Contribute two (2) responses in the following ways:
*Post a response to one of the questions below
*Post a response to a peer's comment
*Post a thought-provoking question of your own about one of O'Brien's stories or the work as a whole for your peers to ponder
Questions:
1) Although The Things They Carried contains a story called "The Man I Killed" it is unclear whether O'Brien actually killed anyone in Vietnam. What purpose does this ambiguity serve?
2) What do the terms "truth" and "reality" mean in the context of this book? How do they
differ?
3) How does shame fit into O'Brien's portrayal of the war experience?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2) When O'Brien talks about truth, that does not mean that it actually happened. Reality is about what actually occurred. Telling a story truth can mean that he is twisting the story in a way that helps you to understand how it feels to experience the reality of what actually happened.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: What is the true nature of fiction, as portrayed by Tim O'Brien?
1) The ambiguity serves the purpose of the guilt O'Brien feels seeing a man dead from being a soldier. It wasn't the thought that he killed someone, but was the feeling of seeing a dead man that was important. He talks about the "man he killed" as if he knew the man's life. He puts the dead man into a life that is similar to his own. It can compare to the horrors and the life left behind when killed during war.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: What purpose does O'Brien writing in third person give?
I agree with christopher when he says that when O'Brien talks about truth, it is not what actually happened. In the novel, O'Brien states hisself in the chapter "how to tell a true war story", "a true war story is never moral...if a story seems moral,do not beleive it." Throughout the rest of the chapter and book their are soldiers telling their war story that is exaggerated and known not to be the full truth. So the reality of the war story comes after you learn that the "true" war story is not true.
ReplyDeleteTim O’Brien twists the story in order to approach more to his audience. Through the use of imagery, and writing as if he had the killed of the militia soldier at My Khe, Tim O’Brien makes the audience more involved in the story in way that he makes them feel his emotions of killing a man, even thou it was not true.
ReplyDelete1) O'Brien wanted the reader to see that it didn't matter whether or not he actually killed the man. The emotions the reader felt when reading the story is all that matters. He wanted us to feel what he was feeling during the war, because there's more to war than just the physical pain and hardships. Along with it comes emotional burdens and sometimes guilt you feel for having to kill someone. The art of telling a true war story doesn't neccessarily have to just be about the physical action. Attaching emotions, and making the listener feel whet he felt had a deeper impact on telling it.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: What did O'Brien lose and gain both mentally and physically by serving in the war?
1. I think the ambiguity serves as a way for Tim to detach himself from the actual event. He doesn't focus on the actual killing of the man, but instead the fact he took away a man's future. In the story he creates for the dead man he basically tells the story of what happened to him. His future is taken away and he is put in a situation he's not made for. Tim sees himself as the dead man and not the killer.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: What purpose did revisiting Vietnam serve to Tim?
-Tatiana Pomerantz
Response to Tatiana Pomerantz
ReplyDeleteTim O'Brein's purpose in revising Vietnam is a way to express his emotional burden, which his family and people who did not go into war do not understand. Because the hardest part of every war is to start over. Individuals have to deal with the gruesome memories of killing other human beings. Not only that, the fact that people cannot understand their situation makes them impotent. Thus Tim O’Brein revises his experience in Vietnam in order to leave behind at least some of his emotional baggage.
Response to question number 3: shame fits into O'Brien's portryal of the war experience because shame is the reason why he joined the war in the first place. When choosing between canada and the draft he returned home because he was ashamed and embarassed not to. Shame is the beginning of O'Brien's war feelings.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: How does the death of Linda change Tim's outlook on life? How does it affect Tim's innocence?
-Erin
1. The ambiguity shows that whether or not Tim killed anyone he still felt as though he was guilty of killing someone.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: What purpose did revisiting Vietnam serve to Tim?
It helped Tim find closure in the death of one of his friends and to help his family understand what he had gone through.
1. The ambiguity serves because O'Brein indirectly states what happened and leads the reader to believe one thing however, not openly stating it thus letting the reader infer as to what happened.
ReplyDelete3. O'Brein feels the same in participating in a war that he didn't feel was right to begin with and the shame is triggered by the dead soilder and is felt throughout the story and is fueled by events like the hanging of his fellow soilders after the war and his daughter asking questions in the future.
- Rishi
3. Shame fits into O'brien's protrayal of the war experience because he thought that if he backed down from the war then he would be a disgrace to his country and if he went to war then he would be a disgrace to his family and leave them with the worriment of never coming back.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Did Tim feel shame from his family because of his decision to enter the war after he came back?
-Hristo Alexandrov
----
ReplyDeletemy response to this, is that he wanted to preserve some side of him taht was not "captured" by the animilistic parst of war. when u go to war, you kill. So his ambiguity was that of him, not wanting to reveal to the audience- and to himself that all part of him were touched by the war. Its like by recognising that he did really killed somebody he was full turned into a soilder. 100%. whereas, if he didnt, there r some gray areas.
i believe tim o briens ambiguity is used to protect from immortalizing his murder through his writing. this story is almost like a foil to his story about his childhood friend linda. this story is a story he strives to immortalize
ReplyDeletejordan schroeder
Two. The difference between truth and reality within the confines of 'The Things They Carried' is exponential. War isn't your everyday environment, its something raw and something so surreal to our everyday sheltered world. In the chapter 'How to Tell a True War Story' he gives a prime example about how one story, could have physically happened, but it still be unreal. While a total false tale could be more real than absolute truth. Something that really happened may not capture the reality of war. Something as surreal as pigs flying though, could just as easily portray the moral, and the feelings evoked during war. Truth is merely what happens. But the reality is what's to be understood.
ReplyDeleteQuestion of the thought provoking variety!
How does O'brien's writing style contribute to the atmosphere and overall feel of the text?
&&&
Repsonse to
"atlbraves198 said...
i believe tim o briens ambiguity is used to protect from immortalizing his murder through his writing. this story is almost like a foil to his story about his childhood friend linda. this story is a story he strives to immortalize
"
I agree completely with the fact O'brien uses uncertainty to make the context less assuring, it left you guessing because he didn't want that to be the most important part of the book. That wasn't what this book is meant to revolve around. I think it also leaves it free for your interpretation, did he really physically kill someone? Or did he just destroy a future? Is he really trying to convey that he ruined many futures for many people because of this whole silly war and how grave that is to rob someone of it? What is O'brien really trying to tell us?
-
And it definitely provides a good opposing balance with the story about his friend Linda.
--Heather Hubbard
3) Shame was inhabited in his mind throughout the whole story. He did not desire to go to war in the first place, but could not live with the possible consciences that would be trailing around in his head. During the war he was also ashamed of the reality of actually killing someone. He felt guilty and sellfish for taking another mans life.
