The narrator of The Things They Carried has the same name as the book's author. How did this affect your response to the book? As you read, think about O'Brien's claim, "A thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth." Although this is a work of fiction, does it indeed tell the "truth"? How so?
In "How to Tell a True War Story," what does the narrator say on this subject? What do you think makes a true war story?
In "Good Form," the narrator says, "I want you to feel what I felt. I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth." What does he mean by "story truth" and "happening-truth"? Why might one be "truer" than the other?
I'm just going to expand on those quotes a bit further. I think what the author is trying to say is that although some things may not happen, we learn from them. Whether it is a myth, fable, or story, there is always a moral - something to learn from. We raise our children to this day with stories that teach them a lesson.
ReplyDeleteTo make a true war story in my opinion, the writer must give the reader a new awareness, and O'Brien did just this to me. Yes, this is a fictional book, but I've learned the cruelty, brotherhood, empathy, foolishness, and brilliance of Man. I have learned what war can do and what devastation it can accomplish. And thus, this work of fiction is true.
very good Luke!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteUnknown, you 7 years late my guy
DeleteAfter finishing The Things They Carried, I found myself quite confused as to what was the truth in the stories and what was added for effect. My out looked had changed drastically from the start to the finish that I felt it necessary to reread the novel with the question of fiction or fact in my mind. At the moment, I have read the book 1.56 times and realized one thing; it does not matter how much of the book is made up. In life there is a distinct line between what happens, and how we feel about it, I believe that this novel is a recreation not of what happened in the war, but how O’Brien felt during his time in the war. This work of fiction is true because many readers felt some of what O’Brien did by his use of fiction to induce emotion. In the chapter, “Good Form,” O’Brien tells the readers about the difference between “story truth” and “happening-truth” I feel that story truth is so much truer than happening truth because story truth embodies the emotion of an experience without being bound by the literal. Whereas happening-truth is strict and closed off to interpretation.
ReplyDeleteO'Brien is an amazing author and I understand in "Good Form" what he completely is saying about "story truth" and "happening-truth". There's somethings in life that are completely true but are sometimes outrageous that people just can't believe it at times. We grow up hearing stories during thunderstorms that its the angels bowling which is making all the thunder and noise or the tooth fairy takes our teeth and gives us money for them. Things happen that are true that we just can't believe yet some things we believe that we just don't doubt because we've been raised hearing stories.
ReplyDeleteI guess its all about perecption and your logical views on things. To create a good war story you have to have the power to control the readers attention and make them believe even if the things that are being told aren't completely true. When rat was telling the story about the greenies and Mary he had everyone who was listening on the edge of their seats. You have to make doubters believers and grip the beleivers imagination. It's all about pereception.
Due to the fact I seem to care too much about other people, I carry the burden of other's problems, along with my own. On the other hand, people confide in me to help them whenever they need it. When it comes to physical aspects, I carry my phone and my iPod. My phone, because I feel at ease knowing I have close connections to my friends and family in case of emergencies or other important situations. My iPod, because music is my passion and carrying that with me is comforting.
ReplyDeletePeople see you from the outside; your physical stance. What they do not see is the truth behind your actions. One often lies to cover up the feelings that may be difficult to express, for yourself or for others. For instance, a soldier may kill an enemy and walk off with no words said or no emotions shown. Well, that is a lie. What actually happens is what you cannot see. That particular soldier is exploding with emotions and thoughts on the inside. "That man must have a family." "He won't be going home." "I have to move fast so I don't end up like him." That is the truth.
O'Brien sends the message that a true war story has nothing to do with courage and heroism, but about the reality of the inability of soldiers to properly deal with their feelings about a terrible experience. What makes a true war story, I believe, is providing exaggerated details and maybe adding a few more situations to illustrate the emotions that were actually felt, because there are no words to express how surreal war is. That is why story-truth is truer than happening-truth, because the true feelings can only be expressed by exaggerated details, or lies.
