story in my own opinion cannot be fully conveyed or explained through the use of words. Any and all war stories provide specific or certain facts about war but each of them do not and cannot allow the audience to fully grasp the tru...
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.
In “How to Tell a True War Story” by Tim O’Brien, Orwell’s ideas are questioned and the competition between the truth and the underlying meaning of a story is discussed. O’Brien’s story depicts that the truth isn’t always a simple concept; and that not every piece of literature or story told can follow Orwell’s list of rules (Orwell 285). The story is told through an unnamed narrator as he re-encounters memories from his past as a soldier in the Vietnam War. With his recollection of past encounters, the narrator also offers us segments of didactic explanation about what a “true war story” is and the power it has on the human body (O’Brien 65). O’Brien uses fictional literature and the narration of past experiences to raise a question; to what extent should the lack of precision, under all circumstances, be allowed? In reality, no story is ever really truthful, and even if it is, we have no proof of it. The reader never feels secure in what they are being told. The reliability of the source, the author, and the narrator are always being questioned, but the importance of a story isn’t about the truth or the accuracy in which it is told, but about the “sunlight” it carries (O’Brien 81).
The deceitful interpretation presented in "How to tell a true war story", is an example of Historicism. Today, people hear about the vietnam war through family members, friends and veterans. When people tell war stories they try to make themselves seem victorious. It makes the person listening feel as if it was all in the good of the people by killing people. O'Brian somehow justifies a point in his book by stating, "A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encouraged virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things men have always done." In actual reality more harm was done than good. People were forced off of their lands to hide in safety and the economic consequence is fatal. To derive to the point, O' Brian is saying there is no real war story if the audience feels that killing people had made a big and better consequence. To look back upon the Vietnam war it brought Vietnam to it's knees. The Americans assisted someone who asked them not to interfere and in the end there was no winner. The Americans had nothing to gain by fighting this war. The title was a contridictary of how to tell a true war story.
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.
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
O’Brien begins the chapter by explaining about Bob (Rat) Kiley. O’Brien says that Kiley is his close friend in Vietnam, and explains how Kiley’s friend Curt Lemon was killed in the war, and Kiley starts to write a letter to the Lemon’s sister about what happened. Kiley starts talking about all the positive stuff about his friend to O’Brien, and Kiley is in tears when he talks about the things that make them close friends. Rat finally mails the letter, but his friend’s sister never mails him back. O’Brien explains that almost all war stories are immoral. He explains that war stories are never positive, and mostly told by a negative light. O’Brien explains that if someone wanted to hear a true war story, they should talk to Rat Kiley. Later on, O’Brien explains that the guy name is Curt Lemon. The smoke grenades caused Lemon’s death. He explains that some of the soldiers were playing with the grenades and they were not careful with it. This led to his death, and O’Brien explains that Lemon’s death was almost beautiful with Lemon’s handsome face when the sunlight reflecting on him. O’Brien explains that the author has a difficult explaining what is the reality and what they “think” happened in their books. He
Behind every war there is supposed to be a moral—some reason for fighting. Unfortunately, this is often not the case. O’Brien relays to the readers the truth of the Vietnam War through the graphic descriptions of the man that he killed. After killing the man O’Brien was supposed to feel relief, even victory, but instead he feels grief of killing a man that was not what he had expected. O’Brien is supposed to be the winner, but ends up feeling like the loser. Ironically, the moral or lesson in The Things They Carried is that there is no morality in war. War is vague and illogical because it forces humans into extreme situations that have no obvious solutions.
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