Truth In Tim O Brien's The Things They Carried

1125 Words3 Pages

The human perception of the world is formed through a lense, or perhaps more accurately a filter; the information that is acquired from what surrounds us is articulated through abstract concepts as opposed to physical; that is to say that the basis of our understanding of the world is fundamentally abstract. This is true of the essence of thought and understanding, ergo it must be true of each product of these two processes: truth qualifies as one of these products. However, truth, literally defined as an indisputable fact, directly challenges the notion of subjective thought as a means of comprehension and therefore, its obvious interconnection with thought, understanding, and comprehension. In the novel The Things They Carried, author Tim …show more content…

In a previous chapter, O’Brien had spoken of the man that he killed, reiterating in great detail the appearance of the man’s misshapen corpse, and reflecting upon the life that could've been, had the man not been met by the cold stare of death. Most notably, he states, “ I killed him” (Paragraph 1040). The statement, in the most complicated terms is basic; a blatant, undeniable statement. Subsequently, he counters this statement when he proclaims the following: “For instance, I want to tell you this: twenty years ago I watched a man die on a trail near the village of My Khe. I did not kill him” (Paragraph 1305). For clarity, it is important to note that O’Brien was alluding to the man whom he had killed. With that in mind, it is evident that O’Brien contradicts himself once again. Later, he addresses this contradiction in an interaction with his daughter: "Daddy, tell the truth," Kathleen can say, "did you ever kill anybody?" And I can say, honestly, "Of course not." Or I can say, honestly, "Yes." (Paragraphs 1043 and 1044) The implication that both truths, while directly opposing each other, are both simultaneously true, completely discards the notion the truth can be objective: for if more than one thing can be true of the same situation, then it is …show more content…

Simply, truths in war are contradictory, therefore, they are subjective. This has myriad implications: that truth is not always truth, that events that are false in the literal sense may also be true, and that two opposing truths do not discount each other. Furthermore, it is not simply a statement regarding truth, but rather the nature of truth relative to war and the effect that it has on the telling of stories. Not only is it an in-depth examination war, truth, and communication, but an examination on thought, and the purpose of stories in general. With such a colossal amount of concepts and relationships at play, this much is for certain: O’Brien’s exploration on truth expands much farther, than the concept of truth in war, whether that was the intention or not. Although the most important aspect of this argument was to examine truth in relation to war and stories, it would be neglectful not to look further; not to question more and to take this information as a source of food for thought, reflection, and

Open Document