O’Brien’s novel is a front-row-seat of what really happened during the Vietnam War. He wants the reader to be immersed in the experience thus explaining why he put himself in the novel. He uses fictional stories to explain the truth to people who do not understand. So even though they didn’t actually happen, the feelings, emotions, and ideas that happened within the story are completely and utterly true. What really happened however could be confusing and the reader may get the wrong ideas and feelings behind the event, making it a total lie. The novel may be fictional, but I believe O’Brien makes the reader understand the emotions and thoughts during the war through his stories. In conclusion, a true war story conveys all the feeling and emotional burden of the moment, but may not necessarily 100% fact.
ReplyDeleteI would just like to elaborate on O'Brien's quotes. I believe that although a story may be fiction, it still has a moral, or truth, that we can learn from. For instance, in the fairytales and fables we were taught as kids, we learned guidelines such as treat people the way you want to be treated and not to trust every single thing that comes out of a person's mouth. On page 68, Tim says, "A true war story is never moral." He goes on by practically implying that a true war story will not have an uplifting or happy ending. I completely agree with O'Brien on this statement. The war is a very hostile, sad environment to be in. I think a true war story is full of courage, bravery, gore, intensity, and sometimes panic. I've heard some very tragic stories about many different occurences during war, and I believe you can tell a true war story from a made-up one by the way the narrator tells it. If you're being told one in person, you'll see the emotion in the story tellers eyes, and you'll feel the pain and agony they felt. In "Good Form", when Tim mentions story-truth and happening-truth, I think what he is trying to say is that story-truth is the factual stories where a witness was present. By happening-truth, he means that it could happen, and if it were to, the same moral would be implied.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteO'Brien has such a unique writing style, one that is very descriptive and precise, that it almost feels that if he was not the narrator in the story it would almost make the stories seem too untrue, like the story of Kiowa or getting revenge on Bobby Jorgenson. Although this book may fiction, I do find the "realness" of the book to be true. "How to Tell a True War Story" was actually my favorite chapter of the book because it helps O'Brien clarify his thought. When he says, "A true war story is never moral" O'Brien is trying to say that you should not feel uplifted after you hear a war story, it is not meant teach you something of greater use. O'Brien also says, "It's difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen." He is trying to say that what you remember from war may not even be true but may seem like the truth. O'Brien also elaborates on the fact that you can tell a true war story without an ending, because sometimes the truth is not knowing the ending to a story even though you want to believe that there is. When reading "Good Form" I was honestly confused when O'Brien starts to talk about "story-truth" and "happening-truth". I think he is trying to say that even if it didn't actually happen it could have happened and the same effect that you got from the "happening-truth" you would also get from the "story-truth".
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the narrator's name is the same as the author of the book's, made me feel like the book was more true. Almost like it was a journal of his that he just rewrote into a novel. Even though this is a work of fiction, I think it tells the truth of the war. Some things may be exaggerated, but if they weren't, the reader wouldn't understand the true emotions of the soldier in the story. The soldier didn't see everything happen with his own eyes, but telling a story and making up something similar that happened somehow makes it true, just because the reader captures that emotion and feels it. It puts the reader more into the narrator's shoes.
ReplyDeleteThrough the entirety of this novel I never felt as if I was in Vietnam with the author, O'Brien. Whenever I sat down to read another few stories I felt as if I was reading over his shoulder as he wrote from his past experiences in war. I'm uncertain whether he had tried to bring the reader to war with him or do as it had to me.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that was never 20/20 for me through most of the novel was what was fact and what was purely fiction. It only occurred to me after thinking about it before falling asleep one night that a story can be fiction but still be true. O'Brien may have exaggerated, twisted or just plain made up stories but in the entirety of the war these stories were true. They could be fiction to one person and stand as obvious truth to the next. What differentiated these stories is what held me captive trying to figure out. I simply could never sort out the facts from the fiction. That is the greatest part of this book.
Though this book may be fiction the way O'Brien writes makes you feel like he's taking it from his own memory, I personally really like that. With that him being the narrator of the story makes you feel that even more. In "How to Tell a True War Story" the narrator makes n amazing point by saying "A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing things men have always done. If a story seems moral, do not believe it." War isn't moral. There's no right or wrong. For me what makes a true war story is when you feel like you've taken something from it but can't quite explain it.
