More handpicked essays just for you.
Good literary elements for The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien
Creative writing of war
How did tim o'brien change in the book the things they carried
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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
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..
Vietnam War was one of the hardest wars ever fought. There are several reasons for this statement. It was basically impossible to conquer the territory because there were no boundaries. The soldiers had to put up with the climate, land, diseases and most importantly themselves. This essay is about yet another reason: the relationship between the soldiers and the officers.
This form of writing appeals to the audience’s emotions by making the connection seem more personal, as if O’Brien is speaking directly to each reader. The constant changing of forms of writing within a single novel is unusual, and sometimes they appear to not make sense. O’Brien uses a variety of writing forms in order to make the novel a “true” war story, rather than a novel for purely entertainment purposes. In this chapter the audience is first told of O’Brien’s purpose within the novel: to feel the way he felt. The sometimes confusing and unexpected changes of forms of writing allows the readers to better relate to O’Brien’s own
The Things They Carried is a funny little book in the sense that it isn’t told how most books are. It goes from war to camping on the borderline of Canada, back to war, and then into present day times. It works marvelously well, showing you what actually happened and then what he thought about what happened and what he could have done to change the outcome. There are many things that I think people can learn from his experiences in the Vietnam war and the way he tells those stories and lessons really bring you along for the ride.
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.
The novel “The Things They Carried” by Tim O’ Brien takes place in the Vietnam War. The protagonist, Lieutenant Cross, is a soldier who is madly in love with a college student named Martha. He carries around photos and letters from her. However, the first few chapters illustrate how this profound love makes him weak in the war.
In the book The Things They Carried, Tim O’Brien uses many themes to help draw connections between the book and the reader. O’Brien’s “On The Rainy River” chapter contains countless motifs that make this chapter so compelling. “On The Rainy River” describes his decision whether to enter the draft or to flee to Canada where he would not get condemned. The main theme in this chapter is embarrassment. First Lieutenant Tim O’Brien goes insane from the embarrassment he would face if he did not enter the draft.
Another unique aspect to this book is the constant change in point of view. This change in point of view emphasizes the disorder associated with war. At some points during the book, it is a first person point of view, and at other times it changes to an outside third person point of view. In the first chapter of the book, “The Things They Carried,” O’Brien writes, “The things they carried were largely determined by necessity (2).
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...
In one of the most influential pieces of postmodern literature, Tim O’Brien in The Things They Carried introduces us to a war fact/fiction writing where two of these themes intermingle into each other to such degree that nothing remains clear in the end but the emotional communication that attempts to convey the horrors of the Vietnam War. This writing style has distinguished Tim O’Brien from many other authors that wrote in the same genre and conveyed their respective style. In The Things They carried, the treatment of the Vietnam War is very precise, in the meaning of the nature of the war itself. It is a collection of short stories that contain near-fictional characters accounting their experiences in the Vietnam War. This near-fiction becomes troubling for the readers of Tim O’Brien. The readers listen to the author telling them stories about his experiences about the war differently, on many occasions through interviews, real life and then the narratives in The Things They Carried which also adds to the ambiguity of the prime narrative of the author that is near-fiction or near-fact. Tobey C. Herzog analyzes this prime narrative in his paper “Tim O’Brien “True Lies”” and presents us with eight hypothesis that may explain the behavior of the author and his prime narrative of story-truths. This paper will attempt to analyze one of the eight hypothesis and try to judge its worth for explaining the prime narrative of “True Lies” that are relevant in the life and works of Tim O’Brien.
The title of the book itself couldn’t be more fitting. The Things They Carried is a semi-autobiographical novel written by Tim O'Brien about soldiers trying to live through the Vietnam War. These men deal with many struggles and hardships. Throughout this essay I will provide insight into three of the the numerous themes seen throughout the novel: burdens, truth, and death.
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.
As students we are brainwashed by ancient myths such as The Iliad, where war is extolled and the valorous warrior praised. Yet, modern novels such as Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried (THINGS) challenge those very notions. Like The Iliad, THINGS is about war. It is about battles and soldiers, victory and survival, yet the message O'Brien gives us in THINGS runs almost contradictory to the traditional war story. Whereas traditional stories of war take place on battlefields where soldier battles soldier and the mettle of man is tested, O'Brien's battle occurs in the shadowy, private place of a soldier's mind. Like the Vietnam War itself, THINGS forces Americans to question the foundations of their beliefs and values because it calls attention to the inner conscience. More than a war story, O'Brien's The Things They Carried is an expose on personal courage. Gone are the brave and glorious warriors such as those found in the battle of Troy. In THINGS, they are replaced by young men who experience not glory or bravery, but fear, horror, and a personal sense of shame. As mythic courage clashes with the modern's experience of it, a battle is waged in THINGS that isn't confined to the rice-patties, jungles, and shit-fields of Vietnam. Carrying more than the typical soldier's wares, O'Brien's narrator is armed with an arsenal of feelings and words that slash away at an invisible enemy that is the myth of courage, on an invisible battlefield that is the Vietnam veteran's mind.
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
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