ReplyDelete3) Shame was present from thhe very begining from the moment that he got the letter of draft. Shame ws the reason for his agreement to go to war in the first place. Also even if his actions didnt bring him shame his peers actions made him feel that way. He was taking the burden of the other soilders behavior.
ReplyDeleteI dont completely agree with cassie. His shame wasn't only because he killed someone, but for many reasons. You can tell because the tone of his writing changes, from monotone to disgust or cofusion. Kind of like he was reacting to the way the others treated the dead.
The terms "truth" and "reality" in this book means that in O'Brien changed the meanings to protect peoples identities and mistakes that have occurred during the war. The truth is always edited when O'Brien tells the story, he even wrote a chapter about how a truth is actually the truth.
ReplyDelete***********************************
I agree with Sarah Gonzalez. He talks like he killed someone but but it doesn't really say that he did kill someone, or if he's trying to hide the fact that he did.
Tim O'Brein's purpose in changing the truth is not only to get his audience involved but also to portray the reality of war through imagery that readers can understand. This means that when he writes that he killed the militia man at My Khe wants his audience to feel how he felt when that individual died. Besides that, Tim O'Brein wants to portray his antiwar sentiment of how the promising youths of America and Vietnam are send to fight a war on the basis of political and economic policies of the mid-Cold War period.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Christina - Question: What purpose does O'Brien writing in third person give?
ReplyDeleteI think that was to relieve himself of a sense of guilt for at least a small level. He definitely didn't want to "boast" about being a Vietnam War soldier, so he probably tries to make as much of it more as though he was not one of them. Basically, I think it was harder for him to admit that he was one of the people that killed others.
Answer to Mrs. Miles:
1. Although The Things They Carried contains a story called "The Man I Killed" it is unclear whether O'Brien actually killed anyone in Vietnam. What purpose does this ambiguity serve?
I think he does this to make the audience aware that he is definitely not proud of being in the Vietnam War, regardless of whether he killed the man or not. It also shows that he may have been skeptical and maybe delusional, since he makes it seem as though he wasn't sure if he did or not.
3) Shame fits into his portrayal of the war experience. The greatest fact is that he didn't want to go to war in the first place. He was against it and only made his decision based on social approval and how others would portray him. When he supposedly kills a man, he feels shame in that if he decided to stay in Canada, this poor man would still be alive.
ReplyDelete- When Tim revisited Vietnam, how do you think he felt as he ponders his thoughts and is held back in telling his daughter he killed a man?
I don't like what Shazzy wrote. Saying that he changed the writing because people he knew would be offended by it.
ReplyDeleteI believe he changed the truths and realities to better show the message of his stories. I think through time you loose touch of what actually happened in real life anyways. What he write in his book is based on the way he feels now, after 20 years of the memories fermenting.
Essentially im stating, many of these events didn't not happen the way he wrote them. Im basing this on the fact that my personal memories are all skewed. I myself have retold the same stories with 100's of differences then when i started it.
Really brief example
I saw this guy win a wrestling match in like 1 minute...On its retelling, somehow the 1 minute became 5 seconds..
Everyone overstates and understates things, intentionally or not..
Response: Hristo Alexandrov
ReplyDeleteHola Chris(:. I don't think he felt any shame from his parents for going into the war. However he did run away, because he did wan't to feel the ashame of not going into the war at the first place. I bet his parents were proud of him to go to war because you have to have courage to do that. I haven't met someone who isn't proud of their army child.
Question: How can you find humor in shaking a death man's hand? I didn't get that...
- erin kurnia
Somebody please anweser me this..
ReplyDeleteIf everyone was sleeping, and you are in O'brians position, you see a man, fully armed, creeping around..Do you kill him?
Do you throw that gernade and destroy what could of been a loving man, with a history, with a family , and life?
I persoanlly(i reconize im speaking from the perspective of a naive highschooler) would kill him. Im not taking any chances in the wild...what do u think?
Erin, josh's parents are scared to death of him joing the army...i think they rather him not go to college then join....
ReplyDeleteSo thats to you "I haven't met someone who isn't proud of their army child." comment
Other then that, brillant post =)))
to max becks. Everyone's parents are scared to death for his/her child going off to the army. its their worst fear comming true. That they volunteraly put themselves in harms way. Its liek the parents cant save them from themself. its the fact that its such a helpless situation.
ReplyDelete3) Shame is the only reason that drives soldiers through such a period of psychological turmoil. Even though shame is a negative aspect that is carried within every soldier it scares them more than the war itself.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Kurnia: i had the same question too. But the reason of shaking the man's hand and joking around about it, is to cover up the morbid situation their all stuck in. It helps lessen the gravity of death itself.
Question #3: Shame was an overall theme of the story through the beginning when he recieved the drafting letter, to when he was near Canada and thinking of running but shame brought him back to go to the war in Vietnam and even in the war itself when he wouldn't talk to the dead people or when he wanted to prank Bobby Jorgenson but in the middle couldn't continue because of shame.
ReplyDeleteOnto my own question: Tim O'Brien, throughout the story, uses several techniques in order to show the imagery of the war in Vietnam. What are some of those techniques and how does he use them?
Zibo Abdurakhmanova
Response to Question: How can you find humor in shaking a death man's hand? I didn't get that...
ReplyDeleteWhile shaking the hand of a dead man is in no way humurous to anyone who read the book, a soldier during Vietnam may have had a very different perspective. First, the life of a soldier at war is not one that is filled with luxury and entertainment. Also, as illustrated by the story of Mary Anne, being in war can change who you are as a person. So, essentially what this means is that the soldiers did not necessarily think the same way that you or I may think, and as a result of this, they may have had a distorted view of what is, and what is not funny. So, shaking the dead mans hand was done as a source of entertainment because the soldiers felt as though this was funny.
Question- What effect does the repetition in this novel have on the book?
Response to Jacob's Question: The repetition throughout the novel has a very powerful impact. By O'brien repeating the same phrases over and over again, he is not being redundant but rather portraying the importance of those words. His use of repetition makes the reader look more into what he is saying because he makes it seem as though there is more meaning behind it.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: What was the importance of O'brien telling the reader about everybody's good luck charms, for example Henry Dobbins girlfriend's stockings?
Question:When Tim revisited Vietnam, how do you think he felt as he ponders his thoughts and is held back in telling his daughter he killed a man?
ReplyDeleteResponse: When Tim returns to the field he has a purpose. He thinks about the conditions of the field as it is today and was back during the war. When he returns he ponders about the field being in a state of peace and how so many years ago could take the life of his best friend Kiowa and cause him many years of guilt.He wonders how time can help him overcome his past and change the condintions of the field which was once ominous and mucky into a dry peaceful patch of land . He decides to honor Kiowa by taking a quick swim and leaving his moccasins in the spot he believed to be Kiowas final resting place which allows him to free himself of the guilt.Also,he is held back in telling his daughter about the man he killed because he realizes that she is still immature and would not understand how war works and the hardships her father still indures twenty years after the war.
