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?
"Story-truth" and "happening-truth" are two very different ideas. When an important, painful, or even exciting thing happens and you try to tell the story exactly how it actually happened, the story can portray the event as petty or irrelevant, and the recipient of the story may think, "Why are they even telling me this?” It would turn out to be one of those you-had-to-be-there moments. That is happening-truth. However, story-truth is much more exciting. In story-truth, you get to tell the same story, but with much more emotion, causing the recipient of the story to be mystified. In story-truth, you can get your point across more firmly than happening-truth, because of embellished details and powerful fictional events. I think that O’Brien uses story-truth in “The Things They Carried” for these exact reasons above. He doesn’t want his story to become “just another war story” that people just skip over, thinking that it will be the same, boring re-telling of the same war we’ve studied thousands of times over. He wants it to have much more meaning in it so that people realize the full extent of the severe consequences of not just the Vietnam War, but every war. In this case, story-truth is truer than happening-truth, making the thought of the experience much more powerful than otherwise thought.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I have to say that The Things They Carried has climbed my own list of favourites! I love the imagery and, perhaps even more, the way that O'Brien focused more on raw emotion than he did strict fact. It is something I felt hindered my reading of Maya Angelou's book-- I enjoyed it, but it was more an enjoyment after I put it down. I prefer metaphors and creative writing to fact (although, I just as much enjoy interesting tidbits of information), and The Things They Carried was the embodiment of my favourites. I devoured the book.
ReplyDeleteMore on topic, O'Brien's use of his own name allowed it to feel as a memoir would. In fact, I quickly forgot it was a work of fiction, and for that reason I treated it as I would an autobiography. That made the entry in "Good Form" to be such an amazing experience for me. I was thoroughly enchanted that something with such feeling, something that seemed so very real, was in fact a lie.
Of course, the above thought did not last for long, because I came to the conclusion that a lie was what it was farthest from. It was "story-truth", yes, and the largest purpose of such a thing is to pull at a reader's heartstrings. It is not to use logic and fact to spark your mind, as it deals so much more with bringing upon a tightness in your chest and a slumping to your shoulders. For those that read the book, it strives to earn a reaction off of them, something I feel it very easily achieves. The goal is for you to feel what O'Brien felt, or more honestly, what many of the men stationed in Vietnam felt. You could read the facts, the body counts, but nothing compares to the atmosphere surrounding Norman Bowker's desperation as Kiowa sinks into the muck, Curt Lemon's fading into the sunlight, or O'Brien himself cataloging every inch of the man mangled on the road, over and over again.
The Things They Carried does not tell you the heroics of every character. It tells you of faulty decisions, gruesome death, and the effects of war on humanity, and nothing is quite as real as that.
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 meaning of “happening-truth,” is a way different style than “story-truth.” If someone were to be telling a happening-truth, it does not come off as interesting as a story-truth. During a happening-truth story most people have the same reaction being uninterested, and unaffected of the outcome of the story. The story may be important or moving for you, but for others listening, it is more of a story that does not need to be told. Story-truth comes off completely different. While telling one of these types of stories there is a lot more animation and inflection in the voice of the story teller. The people listening are usually more interested and involved with the story, instead of giving the thoughtless comments. Story-truths often time give more of the experience of the story and keep listeners involved not wanting to miss a detail. O’Brien uses the story-truth technique to write his novel. It is easier to get your point across with this technique. Story-truth comes off as more true due to the listeners being more interactive and being able to experience the war deeper rather than with the happening-truth technique.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I thought this book was a completely true story from Vietnam. I know now on the front of the book it says it is a fictional book but I tend to want to jump right into the book. The first thing that persuaded me was that the authour had the same name as the main character. Usually, books with the main character that has the same name as the authour are truthful ones or the authour has a very high view of his or herself. This helps with O'Brien making his "story-truth" that much more believable. Story-truth is something that is blatantly a complete lie that was made up but it was made up out of truths and what very well could have happened. Even though all of the things written in the book is fiction, nearly all of the stories could be real or as close to the truth of what happened in Vietnam without telling what really happened in Vietnam. In the chapter "How to Make a True War Story", O'Brien says the only way to make a true war story is to make a story about "...mystery and terror and adventure and courage and discovery and holiness and pity and despair and longing and love". In "Good Form", O'Brien is trying to tell the reader that you can not get the entire truth if you are told what is just happening. He is saying you need to feel the rush of emotions and every detail that is around you. Since the mind exaggerates events on its own, O'Brien exaggerates what happens so you can feel the same things he and his fellow soldiers felt. That is the difference between happening-truth and story-truth.
