Manipulation In 1984

As a result, the motivations for not telling the objective truth in The Things They Carried is starkly different than in 1984. The characters in 1984 endorse manipulation for the sole purpose of obtaining and maintaining power. They do not care for the welfare of others and they do not encourage any form of free thought of skepticism, instead expecting full public acceptance of their embellishments. Furthermore, they are looking to use this manipulation in order to exploit and control the public. In Tim O’Brien’s novel however, the characters employ overstatements in order to either regain a part of themselves that they lost as a direct result of being in a powerless position or in order to help others empathize with them. They are looking

not to take control of their audience, but rather to establish themselves as coherent and credible. Beyond that, the characters in The Things They Carried rely on projecting their war experiences in certain ways to help keep them mentally healthy and to prevent their experiences in war from fully consuming them.
In addition to having different motivations for manipulations, the characters in the two books have different levels of influence.

O’Brien and the Inner Party in 1984 have control over the entire populace. They wield an incredible amount of power over the population. Therefore, with each manipulation, they have the ability to influence thousands, if not millions. This ability to command the public and its opinion places them at the top of the food chain with the ability to dominate all below. Furthermore, they are insensitive to the desires and necessities of all below them, yet the Inner Party knows that those below them rely on them for instruction, governance, and basic necessity. Thus, Big Brother and his Inner Party are in the perfect position to shamelessly

exploit.
Comparably, the media empires during the late 1800’s had a similar amount of influence over the American public as the Inner Party has over Oceania’s population.

Though the newspapers in America are non-governmental while the Inner Party in 1984 is a part of the government, both have the power of influence the populace and its opinion through media. Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, American media moguls, both employed tactics of yellow journalism in order to boost their growth in their companies. Yellow journalism, according to US Department of State, is a style of journalism that prizes “sensationalism over facts”. As a result, Hearst and Pulitzer used their power of influence to sway public opinion. Most notably, using methods of yellow journalism, they convinced Americans that The Maine had been attacked by the Spanish. As shown in the newspaper headline attached on the last page, Pulitzer chose to highlight the weapons used and suggests that the explosion was not an accident, which, incidentally, it was. Additionally, Hearst and Pulitzer both also published articles priming Americans to take on an anti-Spanish sentiment. The two, when combined, played a decisive role in catalyzing the Spanish-American War. In a similar respect as in 1984, the people with influence over the media created a distinct enemy and united the public against that enemy. Both the Party in 1984 and media tycoons during the heydey of yellow journalism exploited the public’s lack of

skepticism in order to pursue their own prerogatives and exert control over the fate of the nation while endorsing self-serving motivations.
In The Things They Carried, however, Tim and his fellow soldiers all come from much more subordinate positions. They did not willingly choose to go into the war effort. In fact, Tim even recounts how tried to avoid the draft by running away to Canada in the story “On the Rainy River”. As a result, those in Tim O’Brien’s novel all come from powerless positions. They have no choice but to fight in a war they did not start and do not fully understand. Therefore, even when they do manipulate stories for their own purposes, they do so from a powerless position in an attempt to gain some control over their own life, their own language, and their own history. Their manipulations do not go to exert power and control over others, but rather, to regain some power over themselves and to try to make others understand the position that they have somehow found themselves in.
Though manipulation in all forms is not ideal, there are instances which make it morally acceptable. However, the line between what can and should be considered to be ethical embellishment versus what should not be is very thin. The lies the soldiers tell compared to the untruths of the Party present the two sides to this debate and demonstrate where the line lies. In essence, the distinction in ethics in this case, which is based on intention and power, stems from a greater root. It brings up fundamental questions ranging from “what role should the government play in the private lives of citizens?” to “to what extent should we trust media?” and finally, “does an unbiased truth even exist?”. It is imperative that small manipulations be study and specific lines be drawn so that these larger questions can one day be answered. Therefore, by reading novels such as 1984 and The Things They Carried, learning more about the human conditions and actively working to solve fundamental questions, people effectively work to better themselves as individuals and thereby, as a society.