ReplyDeleteWhen I began reading this novel, I was sure that it was a work of nonfiction. It seemed to be told as an autobiography, it was realistic enough, and each moment was extremely detailed. Then, O'Brien talks of the story-truth and the happening-truth and of his objective to make the readers believe and feel the true war stories. To describe my view, this story of The Things They Carried is as true as anything and everything I've ever seen or heard. The stories and thoughts may be fiction and completely false, but the message is just the same. Sometimes the story-truth is easier to believe - it fits into our preconceived notions - and it takes more for the happening-truth to be believed because the absolute truth is scary, which fits into what O'Brien says about true war stories. From what this novel depicts, the truth is scary, unbelievable, and even a bit hard to swallow, but that's what makes the truth, the truth. Telling the truth is a whole other topic, because making someone else believe the truth - believe it or not - requires some alterations. Tim O'Brien's is advanced in this area of expertise, which truly shows through his writing style.
ReplyDeleteKnowing that the author of the book and the narrator of The Things They Carried shared the same name left me to think that they were O’Brien’s memories or an experience that he or someone close to him had had. While I was reading I was continuously thinking of how all of the stories were connected and how O’Brien was able to tell the truth in a work of fiction. This book tells the truth because everything that happens we can learn from and we learn from the truth. In “How to Tell a True War Story” the narrator says “And then afterward, when you go to tell about it, there is always that surreal seemingness, which makes the story seem untrue, but which in fact represents the hard and exact truth as it seemed.” In saying this he means that some things appear different than what they are, but it doesn’t mean that they too aren’t true. A true war story is not a story that is said to make one appear superior, it is a story that is said to explain what happened and what was felt during the crazy terror of war.
ReplyDeleteStory-truth is the truth that is told in telling a story. When telling a story one tends to change things because they incorporate their feelings into the story. Therefore the story now is not composed of what exactly happened, but of the memory that it left and all of the different things that were connected to it. Happening-truth is what actually happened without any feelings or opinions connected to it. Both story-truth and happening-truth are true, but sometimes one may be truer than another. Story-truth tells the truth that is behind the feelings that were connected to what was happening. While happening-truth is the truth of what happened and why it happened. Depending on what kind of truth one is looking for will decide what is truer, story-truth or happening-truth, which one is it for you?
When I began reading, I immediately assumed that the book was nonfiction. The author's name was the same as the main character and the details in which he writes make the story jump to life. He writes as if it was true and he felt all those emotions. Though this work is fiction, I find it completely true to things everyone faces in reality. O'Brien uses messages and thoughts that we can use in our own lives. O'Brien describes a war story as the crazy what happened mixed with the emotions and exaggerations left in our brain. It's how the one telling it saw and remembers the moment. When you start to add emotions into a story and make people feel what you felt it is the "story truth." You tell what happened in more of a story while adding your own thoughts and beliefs into it. The "happening truth" is just the dry-cut story. No emotion, just facts of exactly what happened. This makes "story truths" more real and believable to me because when you add emotion and depth into something it makes it pop alive and puts you in the moment. That makes it believable because you can feel what it must have been like to be there and experience it.
ReplyDeleteIn How to Tell a True War Story O’Brien points out a lot of things that makes a war story true. He says things like; if it’s believable it’s not true. The more outrageous, the more likely it is that it happened like with Curt Lemon. Another point was that not all war stories have a moral, or a hero, or a dead person. Not all stories are during the action, some are on R&R, some are spending time in a foxhole, some are just on patrol.
ReplyDeleteWhat I think makes a good war story is how a person tells it. Give your opinion here or there like Rat does and Mitchell says not to do. But don’t make your opinion the story. Give the story space to tell itself and don’t stretch it too much. Just tell it how it was don’t sugar coat it. If you need to cuss then cuss, if you need to pause and take a moment then do that too. Whatever it takes to make the story feel as a real as the actual thing. Add more story - truth. Story - truth I think means to add more emotion and depth. Happening truth might be sullen and monotone and won't give the story the full effect someone is trying to portray.
