A Class Blog exploring American literature and the American experience.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
The Things They Carried
Today in class we discussed the meaning of what O'Brien wrote at the bottom of page 154. O'Brien says: "That part of the story is my own". What do you think he means by this and why?
I think he means that he added this part of the story to the book. I think he made it up to add more to the story. I gets the reader thinking about the story more after they read it and makes it more emotional. I think he added it because he says this is a work of fiction so he is allowed to make up parts of the story. I understand the other way of viewing it as well it could seem as though it had happened to him and he was just covering it up by using his friends name. I think it could go either way and that is why he did that. He wants the story to be more then just a story and by doing this it changes the way you not only view the story but the whole book.
I think he is trying to say that the scene of Kiowa dying never happened because O’Brien made it up. I believe that he does this to help “train” the reader how to read a war story. From the beginning the reader knows that The Things They Carried is a work of fiction but yet when he reminds us of this we feel disappointed. I also think he says this just for emotional purposes to remind us that it is a work of fiction even though we might forget that while reading it.
I think that this scene actually happened to the narrator, but he uses another character to write about it so that he can focus in on the emotions of the scene rather than the other details. However, he includes this line at the end of the chapter because he doesn't want to move the guilt or other peoples opinions onto someone else. A big part of writing these stories is to help him get over what happened in Vietnam, and he wouldn't be able to do that without overcoming the grief he has over the death of one of his closest friends. Even if O'Brien didn't include this line I would still be skeptical that this event didn't occur to him. Since there was so many personal feelings in it, it was hard not to think that it happened to him. Usually a soldier wouldn't have wanted to talk about such a horrific event so how would he have known so much unless it was actually him who wasn't able to save Kiowa.
I think that O'Brien says this because he made up that part of the story, but even though it wasn't necessarily true, it still conveys an important part of "the truth". If we assume that the rest of this particular story is true except for the part that O'Brien says is his own, then we still believe that Kiowa died in the field. I think that O'Brien includes this added part because although it wasn't Henry Dobbins, or probably anyone's fault that Kiowa died and none of them could have done anything, they still feel guilty. I think that O'Brien includes this to convey the emotions of the whole platoon. This is what I thought when I first read this line and the story before it, but later on, O'Brien hints that it was actually his fault for turning on the flashlight and causing the attack. So after reading that I guess it makes more sense that when O'Brien says "that part of the story is my own" he literally means that he was the one responsible instead of Henry Dobbins.
Today in class, we talked about Postmodernism. I think O'Brien is showing a clear example of postmodernism by explaining to his readers that there is not one truth. Truth is made up by our own perceptions and there is no such thing as ONE truth. O'Brien seems to be rejecting totality, similar to postmodernists, because he wants his readers to see there is not one logical or clear truth to his war stories or even any event in the war. O'Brien is telling his readers that the story is part of his perception of the Vietnam war, which might not necessarily be everyone’s version of the truth, because one, exact version does not exist. At the beginning of the novel, I found myself becoming very frustrated by O'Brien telling these true war stories, then admitting they were not true. Now that I have a clearer understanding of Postmodernism, I can understand why he does this. In the essay we read by Jim Neilson, he criticizes the novel by saying that O'Brien's fact and fiction cannot be separated. I think this is the point O'Brien is trying to make, by saying there is not one solid truth; it is all up to individual perception.
I agree with Jayme that he adds this line for postmodernist reasons. I do think that Kiowa died and that wasn't made up, but O'Brien is trying to portray the fact that not just one person is responsible for his death. He doesn't lay the blame on one character because he believes that they are all a unit and therefore all felt responsible for his death. The guilt for Kiowa's death was felt by everyone in the unit, which is why he adds the line "that part of the story is my own." He wants to remind the reader that no one can be blamed, and everyone in the unit felt the same about Kiowa's death.
I would have to disagree with the idea brought up that Kiowa never died. I think he died; why else would O'brien have traveled back to Vietnam to the same field to sit in it, and bury Kiowa's moccasins?
I think that O'brien added this line at the end because everyone felt guilty or to blame for Kiowa's death. Norman Bowker believed he was guilty because he let go of Kiowa's hand, Jimmy Cross felt guilty for setting up camp in a vulnerable position, the young soldier felt guilty because he turned on a light (that could have given away the camp's position at night) to show Kiowa a picture of his girlfriend, etc. I think the purpose here is to show that everyone felt responsible for Kiowa's death, and has a story as to why they feel that way.
I think the story acutally happened to the narrator. That is how i interpreted it. He uses another name to show his true emotions in the story, becuase it is hard to retell a hard story. Maybe because he cant believe it happened to him and that is why he used different names in the story.