Question?
ReplyDeleteWhat feelings do you associate with Tim as he was out on the Rainy River heading towards the Canadian border? DO you think he should've ran free when he had the chance?
Question#3
ReplyDeleteThe terms "truth" and "reality" in the context of this book means many things through out the book.Truth is Tim wanting to run to Canada to escape war and risk never seeing his family again. But reality was that he had to go to war and fight for his country.Truth was also when kiowa died in the field. Reality was he was never going to smell the sweet smell of the bible that he loved so much ever again.
Question:
How do you think Tim's life would turn out if he did run to Canada and escaped the war?How do you think the war changed his life?Would he still be a writer writing about war?
Brittney Peak
in response to Christopher....... I think while a soilder is in that certain area, and he is exposed to certain things, he changes. His whole entire mentality and perspective is re-arranged. That's why i think all the stuff they carried was strictly for moral support.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: why did o'brien go back
i think everyone should stop pretending to know what its like to be a soilder..
ReplyDeleteQuestions: Can it be inferred that in the end Tim O'Brein finds some peace in writing his experience as a soldier? What is the point of writing about his childhood love?
ReplyDeleteResponse to Brittney P.
The war changed Tim O'Brein's life in a way that he cannot relate to his family. The war itself stripped him of his innocence a filled him with gruesome reality that is war. If he was to mention his experiences as a soldier to his family they would understand him (Why bring such nightmarish memories back when the war has been long over? they might say). So the war affects Tim's social life and ability to relate to others who aren't his brothers in arms.
Question: How to shame fit into the war Tim O'Briens war experience and how does he feel about it?
ReplyDeleteResponse to Brittney P.
I believe if he ran to Canada he would feel guilty for running from his country and lose his dignity. The war changed him in many ways but after all he went through it made him a better person. I think he could still be a writer about war but it wouldnt be as effective as this book.
Response to Brad B:
ReplyDeleteI think that just some of the feelings that accompanied Tim on the Rainy River were anger for being drafted, regret for the decision he was about to make, and anxiousness for his future and for what would become of him. Personally I think that he should have stayed his course and went up to Canada. However, he would have been scrutinized by people that he knew. That kind of embarrassment and shame can really make an impression on someone. What I am saying is that, since he really did not want to go to war, he should not have gone, but I understand why he did.
Question: What would you have done in Tim's position in his story "The Man I Killed"? Would you have let the man pass? Or would impulse have gotten the best of you?
-Perry Ryan
Response to max becks: Max you couldn't have been more right, none of us knows what it is like to be a soldier. All because we read this book about a soldier in his experience in Vietnam, doesn't mean we are suddenly experts on what it is like to be a soldier. Great post.
ReplyDelete2) Truth and reality are mixed in every scenario in this book. As a reader, you are thinking about whether this actually happened, or is he stretching the truth. Reality is what actually happened, and that is the parts that are gory and a bit over-the-top. O'Brien does a great job of mixing real reality and stretching the truth.
Response to Miles:
ReplyDelete1. "The Man I Killed" is ambiguous because O'Brien wanted to draw connections between himself and the "enemy." He imagines the man's entire life story and draws striking parallels between his own life and the dead man's. The dead man never wanted to go to war, had to go for his family's honor, was pursuing higher education, and had a sweetheart to return to at home. O'Brien did not want to be sent to Vietnam, did not want his family is be ashamed of him for running away, was going to Harvard on a scholarship, and many of the men kept pictures of their girlfriends in their pockets. O'Brien is ambiguous as to whether or not he actually killed someone, but wants the reader to understand that men they were killing were not savages; they were regular men with hopes and dreams just like the American soldiers.
Response to Perry's question:
No one can be sure of what they would have actually done in Tim's situation. But it's important to understand how scared and paranoid the men were while in Vietnam. In one of the earlier chapters, O'Brien explained how he imagined things to be a lot worse than they were. Simply waiting could be a nerve-wracking experience. The noises that the jungle made in the night were imagined to be something supernatural, a secret within the mountains of Vietnam. Bringing it back to Perry's question, any type of movement or noise, even if made by an innocent man, would have scared any of the soldiers. I think that impulse would have taken the best of me in that situation, because the constant paranoia and fear that gnawed at the men's sanity would have also affected me.
Personal Question: What does the story about the Sweetheart of Song Tra Bong tell the reader about O'Brien's view of human nature?
ReplyDeleteResponse to Brittney P.:I believe Tim's life would have been alot different had he run to Canada because his current life is shaped by his war experience. I think he would have still become a writer, however, he would not have wriiten about the war.
In The Things They Carried, the words "truth" and "reality" have meanings different to the ones we are familiar with. According to O'Brien, the word "truth" is not what actually happened, but it is the meaning created by one of his fictional stories. The reason "truth" is what didn't happen is because most of the time, the "truth" is more real than what actually happened. Thus, the word "reality" means what actually happened, however it doesn's portray the truth of the war correctly. The two words differ because one means what really happened (reality) but the other means what seems like it should have happened (truth).
ReplyDeleteQuestion: How does O'Brien feel about his decision to go to war in the section "On the Rainy River?"
Rahul Sheth
3) Shame fits into O'Brian's portrayal because he tells us about the regrets he had such as when he supposively "killed" a man, and also how he had chosen to be in the war instead of fleeing to Canada. He referred to himself as a coward for joining the war.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: What does O'Brian really mean when he tells us how to write a "true" war story?
Dani Cooke
ReplyDeleteResponse to Max Beck: I totally agree that everyone needs to stop pretending to understand what it means to be a soldier. At this point in our lives we're all fairly unexperienced and pretending to be otherwise sounds very pompous, something I'm too often guilty of!
Question: Do you think we have the right to judge the descisions of the soldiers in the Novel? Why or why not?
3. Shame was the key factor behind many actions in the novel. The most notable of these actions was O'Brian's decision to go to war. However, shame was the cause for a sucide, many of the Lt.'s own personal wars with himself, and was the leading source of misery among the men. It was the force moving along much of the novel.
I believe O’Brien wants the reader to know it hurt to even see a dead man from being involved in the war, and that he isn’t proud to be there where people are killing others. When he talks about the dead man he talks about him like he knew him, and was in the same situation as himself( O’Brien). Which can lead the reader to think he killed him, but there was no define quote saying he killed a man. I think that O’Brien did this on purpose to make the reader think, did he kill the man or not?
