Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Moral dilemmas in vietnam war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Moral dilemmas in vietnam war
Are lies more easy to believe than truths? Some people prefer to fabricate a story rather than unfold its facts. As a result, fiction exists. Fiction is nonetheless a statement that is false, but people would like to believe it since it is easier to relate to imagined situations. In the novel The Things They Carried by Tim O’Brien, the author has manifested multiple views on how fiction is so persuasive that it makes every experience about the Vietnam war seem real. As a result, when he indicates that the stories were fabricated, it throws readers to question if in war, individuals have to give up their morality. Despite the fact that fiction raises this question, it is stronger than non-fiction when conveying the theme about morality in wars. …show more content…
After knowing that Tim O’Brien had killed a young man, he then made up multiple stories as well as scenarios about the one event. Later on, O’Brien writes chapter “Good Form” and indicates that “almost everything else is invented” (179). Basically, he means that all of the stories about morality and how he felt about killings and deaths were all fabricated. By using this writing method, Tim O’Brien implies how powerful fiction is comparing to non-fiction since fiction lets one to add more details; while in non-fiction, readers would know what happen but as for what would make the story more lively, they do not know the specific aspects. Furthermore, the author explains more on the reason he chose to lie about the story of how he killed the young man, “... even that story is made up. I want you to feel what I felt, I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth” (179). In this quote, O’Brien is delivering a message that he falsifies the story in order to make the audiences have a better insight of what he saw, to put them in the situation that he was in, to understand how he felt at that moment … Nevertheless, the most important intention is to signify that sometimes, the stories that one knows of, which might have never occurred at all, is more convincing than …show more content…
Throughout the book, the author reveals that not many of the details appearing in the story are true. In addition, Tim O’Brien also tends to exaggerate his stories repeatedly so that it feels like every time he tells them, they have different meanings but actually, they are all focusing on the same idea. For instance, due to the description of the dead body, we all know that O’Brien had killed a young man while in combat. However, he keeps on repeating this story in more than three chapters and every time, the descriptions are both different and similar in some details. At one part, the author goes straight to the description of the body. For the other, the author adds vivid pictures into the story to make it more lively. Either way, the story ends up with a conclusion of how terrible the dead body was like. Afterward, the author confesses that “... twenty years ago I watched a man die on a trail near the village of My Khe. I did not kill him. But I was present, you see, and my presence was guilt enough” (179). Basically, O’Brien is saying that he was writing a story that had never happened at all. Yet, with the aid of hyperbole, he was able to make the story sounds so realistic like it had happened. But the truth was that “… there were many bodies, real bodies with real faces, but I was young then and I was afraid to look” (180). To put it differently,
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.
For young people, the Vietnam War is a thing of the past and they can
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 have happened. For instance, "[o]ne colonel wanted the hearts cut out of the dead Vietcong to feed to his dog.... Ears were strung together like beads. Parts of Vietnamese bodies were kept as trophies; skulls were a favorite... The Twenty-fifth Infantry Division left a 'visiting card,' a torn off shoulder patch of the division's emblem, stuffed in the mouth of the Vietnamese they killed," (Fussell 655). While we don't want to believe these things because they sound too atrocious, soldi...
Many times readers lose interest in stories that they feel are not authentic. In addition, readers feel that fictitious novels and stories are for children and lack depth. Tim O’ Brien maintains that keeping readers of fiction entertained is a most daunting task, “The problem with unsuccessful stories is usually simple: they are boring, a consequence of the failure of imagination- to vividly imagine and to vividly render extraordinary human events, or sequences of events, is the hard-lifting, heavy-duty, day-by-day, unending labor of a fiction writer” (Tim O’ Brien 623). Tim O’ Brien’s “How to Tell a True War Story” examines the correlation between the real experiences of war and the art of storytelling. In O’Brien’s attempt to bridge the gap between fiction and non-fiction the narrator of the story uses language and acts of violence that may be offensive to some. However some readers agree that Tim O" Brien's "How to Tell a True War Story" would lack authenticity and power without the use of crude language and violence.
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?”
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
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.
One of the later entries in the book called “Good form”, helps alleviate the suspicion of dishonesty in the stories by bluntly telling the reader that all the other entries are a mix of both fact and fiction. O’Brien feels the need to make up parts of his stories due to the fact that he wants the reader to experience emotions as opposed to mental visuals. He describes these emotion-laden scenes as “story-truth” due to the fact that they are part story and part truth. The parts that are only for emotio...
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.
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.
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
Firstly, at the end of this story, the narrator’s illusions are the most powerful pieces of evidence for his madness. It is his two illusions that betrays him and imposed him to confess the crime. His first illusion is the beating of the old man’s heart which actually did not exist. Initialy, exactly as he portrayed "My head ached, and I fancied a ringing in my ears, it continued and became more distinct", the ringing he heard haunted him ceaselessly. Then he "found that the noise was not within his ear", and thought the fancy in his ear was the beating of old man’s heart. Because of the increasing noise, he thought the officers must hear it, too. However, in fact, everything he heard is absurd and illusive. And it proves that the narrator is really insane. Next, his second illusion is the officers’ "hypocritical smiles" which pushed him to completely be out of control. Losting of his mind, he called the officer "Villains". Apparently, he was confused and falsely thought "they were making a mockery of his horror" which irritated him intensively. Consequently, he told all the truth and "admitted the deed" in order to get rid of the growing noise. Therefore, the above two pieces of evidence both reveal the truth that the narrator is absolutely insane in contrary to what the narrator tried to tell us.
O’Brien subjectifies truth by obscuring both fact and fiction within his storytelling. In each story he tells there is some fuzziness in what actually happened. There are two types of truths in this novel, “story-truth” and “happening-truth” (173). “Happening-truth” is what happened in the moment and “story-truth” is the way the storyteller reflects and interprets a situation. O’Brien uses these two types of truths to blur out the difference between fact and fiction. For example, when Rat Kiley tells a story he always overexaggerates. He does this because “he wanted to heat up the truth, to make it burn so hot that you would feel exactly what he felt,” (85). This is the same for most storytellers, even O’Brien. When he tells the story of Norman Bowker he makes his own truth stating, “He did not freeze up or lose the Silver Star for valor. That part of the story is my own” (154). Not everything that O’Brien said was fact, however, it made the the meaning of the story effective and significant. O’Brien reveals that he never killed a man after devoting a whole short story to “The Man I Killed.” When his daughter asks “Daddy, tell the truth, did you ever kill anybody?” he can honestly say “Of course not,” or “Yes,” (172). This illustrates the subjectivity of truth, how both truths can in fact be true. This goes for all the stories told in this novel, the truth is held in the storyteller 's