ReplyDeleteFrom the beginning of the novel to the end of the novel I had believed that the narrator and the author were two in the same. Throughout the novel the narrator discusses the actuality of a true war story. The author had purposefully gave the main character the same name as he and wrote with the style as if he was remembering these stories as any other person would flash back to an important point in their life. This was a wonderful way of getting the reader to believe the "story-truth" he has written about. The other type of truth, the "happening-truth", is a way to show what is actually happening from ones perspective. This way will not wholly portray the actual truth though. If one is trying to find the complete and utter truth they would have to know the story from multiple perspectives and the event from an unbiased position. In the novel, O'Brian writes, "A true war story is never moral", although, while reading I found that there are morals in the story. Hence the reason I thought the story was actual.
ReplyDelete"Happening truth" and "story truth" are on different spectrums but are also go right along with each other.
ReplyDelete"Happening truth" is the boring stories that have no real excitement and adventure to it. It's the type of story that makes you all of the sudden tired and extremely bored.
"The Thing They Carried" is a fantastic example of "story truth". The author can take the "happening truth" and make it into the "story truth". Which is the nail bitting, on the edge of your seat kind of story. This takes the real truth and just makes it more enjoyable.
As displayed in the novel, everyone has a baggage they have to carry be a burden or a major help. For me that baggage is being shy. As most things, it has its positives and negatives. If you are shy you probably tend to look before you leap. This trait can be helpful when it comes to making decisions. Thinking carefully and planning before taking action are important for many "bumps in the road" by planning for the unexpected, avoiding risk at all costs, and setting long-term goals. In addition, people who are shy learn how to be good listeners. But on the contrary, it can be a burden. The disadvantage is that sometimes people think that if you don't say anything you have no opinion. The feelings of being afraid. The danger is that some people let shyness get the best of them and are afraid to dominate and you may never get a chance to live your dreams.
ReplyDeleteIn the novel the author kept his name throughout. To me, this affected my outlook on the book in a positive manner. Instead of viewing it as a fiction novel, by using his name instead of imagining a character I found it more as an autobiography. I felt as though keeping himself and not changing anything about his qualities made the book more relatable and believable.
In my opinion, war stories is a subject that can make or break a book or novel. Tim O'Brien included more than just stories of himself at battle. A war story should be about more than guns, ammunition, and enemies. To make it interesting, we the people want to hear what the soldiers did when they weren't on the battlefield. We want the "behind the scenes" inside scoop; it's human nature. In addition, we can learn more and get a deeper meaning of the soldiers lives by learning about their lifestyles while in Vietnam.
Throughout The Things They Carried, it is difficult to separate what is fictitious, and what is true. We obviously weren't there to live out the experience. During the entire work there are two different “truths”, which are “story truth” and “happening truth”. “Happening truth” is the actual events that happen, or time line on which the story is compiled on. “Story truth” is the re-shaping of the “happening truth” that allows the story to be believable and enjoyable. It is not easy to distinguish “happening truth” from “story truth”, and at times during the novel O’Brien reveals which is which. A few chapters of the book that stood out more than others when it comes to this concept of truth are “Love”, “How to Tell a True War Story”, “The Man I Killed”, and “Good Form”.