ReplyDeleteWhy does O’Brien use the certain writing style? How does it affect the message he is trying to send to the readers?
- Christine Mosca
3. I believe shame plays a major role into the context of the individual minds of every soldier. Despite thier commands thier must some sort of moral confusion or guilt that comes along with organized killing. So im assuming that the Shame plays into the "War is Hell" concept, both physically and mentally. As the son of a Soldier, i could understand why some might feel this way.
ReplyDeleteQuestion, What effect does O'Brien's "list and itemization technique" have on the story
-Thad
answer to #3)Shame fits into o'brien portrayal of war especially in the story "On the Rainy River" because at the end of the story he says he went to war and felt like a coward meaning that he believes war is something to look down upon and soliders aren't truely as brave as we portray them to be.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Do you have the same views on war as O'Brien demonstrates in his writing? why or why not?
shame plays a role in O'briens portrayal of the war expirience because it played a part in his life before he was drafted into the war.This is seen when the author states ,in his excerpt "On the rainy river" ,how he did not want to bring shame upon his family.it was only until after his war expirience O'brien concluded he was a coward because he went to war.he outines that he braught shame upon himself because he did not stand up for his values and go to canada.
ReplyDeletequestion: even if conflict is against your morals is it ok to say no to war when you are drafted? or should one go anyway?
2. When O'brien speaks about the "truth", the story says probably happened, but not that way he tells it. He fills in the story with the "truth" in order to make it easier to understand. The "reality" that he speaks of actually occured with none of the "truth" involved.
ReplyDeleteWhat was the purpose in telling the story "The Sweetheart of The Song Trabong"?
the purpose of the sweetheart of song tra bong is to show that war can consume and alter the humanity of every person, even someone not directly affected by it
ReplyDelete-jordan schroeder
Response to Ryry quintero's question "Do you have the same views on war as O'Brien demonstrates in his writing? why or why not?": This is a very interesting question because O'Brien's views on war are dynamic. In the beginning of the book, O'Brien shys away from war because he is terrified of it. As the book progresses, he depicts an inner conflict about his views on the war. For example, O'Brien writes "War is nasty; war is fun. War is thrilling; war is drudgery. War makes you a man; war makes you dead." From this context it is evident that the author does not have a clear view on the war. Which happens to be the same view I have. I do not know nearly enough about wars in order to give a proper opinion. To me, war seems frightening. Similarly to what O'Brien stated, war to me seems nasty, drudgerous, and, of course, deadly. However, through his stories, I can understand the lighter side of war. Therefore making my views on war just as incongruous as the author's.
ReplyDeleteMy question: If the author knew, and completely understood all of what was going to happen to him in the war, would he have changed his mind in reference to fleeing the country? Why or Why not?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteQUESTION 2:
ReplyDeleteWhen someone tells a story omitting nothing but the truth, the reality of the experience can be lost. The truth is the facts- Tim was drafted into the Vietnam war. The reality is the incidents that made the experience so severe- the sound of the grenade that killed the man outside the village of My Khe. Tim explains how its difficult to portray the actuality of what he witnessed in the war without casually flickering feelings, subjects, or settings that are just simply apart of his imagination. Truth can never be altered, while reality tends to morph in favor of our reactions.
My Own Question:
Throughout the novel O’Brian repetitively talks about what the soldiers “carried” (given by the title, ha) however he never mentions an object that he carried himself. Would it demoralize the story if he did? And if he had talked about what he carried, what could it have been?
2) What do the terms "truth" and "reality" mean in the context of this book? How do they
ReplyDeletediffer?
The truth is the story that is told. Reality is what actually happened in that story. When someone tells their story, the reality is the basis of the story and the truth is what they add to it. Not necessarily saying that the truth is false or stretched, it's just how they tell their story to you, there by making it the truth while the reality of the story is only known to the witnesses and such.
Response to emilysenderey: I don't think that the story would have changed significantly if O'Brien talked about the things he carried. I think what he carried mainly was the burden of all the stories he had. He has the thoughts and feelings associated with those stories and I think that's what he carried.
3. Shame fits very well in O'Briens of the war experience because he always talked about how if he blushed, let out a wimper or backed down from anything it would bring much shame onto him and everyone that is realated to him.
ReplyDeleteResponse to luckyluvsarod: Question: How does the death of Linda change Tim's outlook on life? How does it affect Tim's innocence? - Linda's death affected TIm greatly it changed his outlook on life by making him have a grim look on the world; This affected the innocence he once had by making him lose seeing the good he used to see.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(1): 1) Although The Things They Carried contains a story called "The Man I Killed" it is unclear whether O'Brien actually killed anyone in Vietnam. What purpose does this ambiguity serve?
ReplyDelete- The purpose this ambiguity serves is to show how guilty O'Brien felt about seeing a mad being killed. Whether or not he killed him is not the question. It is just that he feels badly for being a part of a war that is so inhumane.
(2) What views, or strong opinions could've been lost or changed from O'Brien participating in the war?
: Lisa-Dawn Maloney
1) to answer the beginning of emily's question, i think he didnt mention his own belongings because it could have portrayed a "self-pitying" tactic that was not intended. instead he focused on the selfless and dynamic aspects of the war and the people in them.
ReplyDelete2) to answer mrs.miles first question, i think the title was meant to be more figurative, talking about the guilt he felt for the ones who died, but kept it unclear as to whether he actually 'pulled the trigger'
-aimee lechner
Response to lisabooxo:
ReplyDeleteFrom O'Brien participating in the war, the veiws or stong opinios that could have been changed might have been that war does not help resolve problems,and killing innocent people isn't how things should be handled.
What is the purpose of his story about Linda at the end of the book?
2. The terms “truth” and “reality” are two different things in The Things They Carried. We do not know if the truth of the events he told were true or just made up. Reality is what actually happened he tells about the real things they carried among them and the environment in which they lived in. We don’t know what was really a truth and a reality we can only assume that what he wrote were real events.
ReplyDeleteMy own question:
When Tim O’Brien’s daughter asks him if he ever killed anyone does he not tell her the truth because of her innocence or he still feels ashamed about killing a man?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Lisa-Dawn Maloney:
ReplyDeleteIn terms of changing opinions that Tim had, I would say that after the war he had a substantially greater respect for people fighting in the war. Towards the beginning of the story, Tim did not care much for the war or the fighters of the aforementioned wars. But after embodying the soldiers, and experiencing the war, it is hard to walk away from it without a respect, newfound or not, for the soldiers. I am sure that that was the primary change of opinion for him. Nothing else really compares.
Question: In 'The Sweetheart of the Song Tra Bong', do you think that it was any one aspect of the war that changed Mary Anne Bell? Do you think that the person Mary Anne became was in her all along or do you think that the war created it?