I believe that even though “The Things They Carried” is fiction, it does tell the “truth”. This book tells readers about what happens in real war experiences, even though it is fiction. All of the stories in this book teach us a different lesson. When O’Brien decides to go into the war, it teaches us what it means to be courageous. This book shows readers how to overcome different situations in life. Also, it provides some examples of different scenarios that might happen in the war for anyone that is interested in enlisting. In “How to Tell a True War Story” the narrator says that a true war story is supposed to make the listener believe. He says if it has a happy ending and everything works out how it is supposed to in the end, then it is not a true war story. To me, true war stories are supposed to be the cold, hard, truth and nothing but it. In my head, I think of a true war story as gruesome and cold. I don’t think of happy endings and everything being okay. I don’t think war stories are positive. In “Good Form”, the author uses the terms “story-truth” and happening-truth”. By “story-truth”, I think he means what you hear from the person telling the story. Some details are left out, and not every little detail is exactly what happened. By “happening-truth”, I think he means what actually happened on the day of the incident. I think “happening-truth” might be truer than the other because that is what happened exactly with no details missing or no details being wrong. Over time, the storyteller might forget something or mix up details, but the happening-truth will always be what exactly happened.
ReplyDeleteI feel like when O’Brien says, “I want you to feel what I felt”, that is the only truth there is to a war story or any story for that matter. A true war story is supposed to depict what war is/was like for that particular story teller. Regardless of what actually happened and what they thought happened, said happened but didn’t or even thought up completely in their mind. The truth comes from the storyteller’s soul, what made them stop and remember these things, what effect did that event or thought left on their personality? The truth comes from the person’s emotion. If they can bring you on their level and make you perceive things the way they did, they have told you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The story truth is different from the happening truth because the way each person or soldier perceived what happened is different. Which means a story told by each person that experienced this is the absolute truth, they blend what happened with what they feel about it, what it did to them on a personal level, and what was something so special to them about that event that makes the story worth sharing?
ReplyDeleteWhen I first began reading the novel "The Things They Carried" by Tim O'Brien, I thought that the story was nonfiction. The way the writer wrote made it seem like these were stories from his past. I believe that he did show the "truth" throughout the novel. He showed the true emotions and feelings of what a person felt like during the Vietnam war. When he described the way Lieutenant Jimmy Cross felt when Lavender died, it made it seem like it was an emotion that he had felt before or a past experiance that has happened to him. To write a good war story, you have to put real events or real emotions that have happened in. If you didn't use real emotions or events that have happened, then you have no truth in the story.
ReplyDeletePersonally, i have never read a book where the author actually puts his name inside the book. I mean yeah most authors like to put someone who resembles them in their book but not actually the same exact person. By doing this O'Brien proves to me that he knows the subject material well, he is confident in his ability of storytelling, and that he is passionate on the subject of war. To me putting yourself in the story ensures me that this will be a great book, which it was. Now that i ask myself if it is indeed a work of fiction, i'm not so sure on my answer. While reading this novel i had to constantly remind myself that the events in this book didn't really happen, or did they? Some of the stories may be true while others are not. But as far as my opinion goes, this book delivers nothing but the truth. The stories, emotion, details, encounters, and feelings cannot possibly be more true. The reason i feel this book is the truth is because it's not just an interpenetration of the war taught by present day history teachers, it's the thoughts and feeling of American soldiers as they crossed Vietnam back in the years 1955-1975. War stories are hard to interpret but O'Brien did an excellent job. A war story not only needs to have historical accurate information, but it needs to emphasize what war really was. You can't extract the meaning of a war story without unraveling the deeper meaning, which is exactly what O'Brien accomplished. I believe the difference between "story-truth" and "happening-truth" is based upon the readers past emotions and experiences. O'Brien clearly divides what really happened in the war and his thoughts on what happened. When the reader is able to distinguish the two truth's they will be more able to easily relate to the "story-truth" because the emotions that the narrator is expressing lets the reader relate to them. The reader doesn't know what really happened in Vietnam, but it's possible for the reader to relate to the feelings of the fellow soldiers based on their past experience's which enhances the book and the reader makes a real-life connection. So in conclusion, "story-truth" will always be more true.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, having Tim O'brian as the author and the name of the narrator made me think that it was more of an autobiography than a story. Along with that, it made me feel like there was more of a connection to the narrator than there would've been if they had two different names. Also, I realized how well O'brian can tell stories and how well he can write, being able to convince the reader that the author was actually there is an amazing feat. On the subject of the "story truth" and "actual truth", more times than not, if a story is being told it will be exaggerated and parts may be left out. No one has perfect memory of things that happen to them. The story truth may show emphasis on moments that were big to the story teller, that in reality could of been minuscule compared to the rest.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that Tim O'Brian has put his name into the novel, as a main character shows his confidence and his knowledge of the subject of the Vietnam war. It also shows how passionate he is about the subject and how heartfelt the writing is. O'Brian's writing style captures the reality of war, and makes the reader feel as if all of what was happening throughout the novel was a first hand experience for O'Brian.