I carry my phone and my set of keys which are a help to me. However, I can also tend to carry my insecurities and occasionally shyness which tends to be a burden to me. I carry my phone to contact people and a phone is honestly more so eases the minds of others so they can know where I am at any given moment. My keys allow me to enter and leave my home as I please. The insecurities and slight shyness I carry in order to censor myself and shield myself from others because I do not like others to see my genuine outlook on things as well as me being vulnerable. At first in the novel, I thought that this was a true story with a man just reiterating this wartime experiences in a garbled and dramatic tale of his journey in Vietnam. Although fiction is simply just a tall tale, it does tell the “truth” because stranger things have happened in this quirky world. The important thing about the story is not the plot or characters but what you take away from the story and apply to your own life or the moral if you will. Even Aesop’s fables were simply stories about talking animals; each one had a moral and was used as lessons for children on morality. Tim O’Brien’s novel does the same thing, leaves the reader with a lesson to take along with them. The narrator says that a true war story will almost seem impossible or completely unrealistic. I think a true war story must have a sincere story teller in order for it to become “true.” The “story truth” basically means fantasy and the “happening-truth” is reality. The “happening-truth” would have to be “truer” because the “happening-truth” is reality and currently happening in real-life.
ReplyDeleteO'Brien composed The Things They Carried by injecting himself into the story. He was not telling the actual, "happening"/. truth. He did not share stories of swatting bugs or restroom breaks. He told the stories that mattered to the reader, relatable things that had reason. He wrote stories of regret and love and indecision, and not much in-between stuff. O'Brien made the stories realistic not by telling the happenings, but the effects. The character of Mitchell Sanders looks at every story not as a happening, but an event with a moral. What's the point of a story without a meaning? What's the point of a tragic event if we cannot learn from it? What's the point in a life that has no meaning? People don't care about war story that they can't learn from or appreciate. By telling the story-truth, O'Brien can deliver the morals and the importance that a war story must carry.
ReplyDeleteEven though "The Things They Carried" is a fictional novel, it does teach us the truth behind real war stories. When finding 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 a story when it is revised so that people that did not witness the scene will still be able to understand in a third person point of view. O’Brien’s whole message is based on trying to show readers that war is an unbelievably bazar thing that may involve gruesome and unrealistic happenings. 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.
ReplyDeleteit is impossible to know whether or not any event in the stories truly happened. O'Brien intentionally escalates this impossibility when his characters contradict themselves several times in the collection of stories, rendering the truth of any statement suspect. O’Brien’s aim is to make the point that truth of a war story is less relevant than the act of telling a story. O’Brien is attempting to explore the ways that speaking about war experience establishes or fails to establish bonds between a soldier and his audience. The technical facts surrounding any individual event are less important than the subjective truth of what the war meant to soldiers and how it changed them.
ReplyDeleteThe sole purpose of this novel is to show what war is truly like. The book is composed of "story truth" rather than "happening truth", the only reason being that O'Brien wants a way for common citizens to understand what it feels like to be in war and we need emotional bonds with the characters. One example of O'Brien's "story truth" is of the boy who is killed near My Khe. When he first tells the story, he claims to have thrown the grenade that killed the boy himself. However, he later admits that he did not kill the boy, but he was simply present when he was killed yet that was enough for O'Brien to consider himself at fault. He wanted the readers to read it and feel the guilt that he felt and the only way of doing that was to make himself the character that killed the boy.
ReplyDeleteIn a strictly black and white world, this novel would be put under fiction for the very reason that he tells so many lies during his stories. This world is not just two colors though, and so examining the stories for lies and truths is rather complicated. He uses his own name, which makes you think that he has to be telling the truth for some of it because he makes the experience personal. However, he does bluntly say that most of his material is a lie to turn a good story into a war story. In the end I decided that he did tell the truth, but it was more of a universal truth. He added details that gave the stories moral and memorable ideals which are in fact true. Though the facts may have been wrong the message was real.
ReplyDeleteIn "How To Tell a True War Story", O' Brien explains how a true war story is fake. I believe a true war story has a purpose. It's not pointless , like recalling what you had for breakfast, it serves a purpose and is told and remembered for a reason. Good form is similar to this. O' Brien tells us that it's not always important what's real and what's fake. What's truly important is the morals and perception of the story. Delivering the "story truth" allows O' Brien to focus on those while drawing in the reader. If he were to write the "happening truth" the reader would not only most likely not be able to relate as well, but would not be left with any memorable impact such as a moral.
"The Things They Carried", is classified as a fictional book, if someone picked up this novel and read it without knowing the label, they would most likely think it is a non fiction novel. Even though this novel is composted of the "story truth" it is still somewhat telling the actual truth. O'Brien writes the actual details about weapons and makes up stories about things that could actually happen in war, which is what makes the "story truth" seem like the actual truth. In order to make a true war story, it can not be like all the other ones you hear. It needs to be detailed oriented and heart wrenching, not something that sounds artificial. The story needs to have a reason to be told and to spark interest because the story should be telling you whats truly important.