Jason Koenig
Response to Aimee, I completely agree with you when you stated that he was feeling quilty for the ones who died and kept it unclear as to whether or not he actually pulled the trigger. I feel as though he thought that not specifying if he did or did not made that part of the book have a bigger effect on the reader. Of course we're all curious, but O'Brien's letting us think what we want and arrive to our own conclusion.
ReplyDeleteMy own question:
What does Mary Anne represent in "The Sweetheart of The Song Trabong" in reference to war in general?
Responce to Kelsey7777777:
ReplyDeleteI think that if the Author knew exactly what was going to happen to him in the war he still would have decided not to flee the country. Expiriences as powerful as war cannot be filled with anything else. Even though terrible events occured in the war, the author would have chosen to stay because it is such an
important event in his life and in the history of America.
My own question:
What were O'Brian motifs behind not telling his daughter the truth about killing a man?
1) The purpose of ambiguity was to show the truth insignificance of whether O'Brien truly killed the man. Just the fact of witnessing someone's life be taken away, as a soldier, and there being absolutely nothing he could do about it creates this idea that O'Brien killed a man. "The Man I Killed", is meant to portray the inability to save someone, an innocent person.
ReplyDeleteResponse To TaylorJ:
I completely agree, in life we can only believe what we don't know, based on what we are told. Therefore truth are reality differ significantly and are very hard to distinguish unless factual information is provided. We only have so much knowledge as to what we read and hear.
Question#3) How does shame fit into O'Brien's portrayal of the war experience?
ReplyDeleteRight from the beginning, shame was the driving force that pushed O'brien to even join the war when he recieved the draft letter. His emotions of embarrasment and insecurity are reocurring elements in the book, like when he says, "They fought because they were embarassed not to," or when he struggles in The Man I Killed, with the idea of actually taking another man's life.
Response to JessicaS:
I never actually thought of it that way. O'brien could be actually feeling ashamed and guilty for all the people he didn't save.
Why was the dead man in The Man I Killed described the way he was?
Response to obiwan:
ReplyDeleteTim O’Brein describes the dead man in The Man I Killed the way he did in order to show readers how guilty he feels for seeing promising futures cut down so relentlessly by a proxy war that developed on the tensions and policies of the Cold War. Also, O’Brein wants provide readers a Vietnam point of view to avoid polarizing individuals as good or bad, as some war stories would do, but to describe them as for how they where regardless of their ethics or opinions
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteResponse to TaylorJ: I agree with you on your statement about "truth" and "reality" being two different things, truth is never proven true and can be the truth to you personally and not someone else. While reality is "how things exist", its considered to be real with the questioning whether its true or not. Reality is what actually happened to them and is not made up or added to. I agree we could never prove between what is the truth and reality within the book and the stories he tells.
ReplyDeleteMy own question: What is your opinion on Jimmy Cross day dreaming about Martha so much?
- Carly Gourley
Response to Kelsey S:
ReplyDeleteEven if O'Brien had known the horrors that the Vietnam War would present to him, he would have still gone as a result of his experience on the Rainy River with Elroy Berdahl and his embarrassment not to go. However, if he had been able to see how the war would affect his daily life and have the long-term implications it did, perhaps he would have thought differently since he seemed to have been almost embarrassed about having been in the war. Clearly, this counteraction may have made him reconsider.
Question:
What purpose did Elroy Berdahl serve in O'Brien's momentous decision?
Jared Odessky
2) What do the terms "truth" and "reality" mean in the context of this book? How do they
ReplyDeletediffer?
In this book, truth is what happened in the story, even if the storyteller is twisting the facts around or exaggerating. The reality in the book is more like everything that actually did happen and the realization of it.
I agree with Camille's interpretation completely about how the fact that he did or didn't kill a man doesn't matter, the point is that he wanted to show his emotion and the way he was feeling to the reader.
Although the truth and reality, in the context of this book are naturally the same, there are some diffrences. When O'brien writes about the truth he talk about what at any point in time but maybe with a few more facts or he might have twisted the 'reality' of things a bit. And in terms of reality, he is referring to the actual events. No gimmicks, if you will.
ReplyDeleteQuestion?
Did Elroy Berdahl help O'Brien make the decision to go to Vietnam or was O'Brien already fixed on heading to Vietnam in the first place?
1) The terms "truth" and "reality" meanings are different in The Things They Carried. We can't really know this is true because its just something written down and were not face to face with the person who wrote it. The reality is the things in the book actually happens, people die and they have memories of their times in the war.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Christina: I like how you put his life into comparison to people dying in the war and how he lived through people dying everyday.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete2) What do the terms "truth" and "reality" mean in the context of this book? How do they differ?
ReplyDeleteWhen a mass amount of people are killed, each person only becomes a statistic. It is hard to put a face on each of the bodies when there are so many. However, by giving specific details about the death of one person, the reader is able to feel the emotions that the characters of the stories go through. This is why O'Brien exaggerates the truth to an extent that enables the reader to not only picture what happens, but actually feel what the characters are going through. The reality may have been that 120 people died in one small village, but the truth is the feelings that occur after truley thinking about these deaths.
Question:
Why do you think Norman Bowker drove around the lake continuously?
Jessica Palacios
1) The ambiguity of the story was to show O'Brien's personal feeling of ending someone's life. Utilizing the person's physical qualities he forged a story in his mind which shows that the man never wanted to come to war, but rather was a scholar that tried to avoid war and politics. This forged story helps show the reader that not everyone in a war wants to be there. Even though Kiowa tries to rationalize the situation, O'brien can't help to think what would have happened to the soldier if his life was not cut short.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Jessica Palacios question- I think Norman Bowker drove around the lake so many times just to help him process and think about things. He was thinking of a way to tell a story to his father on how he almost won the silver star while doing this.
Michael Tichy
2) In the context of this book, the terms "truth" and "reality" greatly differ. In the story, O'Brien says the truth is that he killed someone. In reality, something else may have killed the Vietnamese man. Maybe right before the man got hit with a grenade he had a heart attack. The truth is what O'Brien says happened, whereas the reality was what really happened.
ReplyDeleteAnswer to Gavin's question:
O'Brien did not tell his daughter the truth about killing a man because he did not want her to see him in a different light. If she knew the truth she may have looked at her father as a killer.
2. Truth and reality frequently intertwine in the story. The portrayed truth isn't always accurate. The truth was used to overshadow the reality of the situation. The reality is used to describe what was going on and why. In parts of the story, O'Brien and company sometimes question whether the truth is actually the reality of the situation. The truth is sometimes toyed with or bent, whereas the reality is on the point.