ReplyDeleteIn the novel O'Brian claims that "A thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth." I personally believe that the quote can go many directions, depending on your mind set. "A thing may happen and be a total lie" to me means that you or someone else may do something, or experience something and neglect certain parts of the truth, or your mind could change many details about the truth to make it more bearable for yourself to handle and deal with. As for the quote "Another thing may happen and be a total lie", I cannot decide what it means to me. I'm torn about how I feel about the whole quote in all honesty. As for the "story truth" I believe it means that there is the honest to God truth, and the truth that people and their minds make up and the "story truth" being the twisted, sugar-coated truth that your mind makes up. The story truth could be strongly exaggerated to suit the story teller and make it sound more suiting to what they're trying to portray through telling it.
The authors choice of using his own name in this novel makes it seem much more personal and believable. It made me want to read the book more because it felt like I was getting to know a real person. I think The Things They Carried tells the truth because even though the events may not have happened in real life the emotions portrayed in the stories did happen. O’Brien makes it clear that he knows a lot about the subject and brings his knowledge into the story so that readers can feel what really went on. Happening-truth is the raw fact. No embellishments, just a play-by-play. A story-truth lets in the emotion of whoever is telling the tale. A story-truth is truer than the happening-truth because it can make the reader feel what happened. If someone feels as if they experienced the story it makes it more believable to them, whereas cold, hard facts can make it boring and unimportant.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen O'Brien uses his own name in the novel it makes the book seem more interesting. It makes the meaning behind the words have more emotion. In "The Things They Carried" the events may not have been completely true but the emotions behind the events are true. That is why I believe that story-truth is truer than happening-truth. If there is enough emotions behind the story than it doesn't matter if it actually happened. Therefor the story is truer than reality.
ReplyDeleteThe narrator of “The Things They Carried” having the same name as the author of the book makes the story seem like it is non-fiction. I actually thought it was a true story when I started to read it. Although this is a fiction novel, it still does tell the truth because the stories that are told and emotions that are felt and portrayed throughout the novel are things that could’ve actually happened during the war. The novel makes it seem like you are there with the characters and the event is happening right in front of you. In “How To Tell A True War Story” the narrator says that real war stories don’t have a point or a moral. They make you believe, deep down that it really happened instead of generalizing about the subject. To me, making the listener or reader believe what you are saying is the biggest priority in a true war story. In “Good Form” the narrator talks about “happening-truth” and “story-truth”. Happening-truth is the facts of what happened, no emotion put into the writing, but instead stating what happened. But in story-truth, there is a lot more emotion put into the story because it is written to make you believe and feel that it is happening in the present time. That is why story-truth can be “truer” than happening-truth.