ReplyDeleteThe "story truth" would be the facts that's attracting the reader. It would be the details and the things that seem true to be true even if its not. The "happening truth" would be the legitimate truth that would involve the boring, unrelatable details that would leave the reader with nothing to hold on to.
In the novel, "The Things They Carried" there are many true ideas that even in a work of fiction, the audience reading the novel may gain perspective on. One of these truths is the idea of distractions. In modern-day society our world is absorbed with social media, and what better thing to carry around with us than our cell phone which holds a multitude of ideas with just a few applications? Although the soldiers did not carry these magical devices we are so reliant on now, they still carried some type of distraction whether it was legal or not.. aka Ted Lavender. These distractions are definitely a burden even though they might not seem like it at the time of using them. As far as the statement goes from Tim O'Brien claiming that ""A thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth," could be true of the American people’s perception of Vietnam War from the United States. What good would the government be if not to "sell" a war which we were losing.
ReplyDeleteI believe the purpose of the chapter, “How to Tell a True War Story”, is to demonstrate that you cannot learn morals from a fact or a happening. You need a story, truthful or not, to teach an underlying moral. If you were told that some American soldier named Kiowa was killed in the mucky waters of Vietnam during monsoon season, you would think nothing more of it. But if you knew a story behind it, how it happened, who was involved, or even what that soldier carried, meaning may come from it because that story will tug on a person’s emotional strings.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the narrator and the author of The Things They Carried has the same name, it made me think that even though the book is fiction, maybe some of the events are actually true. I then thought that maybe some came from O’Brien’s own experiences so I looked up his biography and it turns out he was in the army. Also, I think this book tells the “truth” because throughout the whole book it describes human behavior and psychology; therefore, the stories that are told may not be completely true but the reactions of the characters could be. In “How to Tell a True War Story,” the narrator says that in a true war story the things that are normal are actually made up and only added to the story to make it seem true. For me, what makes a true war story would be the vivid details. However, these details could be so terrifying that they can’t be told because they would scare the person listening or the people that were reliving the events by telling the story. Also, things can be so real that we don’t believe it. In this case, it would be very hard to ever come across a true war story. In “Good Form,” the narrator talks about “story truth” and “happening truth.” What he means by “story truth” is the actual events with some made up events. What he means by “happening truth” is the actual events only. “Story truth” may be truer than “happening truth” because, as said in “How to Tell a True War Story,” sometimes the added events are what makes the story seem real.
ReplyDeleteAs Rebecca Crane stated that if someone picked up the book without knowing the label they would more than likely believe the book to be non fiction. I found myself questioning the classifications of the book as I was pulled farther in to the book, reading more and more.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the author Tim O’Brien choose to use his own name as the narrator of the book confused me, I couldn't quite understand it oh how it was fiction but “he was there.” After a chapter of my confusion and more of the wonderful content of this book everything became clear and I enjoyed the book even more. Things can be true in one context yet not be real in another. I say that yes this book tells the truth, because it doesn't have to be a real life event to Mr. O’Brien to be true and real to someone who was actually in the Vietnam War.
“True war stories do not generalize. They do not indulge in abstraction or analysis.”(74) A true war story is a story that is specific and not too crazy or no one would believe but not bland and boring. Story truth is true to the story but doesn’t have to be true to the world. While happening-truth sounds like the opposite true to real life. Depending on what type of truth you are looking for both could be the one which is more true than the other truth.
While reading "The Things They Carried" I made a deeper connection with the text and characters due to the fact that the narrator shares a name with the author. Even though the book is fiction, the connection between the narrator and the author made it feel like O'Brien was telling a story of what had happened to him, as opposed to something that he had made up. This work tells the truth, simply because it takes an event that really happened, and placed the reader in the mindset of someone who was there. It's a realistic interpretation of the war and the reaction it had on the people involved in it. What O'Brien narrates, although not true in this case, may have been similar to someone's actual experience.