ReplyDeleteI agree to Emily Sendrey's comment. In life theere is the truth and reality. Sometimes it is hard to decipher the difference between the two. In the story, O'Brien finds it near impossible to decipher the things he encountered as truth or reality.
Shame is the best word you probably use to describe O’Brien’s war experience. Shame is actually what brought O’Brien into war. It wasn’t his decision to join the army at in the first place, at all. It was the fear that if he left to Canada he would be shaming his whole family.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the best word to describe O’Brien’s perspective on war?
{1} I think Tim feels that being in a war in itself is killing people; even if he didn't actually kill somebody.
ReplyDeleteSeeing how Tim felt about the war, how much of a toll do you think it took on him to write this book?
{1} I think Tim feels that being in a war in itself is killing people; even if he didn't actually kill somebody.
ReplyDeleteSeeing how Tim felt about the war, how much of a toll do you think it took on him to write this book?
MOOOAAAAA!
3. Shame fits into O'Brien's portrayal of the war experience completely. In the first place, Tim did not want to go to the war at all. The only reason he didn't go to Canada was because of the shame he would feel.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: How much did Elroy Berdahl play in Tim's decision to go to war?
Response to #3: Shame plays a huge role in the choices the soldiers make, nearly ruling their lives at times. Would I have been ashamed of not killing Lee Strunk if I were Dave Jensen? No, but as many people here have said, I'm not a soldier, and I've never been to Vietnam. The ideal, "heroic Soldier" role that had been built up in the years before the Vietname war gave Tim and the rest of Alpha Company some big shoes to fill, and they were totured by this image, and it forced them to make choices they would never make otherwise to satisfy not just the other soldiers, but the whole country.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Brittney P.'s question: I think if Tim went to Canada, he would have never come back to America. He probably would have gotten some job and an apartment and done pretty well for himself, but he would have never seen his family again, and would have felt the weight of his descision his whole life. He wouldn't have become a writer either. His want to tell of his experiences in the war is what led him to become a writer, so no war, no writer. Chances are, his life's actually better because he went to the war then it would have been if he hadn't...
-STEPHANIE MASELLI
ReplyDelete*(my own question)
Of all the items that O'brien talks about of his fellow soldiers which ones stick out to you and that are some what surprising?
*3) How does shame fit into O'Brien's portrayal of the war experience?
shame fits into the portrayal of the war because from the begining he states that he doesnt agree with the war and how there should be a law for the people who support it should be out there fighting to, which carries on through the book with how he feels shame for going to Veitnam because all it did to him was kill him on the inside. He also feels shame for surviving the war and the others that had lost there lifes, he takes blaim for the soldier (who's name as slipped my mind right now) sinking down to the bottom of the crap feild and it not being him or being able to save him.
2) What do the terms "truth" and "reality" mean in the context of this book? How do they differ?
ReplyDeleteIn the context of this book, "truth" and "reality" are somewhat the same. The truth is what actually happened; however, as certain stories were only witnessed by specific people, the reality is whatever those people claimed the truth was. When it comes to how truth and reality differ, even the author states that sometimes a war story isn't true. The reality is that nobody will know the truth due to the exaggeration of the soldiers when sharing their stories.
My question: How did Tim O'Brien's feelings about the war change throughout the book and how did it affect his character?
1) I think Tim uses ambiguity because he doesn't feel the need to be clear in what he did. I believe he feels shame in the sight of the dead man, one of many in a war, so in a way it does serve as a form of detachment as someone said earlier. He doesn't feel it was necessary to clearly state if he killed anyone, he just wanted to give the reader an emotional tie to the man. He devoted two chapters to the man, one where he says he killed him and one where he says he didn't. In both, however, he makes sure to give the man a story. He wants the reader to feel his feelings, not know his actions. The important thing is to get people to understand there are whole stories behind every dead person in a war.
ReplyDeleteResponse to luckyluvsarod's question:
"How does the death of Linda change Tim's outlook on life? How does it affect Tim's innocence?"
The death of Linda opens up Tim's mind to a new world, that of storytelling. He, through his dreams of Linda, realizes that dead people live forever in stories. It affects his innocence in the way that he was finally exposed to death and it would forever stay in his thoughts. It seems to be the very thing that encouraged him to tell stories.
1. The ambiguity in "The Man I Killed" served to draw you closer in comprehending the guilt that Tim felt. Whether or not he killed the young man didn't matter because Tim still felt the guilt of how being in the war made him just as guilty as the person who killed the young man. He was emotionally attached to the ones who got killed, so much so that he was able to give the young man a past, a family, a life, a story, without even having to have met him.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with max becks and Cookie that we should stop pretending like we know how it feels to be a soldier and that we are indeed inexperienced. We are trying to empathize and put ourselves in the author's shoes but the truth of the matter is that we have not experienced the reality of the war or what Tim and/or other soldiers may have faced or contintinue to face.
1.Everyone has their prospects and setbacks and life stories to tell and can be easily silenced forever. The emotional baggade is what the story is about.
ReplyDeleteHristo, your comment answers the qustion perfectly. Leave some room for someone to criticise it! In truth everyone was on point with the shame thing to me.
As O'Brien explains the dead person and his would be life, it's as if he's portraying a version of himself. He uses repitition about the dead man's physical attributes to get accross how horrid war really is, and because of that this young man cannot go on with his life. As unclear as it seems, O'Brian becomes more understanding of how horrible killing another being is.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Do you think O'Brian killed a man?
In response to Max Becks:
ReplyDeleteI don't blame you when you said that you would have killed "a fully armed man creeping around," because if I were in that same position I would have killed that man as well. Even though I am talking as a high school student, grown men in the army would have done the same thing to save themselves, and to save the other soldiers in the camp. On top of that, any man that is armed and creeping around is most likely up to no good.
Response: i agree with luckyluvsarod. The feeling of being ashamed is what drove him to the beginning of the war.
ReplyDeletequestion:did Elroy Berdahl have a big impact on O'Brian decision to go to war?
Response to question 1.) I think this ambiguity shows the reader that although he did not kill anyone directly, by being there, not stopping anyone, and watching them fall he felt that he killed people.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Why does O'Brien tell the stories that didn't really happen (like the baby buffalo)?
1) The purpose is to show O'Brien's guilt. He shows this by comparing the dead mans life to his own as a means of showing what can be lost as a killed soldier.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with cristopher, even if O'Brien twists the truth to engulf the reader in the reality I think its still a lie, regardless of if it ties you to the reality.
2. O'brien refers to reality as what really occurred, whereas his definition of the truth is what appeared to happen, or what one thinks happened in their eyes.
ReplyDeleteResponse to bdelgado: well, even if he didn't physically kill anyone, it can be assumed that he means that he "killed" himself, or lost a part of himself. The war caused a part of him to die.