ReplyDeleteI feel that O'Brien used his own name in the book to make the reader think that this was a true story. To be completely honest I thought it was a "true story" and when I realized it was fiction I was disappointed! Reading O'Brien's name throughout the book made me even more interested in finding out what would happen in the next story! I think that even though "The Things They Carried" is a fictional book it does tell the "truth". It shows the reader what happens in real war experiences and by the way he put it into words just makes you picture it in your mind. In “How to Tell a True War Story” the narrator says that if it has a happy ending and everything works out how it is supposed to in the end, then it is not a true war story. To me I think a true story isn't supposed to have a "happy ending" especially when associated with war because nothing is happy about war. A true story is supposed to be nothing but the truth which most of the time it's dark and disappointing but to me that's what a true story is. War is a scary topic and most likely doesn't end well which is how I would expect a "true war story" to end. "Happening truth" and "Story truth" have two different meanings to me. "Happening truth" is the cold, hard truth of the facts that took place during that time. "Story truth" is more about the emotions that make up well a story! I think that the "Happening truth" can be truer than the "story truth" because happening means that the details are all there, the person actually experienced it whereas story there could be missing details.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this story is fiction, O’Brien wrote this book to appear like it’s from his own memory. It made me feel like I was reading out of his diary. When I first started reading this book I actually did think it was nonfiction. Everything was so comprehensive I felt like I was there. I believe this story still tells the truth though. So many people can relate to all sorts of things during the story. He showed true emotions, thoughts, and feelings throughout war. In "How to Tell a True War Story," the narrator says that if the story has a happy ending with nothing going wrong, then it is not a true war story. My idea of a true war story is a story that shows the true feelings, emotions, and specific details. I agree with O’Brien as well. If it has a perfect happy ending, then it’s not a true war story. In “Good Form,” the narrator says “I want you to feel what I felt. I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth.” The “story truth” is when you add your own thoughts, more depth, feelings, and beliefs into it. The “happening truth” is the actual truth. The “happening truth wouldn't have as great of effect as the “story truth.”
ReplyDeleteThroughout this book I kept forgetting that it was fiction. O'Brien did a wonderful job at writing this book. Because the narrator and the author have the same name it made the book that much more “true” and believable. This book does indeed tell the “truth” because it tells how certain events in a person’s life can change them and how friendship and courage and other things can affect a person and play an important part in their life. O’Brien says “a true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things men have always done”. He says that “you can tell a true war story by its absolute and uncompromising allegiance to obscenity and evil”. I think a true war story should be believable and the person listening to it can feel like they are there and experiencing it at the same time the person is telling it. Happening truth are things that actually occurred and story truths didn’t happen but may seem like it. Just because something actually happened doesn’t mean that it’s believable. Some stories are more “true” or believable than things that actually happened. One might be truer than the other because it’s more believable and seems likely to occur.
ReplyDeleteEven though The Things They Carried is a fiction novel, it does teach us the truth behind real war stories. When figuring out that the author of the book and the narrator in the book had the same name I started to realize that O’Brien must have experienced this war life himself. One cannot re-tell some of the scenarios from a war as well unless they witnessed it themselves. O’Brien talks about the story-truth and the happening-truth and tries to get readers to picture the war like stories as they really happened. Sometimes it may be easier to tell or a story when it is revised so that people that did not witness the scene will still be able to understand. O’Brien’s whole message is based on trying to show readers that war is an unbelievably bazar scene that may involve gruesome and unrealistic things. O’Brien states that the happening-truth may be harder to believe, but it is the scary truth. The story-truth is the truth that is behind the feelings of what was happening. Depending on which type of truth is told it will alter the story and change the reader’s perception. Personally I enjoy reading the happening-truth more because it teaches me about real war situations and not just the feelings.