ReplyDeleteIn "How to Tell a True War Story" O'Brien states that "A true war story is never moral." If the story teaches a lesson or makes you feel good, then it's a lie in O'Brien's perspective. I believe that a true war story may or may not end happily, but will most certainly have extreme highs and lows throughout. In "Good Form", O'Brien mentions "story truth" and "happening truth". Story truth is something that could have been real, but will make the reader feel what the author wants them to feel. Happening truth is what really happened, and the author can't control what you feel when you read that. If the author wants the reader to feel a certain way towards a certain character or event, then they'll use story truth. It's almost like a safety for the author; the person will recognize what he or she wants them to. On the other hand, if the author wants the true story told, despite what the readers outcome may be, he or she will use happening truth. One is just as true as the other; the only difference is how the audience will feel after.
"Story-truth" is truer to emotion than "happening-truth." When you tell a story, you want to make people feel how you felt when it happened. Happening-truth can make little things that were important sound meaningless, so you exaggerate them to get the response you want, or to make whatever point you wanted to make. How many stories of the Vietnam War have been told? A lot. O'Brien needed to make his story different and important, and convey the ideas he felt it needed to. Were all the little things the men carried really an important part of the war? Probably not. But telling about them, and all the other little things that went on in the book, even if they weren't all completely "happening-true", really drives home the point that these were real people in a terrible place, and that war is brutal.
ReplyDeleteThe book show us a truth that no news report can. The book shows us that there is much more than just sadness, anger, and hate in war but there is also happiness, laughter, and love. Also with the book it tells us you can never believe a true war story because war stories shouldn't have a moral. The true war stories may be exaggerated because if they weren't the people hearing wouldn't really know how you felt at the time.
ReplyDelete-Anthony Bomia
"Happening truth" and "story truth" are two differnt types of truths that go hand and hand. Hpaaening truth is what actually happened and how the events actuall played out. while story truth can be manipulated by the author for a more suspence and drama to the story. "The Things They Carried" by Tim O'Brien is a fantastic example of story truth because O'Brien ws able to manipulate to add dramatic affect.
ReplyDeleteThe narrator tells the readers that there is no morals in war stories because war is ugly not something that's beautiful and completely understood. It's about people putting aside their morals and doing as their told leaving them filthy and ashamed.
ReplyDelete"Happening truth" is fact, no exaggeration no emotion just the cold hard truth. That's why "story truth" is different, it's all about emotions and exaggerations and being able to relate to what's happening. It gives you background and plausible thoughts that someone in that position could of had and that's what keeps readers interested. That's why fiction stories are more popular than non-fiction especially amongst kids.
At first I was a little confused that the narrator and the author had the same name. Now I see the narrator and the author as the same person. Even though the book is fiction, I think that O’Brien used real events in his life to write the novel. The novel shows real external and internal struggles of soldiers. I think the passion from the story teller makes a true war story. By “story-truth” I think that O’Brien means a story filled with emotion. He means the type of story where you can see the story teller light up because of the passion and truth behind it. I see the “happening truth” as more of historical, documented events. The “story truth” may be more creditable then the “happening-truth” because people can easily forget what they did, but not how they felt. As the novel shows, everyone has things that they carry. These can be both literal and figurative things. Some tangible things I always carry would be my cell phone and money. I don’t think it’s the items themselves that bring me comfort, it’s the idea that I can get a hold of anyone at anytime or buy anything I want that comforts me. These tangible items help me.
ReplyDeleteStory truth has the idea that every story that you hear has exciting emotions and feelings that go along with it. The happening truth, is the facts of the scenario. I see the happening truth as a more reliable source, because I've been in situations where my emotions take over so strongly that I don't remember the events exactly a few hours later. But sometimes the story truth is the truer truth because you can get the emotions of the situation and know exactly what both sides are feeling. I think that the answer to this depends on how each person interprets the question and the situation.
ReplyDeleteWith the narrator of The Things They Carried having the same name as the author I thought that this book was almost a work of autobiography if you will. I thought the author was actually in the Vietnam War and that his stories were just slightly altered making the book fiction. I believe this book does tell the “truth” as it demonstrates how terrible the Vietnam War was and the effect it had on people. Although this book is fiction it aims to be as accurate as possible and show readers what the Vietnam War was like.