Response to Emily: If O'Brien were to say what he actually carried would not demoralize the story. To me, it wouldn't leave me wondering. I think he carried similar things his fellow soldiers carried. I believe that's the reason why it made it so easy for him to describe the things they carried literally and emotionally. These men were in the wilderness together for months and they developed a bond between eachother no matter what.
ReplyDeleteResponse to ? 2: This ambiguity serves that O'Brien actually kills himself, figuratley speaking. Yes he killed the mna, but it killed him when he took an "innocent" mans life.
1) I think the ambguity was made to kind of show us his thoughts of the automatic death that surrounds the was. Through this it becomes clear that just the thought of killing someone who may not have wanted to be in the was, kills a part of him. We see this in the way he makes a story of the life the young man may have had, and his ambitions if he werent killed by O'Brien. He seems to be ashamed at the thought of killing this man, for he was originally running from death, yet he has brought it upon an other man.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Why was it so important for him to bring his daught to where Kiowa passed away?
2) The difference between "truth" and "reality" in The Things They Carried is that the "reality" is that he really had to deal with the acual war and the post effects. But the "truth" is what they author decided to tell about the experince in his own way which involved twisting it in the process.
ReplyDeleteIn Response to Amelia I really liked your question because it really makes you think why he tells storys that didn't really happen.
Response to Amelia's question:
ReplyDeleteI believe O'Brian included those stories because he wanted to show how drastic a war can have effects on people physically and emotionally.
question:
What significance comes from the author throughout some of his stories to repeat the phrase "I am 43 years old."?
The difference between truth and reality in "the things they carried" is that tim o'briens truth his only what he believes is true only what he wants to reveal and explain in the stories. Reality is the fact that he was really in the war and all the things he had to deal with and go through in the book.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jennifer because Tim explains his situtions that he was in but does not tell the full story only explains or reveals certain things about the situation
Why does Tim O'brian decide that he has a patriotic duty to serve in the war instead of fleeing to canada?
2) What do the terms "truth" and "reality" mean in the context of this book? How do they
ReplyDeletediffer?
O'Brian constantly uses the examples of war stories. He states truth and reality in both, but there is a key difference between both which he explains. Reality is what actually happened, the event that actually took place, where truth is the the whole story that has been romanticized for entertainment, and time consumption, or truth could be events that may have taken place and are logical but there is no "real", hence reality, evidence.
My question
What is O'Brian's reason for telling the the story of the "Sweetheart of the Song Tra Bong"?
Response to Amelia,
Why does O'Brien tell the stories that didn't really happen (like the baby buffalo)?
O'Brian tells these stories for two key reasons; one they show the harsh realities of war, and two It provides his meaning behind the truth's of war.
-Micah Baier
I think Tim O'brian's meaning of truth isn't necessarily what we all believe truth means. I think he maybe sometimes stretches it at times, but i think its necessary for you to completely understand what he was feeling. He wanted to put you in that exact time and place, and by stretching the truth and adding more details to things he did that.
ReplyDeletewhy do you think the girl who was dancing after her family died had such an impact on Tim O'Brian?
2) In this story the term "reality" according to O'brien is was actually occurred during the war. The actual events that took place during during that time. Where as the term "truth" is mainly what and how he felt about the situation. Some of the things referred to as the "truth" didnt actually happen but to help to book flow more smoothly as well as hook the reader in. Reality= what actually happened. Truth= his perspective on the situation.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: How does Tim O'brien's writing style help set the tone for the novel?
Response to Mrs.Miles-Question 1)
ReplyDeleteThe ambiguity serves as remorse for Tim O'Brien, although he may not have physically killed someone. Whether or not he did, he still feels as if he took away the soldier's life, but not in a literal sense.
My question:
Why do you think Tim O'Brien wanted to return to Vietnam with his daughter?
2) Truth is an opininated thought and the different story's people tell that may not be true. But, reality is the true stuff that actually happened.
ReplyDelete*Question: If Tim O'Brien would have written the stroy about the man he killed instead of hinting about it through out the book would it have affected the readers differently?
In response to Carly's question:
ReplyDeleteWhat is your opinion on Jimmy Cross day dreaming about Martha so much?
Jimmy's daydreams about Martha are a way to keep him sane in a time of war. He tends to look think about her at the end of the day when he's going to sleep. This is a time when most people are thinking about the events of the day and what will happen on the next day. Instead of thinking about those things Jimmy uses Martha as a shield from himself. On the other hand, Jimmy also feels some shame for thinking of her during the day. An example of this is when Ted Lavender died. "...Ted Lavender was dead because he loved her so much and could not stop thinking of her."
My own question:
Do you think that O'Brien's fellow soldier's talking and joking around with dead bodies was done out of comedy or, do you think this was a way for them to cope with the death aroung them? Why?
The Things They Carried:
ReplyDeleteResponse to question number 3
Throughout the book, Tim O'Brien highlighted specific instances where shame played into his conduct in war and thus shaped his "war experience". I completely agree with Alyssa when she said "Tim did not want to go to the war at all. The only reason he didn't go to Canada was because of the shame he would feel. " This has to do with the constant reminder that effects Tim, because he feels internally that if he backs down his family and friends would perceive him as weak. This "shame also worked its way in the relationship between Tim and his fellow soldiers. Dealing with the war experience, shame can be described as the motivating factor, which is also one theme of the book.
Question:How did Tim O'Brien's portrayal of war effect the readers perception of the book?
-Robert Pestritto
1) Response to Max's question:
ReplyDeleteIf i were in O'brien's posistion as a man fully employed in the military, with a duty to kill the opposing side then i would've choosen to kill him. I personally think that alot of the tactics shown (whether faii or not) are to shoot first ask later.
2)Response to Ben's question, i do think that o'brien killed a man if not more. this all depends on the the term kill. if a person commits suicide for something YOU did, you would have that on you for the rest of your life as o'brien has two lives on his shoulders. if you let someone die, that can be considered as just killing them off.
Response to question 1: in regards to this book, truth is an opiniated abstract idea which varies by person and their life or in this case war experiences. One person's truth on something may differ from the next. Reality is the actuality of all opinions. It is what actually occurs despite the various "truths" which may or may not agree with what happens.
ReplyDeleteWhat purpose does the repitition of the words "they carried" serve?
Response to Question #1 – I believe the purpose of the ambiguity in "The Man I Killed" is that O’Brien wanted to relate himself with his victim, and he also wanted the readers to imagine how he personally felt in that situation. In this chapter, O’Brien imagined his victim’s entire life, and how they both shared similar characteristics, such as never wanting to join the war in the first place. O’Brien puts himself in the place of the dead man, and he tries to show the reader that these enemies all had their own familes and lives, and now he feels guilty.
ReplyDeleteQuestion – Since this book was generally about the war, why was his last chapter about his childhood?
1)Tim O'Brien made it unclear that he killed the man in The Man I Killed because he still feels responsible for the man's death whether he was directly responsible for it or not. Even if the whole story was made up he carried guilt from being in Vietnam and that his presence caused death. If it was just a made up story he used the man as a symbol for all the people who suffered from similar fates from the American soldiers being in Vietnam, although they were just performing a duty, just like the man he killed.
ReplyDeleteMy question:
In How to Tell a True War Story, how was Rat Kiley killing an innocent baby buffalo an expression of his love for Curt Lemon?
In response to alexyoo's question:
ReplyDeleteI think the soldiers' tendency to joke around with dead bodies was definitely a coping mechanism for them. An example of these jokes is when all the soldiers except O'Brien were shaking hands with the old man's body. By turning the kinds of serious things that they faced every day, such as death, into nothing more than just a joke, I think they were able to stay relatively sane despite the war gong on around them.
My own question:
What purpose did it serve in the book for O'Brien to tell the story about what happened to Kiowa as if Norman Bowker had a role in it, then tell the reader that the story actually referred to himself?
Question: In the chapter "sweetheart of the song tra bong" there is a story about a soldier named Mark Fossie and how he brings his girlfriend Mary Anne Bell to visit him in the war. In this story what is the meaning behind Mary Anne drifting off into the culture of the song tra bong? And when she does come back to Mark why does she seem so unhappy? Also why does Mark want a perfect relationship and image with Mary Anne?
ReplyDeleteResponse to angelbby 123-
ReplyDeleteI don't think Tim O'brien cares about his patriotic duty. The reason why he ends up going to war instead of fleeing to Canada is, as he decides on the boat with Elroy, that he'd rather just go to war than leave everything behind and start a new life. He was also scared he would lose his parents respect in particular but also people in general. He was also scared of the law and what would happen if he got caught. There was also many factors that he took into account so he just decides war would be easier to cope with. wrong decision? I don't know but it sure would be a hard one to make if it was mine to make. On pg. 45 he talks about the factors if you want to see more.
I also have a question. Can someone explain the story about the 6 men in the mountains that heard all the sounds in the jungles and stuff. It starts on pg 71. He says something at the end about some stories you just don't tell. But then how did Mitchell Sanders hear about it? Can anyone tell me what it symbolizes or what it means?
-Sims
Response to #1):
ReplyDeleteIn "The Man I Killed"it is unsure whther O'Brein killed the man in Vietnam, and this ambiguity serves that he is still guilty of his actions. As Tim thinks of all the posibilities that the man could have been,he regrets that he even killed the man.
This ambiguity is used to reciprocate his emotions of the event, which is uncertainity. His vauge sentences would make the reader feel unsure on whether he killed him or not. I remember reading this passage and feeling like I didn't on being on certain side or knowing he might have killed someone till the very end of the story.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Was there anything that could really have been done to save Mary Ann Bell (Sweetheart of the South Tra Bong)?
2) In this book, the truth refers to the emotional truth of each story. Although some events might not have occured exactly as he described, they didn't matter because they did not affect the truth, which was the emotional pain and other effects it had on him and those around him. The reality was what really happened, the facts. The truth was focused on the emotional factor of each story while the reality was more about the events that occurred. The truth was how the reality made him feel.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Was O'brien able to relieve himself of the emotional burdens he carried after revisiting The Field? Or did his emotional scars remain unhealed?
This ambiguity is used because O'Brien is trying to hide his guilt of killing the man. He is ashamed of what he did and making it seem only like a story helps take away it's impact.
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Could Mary Ann Bell have been saved or was she a lost cause the second she stepped foot in Vietnam?
Response to question 2- In the book The Things They Carried truth is something that is true in the context of what someone felt, believed, and/or remembered in their mind. Reality is the hard core facts absent of all those things. Reality and truth don't have to match up for bothe to be valid.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Alexyoo- Yes the soldier buddies were simply trying to cope with the stress of the war and also to hide any weakness. The horrors of all those events could overwhelm them so instead they made light of the situation so that they could lessen the effect of what just happened so that they could move on and be able to do what they had to do.
2) What do the terms "truth" and "reality" mean in the context of this book? How do they
ReplyDeletediffer?
Tim O'Brein portrays reality as an exagerated version of the truth. Although i agree with a previous post that one persons reality may not be percieved in the same context by another character.
Do you think that O'Brien's fellow soldier's talking and joking around with dead bodies was done out of comedy or, do you think this was a way for them to cope with the death around them? Why?
The joking that went on after Ted Lavender died was definatly to keep them sane. O'Brein even states "It wasn't cruelty, just stage presence."
2)In this book the truth and reality may appear to be similar yet there is a clear difference. The truth simulates reality, but is O'Brien's interpretation of what occurred.In parts of this book we find that O'Brien is questioning the validity of the truth that he told. The reality however is the actual events that occurred.
ReplyDeleteResponse to N.W.A.:
It is difficult to say that truth and reality in the context of the book are naturally the same since O'Brien did clearly distinguish between the truth and reality.
Response to #1:
ReplyDeleteThe ambiguity O'Brien shows in "The Man I Killed" is his way of coping with the guilt of killing a man that was just the same as he was: a soldier fighting and following orders. In killing that man, he found that, in a way, he was killing a piece of himself.
To Sims:
The sounds in the Jungle represent all the fears of being in a foreign place like Vietnam could bring out in someone. The deep seated fears, the ones that only come out when you feel truly alone.
Michael Greenberg
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Why does Tim end the story discussing about how people live on after they die through stories?
Response to brad b.
I think it was a positive experience for Tim to enter the war and he should not have ran off to Canada. Although the war may have been stressful for him, he ended up meeting so many interesting people and received much food for thought as a writer. He was very much able to turn the war, seemingly such a negative event, into a positive event. Without the war, he would have never have seen such bizarre events in his life.
response to #3: When Tim O’Brien received a draft notice. Despite a desire to flee to Canada, he feels he would be embarrassed and he uses this fear of shame from his family and country to fight in vietnam altough he truly wishes he wasnt involved.
ReplyDeletequestion: Would have Tim Obrian been a coward or been brave if he fled to canada, which means he would be overcoming his fear of shame?
What inspired him to write his life stories on war and tradey ? was it for relief to let it out ? or his own pleasure to be able to have others read his work ?
ReplyDeleteresponding to Max Becks I think if I was in O'brians shoes and everyone was sleeping,and i see a man, fully armed, creeping around I would wait and study his actions a little longer not to long though. Then I would see his intensions and if they were bad yes I would kill him.
ReplyDelete