I think he means that he added this part of the story to the book. I think he made it up to add more to the story. I gets the reader thinking about the story more after they read it and makes it more emotional. I think he added it because he says this is a work of fiction so he is allowed to make up parts of the story. I understand the other way of viewing it as well it could seem as though it had happened to him and he was just covering it up by using his friends name. I think it could go either way and that is why he did that. He wants the story to be more then just a story and by doing this it changes the way you not only view the story but the whole book.
ReplyDeleteI think he is trying to say that the scene of Kiowa dying never happened because O’Brien made it up. I believe that he does this to help “train” the reader how to read a war story. From the beginning the reader knows that The Things They Carried is a work of fiction but yet when he reminds us of this we feel disappointed. I also think he says this just for emotional purposes to remind us that it is a work of fiction even though we might forget that while reading it.
ReplyDeleteI think that this scene actually happened to the narrator, but he uses another character to write about it so that he can focus in on the emotions of the scene rather than the other details. However, he includes this line at the end of the chapter because he doesn't want to move the guilt or other peoples opinions onto someone else. A big part of writing these stories is to help him get over what happened in Vietnam, and he wouldn't be able to do that without overcoming the grief he has over the death of one of his closest friends. Even if O'Brien didn't include this line I would still be skeptical that this event didn't occur to him. Since there was so many personal feelings in it, it was hard not to think that it happened to him. Usually a soldier wouldn't have wanted to talk about such a horrific event so how would he have known so much unless it was actually him who wasn't able to save Kiowa.
ReplyDeleteI think that O'Brien says this because he made up that part of the story, but even though it wasn't necessarily true, it still conveys an important part of "the truth". If we assume that the rest of this particular story is true except for the part that O'Brien says is his own, then we still believe that Kiowa died in the field. I think that O'Brien includes this added part because although it wasn't Henry Dobbins, or probably anyone's fault that Kiowa died and none of them could have done anything, they still feel guilty. I think that O'Brien includes this to convey the emotions of the whole platoon. This is what I thought when I first read this line and the story before it, but later on, O'Brien hints that it was actually his fault for turning on the flashlight and causing the attack. So after reading that I guess it makes more sense that when O'Brien says "that part of the story is my own" he literally means that he was the one responsible instead of Henry Dobbins.
ReplyDeleteToday in class, we talked about Postmodernism. I think O'Brien is showing a clear example of postmodernism by explaining to his readers that there is not one truth. Truth is made up by our own perceptions and there is no such thing as ONE truth. O'Brien seems to be rejecting totality, similar to postmodernists, because he wants his readers to see there is not one logical or clear truth to his war stories or even any event in the war. O'Brien is telling his readers that the story is part of his perception of the Vietnam war, which might not necessarily be everyone’s version of the truth, because one, exact version does not exist. At the beginning of the novel, I found myself becoming very frustrated by O'Brien telling these true war stories, then admitting they were not true. Now that I have a clearer understanding of Postmodernism, I can understand why he does this. In the essay we read by Jim Neilson, he criticizes the novel by saying that O'Brien's fact and fiction cannot be separated. I think this is the point O'Brien is trying to make, by saying there is not one solid truth; it is all up to individual perception.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jayme that he adds this line for postmodernist reasons. I do think that Kiowa died and that wasn't made up, but O'Brien is trying to portray the fact that not just one person is responsible for his death. He doesn't lay the blame on one character because he believes that they are all a unit and therefore all felt responsible for his death. The guilt for Kiowa's death was felt by everyone in the unit, which is why he adds the line "that part of the story is my own." He wants to remind the reader that no one can be blamed, and everyone in the unit felt the same about Kiowa's death.
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree with the idea brought up that Kiowa never died. I think he died; why else would O'brien have traveled back to Vietnam to the same field to sit in it, and bury Kiowa's moccasins?
ReplyDeleteI think that O'brien added this line at the end because everyone felt guilty or to blame for Kiowa's death. Norman Bowker believed he was guilty because he let go of Kiowa's hand, Jimmy Cross felt guilty for setting up camp in a vulnerable position, the young soldier felt guilty because he turned on a light (that could have given away the camp's position at night) to show Kiowa a picture of his girlfriend, etc. I think the purpose here is to show that everyone felt responsible for Kiowa's death, and has a story as to why they feel that way.
I think the story acutally happened to the narrator. That is how i interpreted it. He uses another name to show his true emotions in the story, becuase it is hard to retell a hard story. Maybe because he cant believe it happened to him and that is why he used different names in the story.
ReplyDelete