ReplyDeleteThe narrator says in “How to Tell a True War Story,” what a true war should be. He says that “A true war story is never moral,” and that “There is no virtue.” What the narrator is trying to say on the topic of war stories is that you won’t feel happy after hearing one, and if you do it’s a lie. The narrator also says that a true war story will embarrass you. War stories will also be hard to separate what happened from what seemed to happen according to the narrator. The narrator also says a true war story will never seem to end nor will it seem true at all. He even says that if you do believe the war story you should feel skeptical. Often in a true war story the narrator claims there is no point or deeper meaning, and if there so happens to be a deeper meaning it is generalized and very apparent. What I think makes a true war story is simply the person telling it. This is mostly because they were the only ones there at the time of the incident so no one can correct them or tell the audience that something else happened. In truth the story teller can make up whatever stories he wants and they become the truth as he is the only one that witnessed the event therefore no one can say otherwise or challenge his story.
What the narrator refers to as “happening-truth” is what happened at the time the incident occurred and “story truth” is what happened when the story is retold. One might be truer than the other because it allows one to recapture feelings or images or memories of things that actually happened at the time through stories. At the time due to other feelings such as fear what was seen or heard may be distorted compared to telling a story which may allow the teller to mold the story however they feel fit so the audience feels what the teller felt at the time of the event.
When the narrator discusses "happening-truth" he is referring to the sequence of events that happened truly. In "story-truth" it is more of the emotions and what it felt like to the person. In some ways it can be more important to understand the thoughts of the people telling the story and to hear it from their own perspective. It's like the way a person experiences a story is almost more true than what actually happened. It also has the opportunity to make a story more interesting than just the events and the order that they happened in. It introduces emotion and gives the teller the power to make the story into his own unique experience.
ReplyDeleteTim O'Brien describes a true war story as not even true at all, as war is difficult to understand. He wants to grab the reader's attention by using "story-truth," where some of it is made up, and some of it is not. He wants us to feel what he felt in the worst moments. Story-truth may seem to actually exaggerate the truth because it needs to be able to make the reader actually feel how the characters in the story felt. Happening-truth isn't necessarily as exaggerated, it usually turns out to be the straight truth, but it doesn't make the reader feel what the characters felt because it's too quick of a description.
ReplyDeleteThe author and the narrator both having the same name shows that the narrator is showing the true reality of their situation. It also get's to the reader with "happening-truth" and "story-truth". "Story-truth" symbolizes how we empathize along with the characters and what their going through, there is more connection and depth to "story-truth". In "happening-truth" there is no connection making a book tiresome to read. "The Things They Carried" used "story-truth" making the reader feel more connected to the reality of it all even though this is a work of fiction.
ReplyDeleteTim O'Brien, the author and also the narrator of the story, created something that I as a reader was able to learn from and emotionally attach to. The narrator talks about everything and everyone with such detail, yet at times it seems almost bland. It is almost as if the literal traits of the Vietnam war are just the cover of a book, and the actual meaning, emotion and true story come from within reactions, emotions, and personalities of the narrator and the characters. I believe the use of "story-truth," is able to make readers understand the life of a soldier in the Vietnam war. Details of each soldiers emotion and true thought at some of the possible life-altering events are almost strong enough to effect the readers emotions at times. Or at least were in my case. The narrator seems to really tell the events just as they must have occurred. Some events went on in description for pages and pages, and some seemed to be barely a sentence or more. For example, when the narrator explains the death of Ted Lavender, it is within one page that he is shot and dead. Gone. "how fast is was, no drama, down and dead, and how hard it was to feel anything except surprise." as Kiowa, one of the soldiers thought. Just simply a man walking, shot in the head, and killed, leaving him to drop to the ground lifeless almost instantly. But the way he portrays the reaction and emotions Lieutenant Cross ends up having later in the night and how he stitches them together with the feelings toward Martha, the woman he loves back home. Each event has its own effect on each character, leaving the reader with more than one perspective to indulge in. A story with a sequence of events and one perspective to understand it from is much different than of one with events that happen from more than one angle, opinion and perspective. The author Tim O'Brien created a story that in my opinion, must be so true it comes across as surreal at times throughout the book.
ReplyDelete