ReplyDeleteThe novel may have been fictional, but it does not mean that a good portion of the book was not true. O'Brien did indeed serve in Vietnam and most likely experienced things we will never understand. For example: take the chapter titled "The Man I Killed," the amount of description thrown into that chapter describing the body was clearly a traumatizing experience. O'Brien practically painted a picture, I could see the body imprinted in my head as I read. He described it as if it was just the other day that he killed the man. None of us can understand now and maybe never what it feels like to take someones life. I personally think that many people like to ignore reality of warfare, the feelings, sights, sounds, smells, etc. Which is why being labeled fiction makes people have a different outlook on the whole book. Like I said personally I think a greater part of it could be true than most would like to believe. Story truth contains more emotion, it's the truest form in the eyes of the one experiencing a given situation. For example, a man shooting at someone would see dust flying when the bullets hit walls or the cover the victim is hiding behind and the thundering noise of his gun. That is the happening truth. To the man/woman hiding, their life is flashing before their eyes, adrenaline starts rushing and noises seem to cancel out as everything moves to slow motion. That is story truth, an embellished version or exaggerated, but real to the one experiencing it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThough the novel is fictional, O'Brien has incorporated many events in his work that have a strong chance of being true occurrences. O'Brien is sharing experiences in a book labeled fiction, but there's no way of knowing the honest truth. I suppose it relates to what he says in the chapter "A True War Story" about the way the one listening to the story feels about it at the end. O'Brien writes that a true war story never seems to end and that it never will. He says that you never want to believe that it happened, and I found this to be true as I continued to read the novel. While it wasn't the most gruesome, I found myself cringing at the story of the baby water buffalo as I read. Rat shot at the poor creature because his best friend had recently been killed by a booby trap while goofing around and trying to keep a sense of mind in the land they called "Hell". Lemon's death was also a sad event, and at first I found myself wanting to say that he had not stepped on a serious trap, just a net that scooped him up into the trees. When O'Brien first described the scene, that is what it sounded like but as he went deeper into what happened, I realized Lemon was dead. I couldn't imagine the pain his friend Rat had, but he nearly tortured a young animal just because he was so torn up over Lemon's death. I cannot even fathom mourning the loss of a friend that was caused by such innocent actions and seeing it happen. Personally, I find story truth more appealing because it snags your attention both mentally and emotionally. It gives the reader a chance to interrupt and feel the way they would feel in the same situation.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the name of the narrator and the author of "The Things They Carried" were the same completely made me believe it was a non-fiction. Not until I read further and realized it was fiction did I finally see what he was trying to convey about war stories. O'Brien tells us that the happening-truth may be harder to believe because it may be harsh and scary. Whereas the story-truth is told behind the feelings, thoughts, and beliefs of what is really happening. In “Good Form,” the O'Brien says, “I want you to feel what I felt. I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth.” But even thought I know that this story is fiction, I still believe that some of the events that take place could be real. No one really knows for sure so who's to say they aren't, well other than O'Brien himself.
ReplyDeleteWhen I see that the name of the narrator and the author of "The Things They Carried" was the same, I immediately thought that the book was non-fiction. I did not fully realize that the book was not until the author wrote things like “Everything I just said was a lie....." O'Brien writes of a time of war, he writes of sadness, and burdens, and death, all things that are very real, more real to some of us than others. The fact that he writes about things that are so real makes you want to believe that what he is telling you is nothing other than the truth. He makes you feel how he felt, he makes your nose smell what he had smelled, and it makes your eyes see what he had seen. I believe that although this book is fiction it does in fact tell the truth. What was written with pen and paper could have been just as real as what had been seen and heard. On "How to Tell a True War Story" the narrator says that in order to tell a true story you need the reader to feel how you felt. He says that in order to tell a true story you have to lie here and there. I believe that what he says is truth. Sometimes you want to make someone feel how you felt so bad that you have to exaggerate in order for them to understand. You know that if you just tell the truth they won’t be able to see what you saw.
ReplyDeleteTo me story truth is when an author has to lie or exaggerate in order for you to feel how the character feels. Happening- Truth is what really happened but the author knows that because we were not there we would never really be able to fathom what had really happened.
With the narrator and the author being the same person really makes the stories feel more true as it is. He also creates good realism by how he describes everything so thoroughly and his real guilt of death. Saying that this book is fiction, if you gave this to someone and asked them to read it they might not be able to tell this is a fictional story. I haven't been in any wars, but this book describes exactly what I've always wondered about war. O'Brien really is great at creating a real situation out of nothing. - Riley Heuker -
ReplyDeleteWhen I first started reading the novel and figured out that the author was indeed the main character in the story it made it very easy to accept it as non-fiction literature even though it isn’t. O’Brien tells his stories with an absolute truthfulness to them which allowed me to feel the realness in the stories. He captures the feelings and reactions in each situation which helps the reader to better understand what actually happened. If the contents of the novel were the “happening truth” then the reader wouldn’t get enough out of the story to truly get the gist of what the author is trying to convey. The reader wouldn’t be able to relate to the story and I believe that it the most important thing an author needs to focus on when writing a potentially successful novel. O’Brien was extremely successful in allowing the reader to get the “truth” that each and every one individually needs for them to believe in it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete