Summary Of Tim O 'Brien's Novel The Things They Carry'

Vincent Salgado

Ms.Ashby

5/14/18

The Things They Carry Final Essay

Stories are a tale of someone’s memories from the past. In addition, they are an account of imaginary characters or events to make the story come alive. In Tim O'Brien's novel, The Things They Carry, O’Brien philosophizes about what stories really are. He obtains the true definition of stories, establishing his own definition on what it is. To O’Brien, a story is a made up of two things, a ‘Story-Truth’ and a ‘Happening-Truth.’ Tim O’Brien says about a ‘Story-Truth’ that someone can lie about parts of the story to make it more believable and enjoyable in the end. A ‘Happening-Truth’ is an actual account of a person’s past events that is true but may be more boring. The stories

Love, How to Tell a True War Story, and Good Form are composed of real and fake elements that either happened or never happened just to emotionally tie the reader into the story.

Tim O’Brien establishes in the story Love that he has met with Jimmy Cross many years after the war to discuss the things they used to do in the past.

They unveil pictures, drink coffee, smoke cigarettes, and more. Later on, Jimmy Cross then talks about his love for Martha to O’Brien. He recounts when Ted Lavender died and burned the picture of Martha as he thought it was his fault for being so encompassed by her love. During this dialogue between the two characters, Cross says “Well, I did- I burned it. After Lavender died, I couldn’t...This is a new one. Martha gave it to me herself (O’Brien 27).” This means that since Cross is recounting a particular story to Tim O’Brien that this is a ‘Happening-Truth.’ The reader can believe this is a ‘Happening-Truth’ because it only would have been Tim O’Brien who would gather this information on Jimmy Cross’s love for Martha and write it in his book. He is also in the actual written book relaying all his experiences in the Vietnam war. This is evident that what he is telling is an actual truth. However, the part that could be a story truth is the hidden quote on page 28 and

29.

“At the end though, as we were walking out to his car, I told him that I’d like to write a story about some of this...“Why not? He said. “Maybe she’ll read it and come begging. “There’s always hope, right? “Right, I said... “Make me out to be a good guy, okay? Brave and handsome, all that stuff. Best platoon leader ever.” (O’Brien, 28 and 29)

While this can be debated by readers, what happened on that day can most likely be remembered vaguely by Tim O’Brien. He most likely had to alter what Jimmy Cross actually said that day when writing his book as it is pretty much impossible for a person to remember word for word what another character said one day in the recent past. This would mean that this quote gives evidence to a ‘Story-Truth’, as O’Brien has to alter what was said that day just to make the story more believable for the reader.

Then in How to Tell a True War Story, Rat Kiley writes a letter to the sister of Curt Lemon that he died while playfully tossing a smoke grenade with Rat Kiley, in the shade of some trees. Lemon stepped into the sunlight and onto a bomb and died. He states how much he loved her brother and how much of a hero he was. In the beginning of this story, O’Brien states from the gecko that the story is true. Although the story is clear in the beginning with claims made by O’Brien, these statements soon turn into counterclaims further on in the story. Later on, it seems that O’Brien contradicts himself. For example, he says that,
“In many cases a true war story cannot be believed . If you believe it, be skeptical. It’s a question of credibility. Often the crazy stuff is true and the normal stuff isn’t, because the normal stuff is necessary to make you believe the truly incredible craziness.” (O’Brien, 68)
He then says in the next line that “in other cases you can’t even tell a true war story. Sometimes it’s just beyond telling (O’Brien,68).” It seems that what O’Brien originally remarked in the beginning of the story means nothing and leaves us, the readers, stumbling over what he’s trying to communicate. We are than baffled again on page seventy-eight when he says, “In war you lose your sense of the definite, hence your sense of truth itself, and therefore it’s safe to say that in a true war story nothing is ever absolutely true.” In this sect, O’Brien gives us the true meaning to what both ‘Story-Truth’ and ‘Happening-Truth’ really are. He says that in war, it is impossible to know and remember everything that happened exactly as it happened, and then while later describing the story, a ‘Story-Truth’ will be needed to fill in the lack of information that can be crucial to the actual truth he is trying to communicate in the end.
Later on in the novel, the Story Good Form answers many questions risen from the readers. All along while O’Brien was giving us information to decipher what a true story really was, it was like he was testing us the whole time. In this story, O’Brien brings his whole novel to a close finally depicting what he wanted us readers to know. He talks about the difference between real truth and story truth. The ‘Story Truth’, “It’s time to be blunt… a long time ago I walked through Quang Ngai Province as a foot soldier. Almost everything else is invented (O’Brien, 171).” He counterclaims what was originally said in The Man I Killed Story which was that he killed a Vietnamese soldier and it was a ‘Story Truth’ the whole time. He is now giving the ‘Happening Truth’ which was he saw a man die on a trail near My Khe, but that he did not kill him. He made up the story so that we the readers can feel what he feels. All-in-all, O’Brien completely lied about The Man I Killed story. He was just there; he did not throw any grenades, talk to any of his platoon mates, and most importantly did not kill the Vietnamese soldier. Tim O’Brien explains why he mislead us and based the whole chapter on a lie.
“I want you to feel what I felt.

I want you to know why story-truth is truer than happening-truth. Here is the happening-truth. I was once a soldier. There were many bodies, real bodies with real faces, but I was young then and I was afraid to look...Here is the story-truth. He was slim, dead, almost dainty young man of about twenty. He lay in the center of a red clay trail near the village of My Khe. His jaw was in his throat. His one eye was shut, the other eye was a star shaped hole. I killed him” (O’Brien, 171 and 172)

O’Brien is reiterating the point that he is trying to make in the novel. In order to feel what he feels he needs to lie in a ‘Story-Truth’ to the reader to bring it all alive. What can be taken away is that in order to get a legitimate war story, there needs to be some sort of ‘Story-Truth’. The ‘Happening-Truth’ is usually saved for the end.

Subsequently, O’Brien has portrayed that in order for readers to truly listen, there needs to be ‘Story-Truth’ to aid ‘Happening-Truth’. Without ‘Story-Truth’, no one would actually listen and in addition there would be gaps in the story if something wasn't reasonably fabricated. Tim O'Brien's meeting with Jimmy Cross post-war, the story of Rat Kiley writing to Curt Lemon's sister on his death, and the complete lie about Tim killing a Vietnamese soldier is the gateway to the foundation that O’Brien lays out for the reader: to be cautious about what parts of a story are inauthentic or

literal.