More handpicked essays just for you.
Tim o'brien how to tell a war story analysis
Tim o'brien how to tell a war story analysis
Tim o'brien how to tell a war story analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Tim o'brien how to tell a war story analysis
I didn’t really expect anything one way or another from Tim O’Brian’s view of what a war story is. I grew up watching the World War II movies on the weekend TV, they had a good guy (Allies) vs. bad guy (Axis) feel to them. The Allied soldiers fought honorably and the Axis not so much. Later in the Eighties and Nineties, I watched the Vietnam movies and some TV shows that portrayed a different message. That the good guys were capable of doing bad things and Vice versa. So I guess if I were to expect anything from Tim O’Brian It would be the later viewpoint of no absolute good, and the toll of physical and emotional struggle. I was surprised to read that it was neither of those things. Instead, Tim O’Brian says the war story is mostly about
trying to relay a feeling, mental picture, surreal event or moment in time to somebody who was not there and could not possibly understand the gravity or sharp contrast or whatever it is that make the memories exist for the story teller. I think what may be most surprising to some is that Tim O’Brian says that war can be exciting and beautiful while at the same time being terrifying and ugly. The true war story seems to be as hard to understand for the teller as it is for the listener.
Capturing the realities of war is not everyone's cup of tea. One has to be feel the emotions that inspire vivid imagery in words. True war stories can be written based off of true events that have occurred and bring out emotions in the poets who witness them. Brian Turner, author of 2000 lbs, stated in an interview that while in Iraq, he felt “very isolated from the relevance of what felt like a prior life”(poemoftheweek.com). Its seems like a split from life at home to a warzone with conflicting feelings. He began capturing his experiences of the war in the form of poetry. Brian Turner turned his Iraq war experience and his masters degree in literature and poetry into an opportunity to oppose the resolution of conflict through war. Tim O’Brien is a Vietnam Warr veteran who struggled with PTSD and Turner’s opinions in his story, “2000 lbs,” share similarities with “How To Tell A True War Story”. Turner’s poem 2000 lbs describes a suicide
Tim O'Brien is confused about the Vietnam War. He is getting drafted into it, but is also protesting it. He gets to boot camp and finds it very difficult to know that he is going off to a country far away from home and fighting a war that he didn't believe was morally right. Before O'Brien gets to Vietnam he visits a military Chaplin about his problem with the war. "O'Brien I am really surprised to hear this. You're a good kid but you are betraying you country when you say these things"(60). This says a lot about O'Brien's views on the Vietnam War. In the reading of the book, If I Die in a Combat Zone, Tim O'Brien explains his struggles in boot camp and when he is a foot soldier in Vietnam.
about the war and his lack of place in his old society. The war becomes
O Brien 's point of view is an accurate one as he himself because he is a Vietnam veteran. The title of the short story is meaningful because it describes each soldier’s personality and how he handles conflict within the mind and outside of the body during times of strife. The title fits the life as a soldier perfectly because it shows the reality that war is more than just strategy and attacking of forces. O’Brien narrates the story from two points of view: as the author and the view of the characters. His style keeps the reader informed on both the background of things and the story itself at the same
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.
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 Civil War, World War I, the Vietnam War, World War II, and the conflict in the Middle East are all wars that have been fought over the difference of opinions, yet come at the cost of the soldier 's fighting them; Humans killing other humans, and death is just one of the many emotional scars soldiers of war face. Why do we go to war when this is the cost? For many it is because they are unaware of the psychological cost of war, they are only aware of the monetary cost or the personal gains they get from war. Tim O 'Brien addresses the true cost of war in "The Things They Carried". O 'Brien suggests that psychological trauma caused by war warps the perception of life in young Americans drafted into the Vietnam War. He does this through Lieutenant
O’Brien wrote The Things They Carried layering themes on top of themes, but what makes it amazing is the way he presents these themes. Every single one intertwined with another. Burdens. Truth. Death. The soldiers carried their burdens and the death of their friends and enemies, and they live on as storytellers telling their war stories, but can there really be a true war story?
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.
Narratives are an important part of an essay as they create a sense of tone needed to describe a story or situation with ease. If the narrative is not correct, it can leave a false impact on the readers or viewers because it lacks the main tone of the story. Having a perfect narrative can not only enhance a story, but it can also prove evidence. In her essay, “An Army of One: Me”, Jean Twenge provides some of the best examples of how narratives enhance a story and she also emphasizes on how the tone of storytelling matters on the impact that the story would have on its readers or listeners. Apart from Twenge, Tim O’Brien also focuses on how the narrative of the story can help in understanding the truth and falsity of the story in his essay, “How to Tell a True War Story.” In addition to O’Brien, Ethan Watters also emphasizes on the narrative of cultural progress in his essay, “The Mega-Marketing of Depression in Japan”, when he talks about the anti-depressants to be sold in Japan. All three authors agree to the fact that narrative, the art of telling a story or explaining a situation, has a major impact on the story and on how it is taken by the audience.
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
Behind every war there is supposed to be a moral—some reason for fighting. Unfortunately, this is often not the case. O’Brien relays to the readers the truth of the Vietnam War through the graphic descriptions of the man that he killed. After killing the man O’Brien was supposed to feel relief, even victory, but instead he feels grief of killing a man that was not what he had expected. O’Brien is supposed to be the winner, but ends up feeling like the loser. Ironically, the moral or lesson in The Things They Carried is that there is no morality in war. War is vague and illogical because it forces humans into extreme situations that have no obvious solutions.
Throughout the chapter O’Brien uses a technique known as point of view. The point of views in the novel comes from three characters- Azar, Kiowa, and Tim O’Brien himself. The three characters perspectives on war are interpreted entirely different. Tim O’Brien is illustrated as the most sensitive solider out of the three. “His jaw was in his throat, his upper lip and teeth were gone, his one eye was shut, his other eye was a star-shaped hole…” (124). Tim’s sensitivity is revealed when he shows how bewildered he is as he stares at the lifeless Viet Cong body. Tim allows the readers to see that he has remorse about how he took action to stop the Viet Cong solider as he thinks repetitively about the repugnant attack. Tim is also shown as the character that never really talks and is very quite which in turn shows that he is guilty and ashamed. Azar happens to be the solider that is there to complete his job and does not show any sorrow for any actions that may occur. “Oh, man, you fuckin’ trashed the fucker” (125). In the novel, Azar shows that he actually enjoys the work of war and it does not really seem to bother him. Kiowa is more sensible in realizing and understanding what Tim is experiencing. “Tim it’s a war. The guy wasn’t Heidi—he had a weapon, right? It’s a tough thing, for sure but you got to cut out that staring” (126). He knows that what Tim is feeling is really hard for him to grasp because of the astonishment “Take it slow. Just go wherever the spirit takes you.” (126). It is shown that Kiowa has an understanding of Tim but he knows how to deal with the situation at hand.
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