In Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried, we found that the idea of truth played a significant role in the novel. While reading, we came across this idea a number of times; however, the idea was a bit unclear. This is because O’Brien creates two truths- “story truth” and “happening truth.” These two truths left us wondering what was real and what was imaginary, but as we read, we found it difficult to distinguish between the two. We realized that since Tim O’Brien is a post-modernist writer, the idea of truth is difficult to define in his novel. There are several times in the text where the line between truth and storytelling is difficult to identify. An example of this is in his story “Notes.” O’Brien writes “By telling stories, you objectify your own experience. You separate it from yourself. You pin down certain truths. You make up others. You start sometimes with an incident that truly happened, like the night in the shit field, and you carry it forward by inventing incidents that did not in fact occur but that nonetheless help to clarify and explain” (158). O’Brien admits to making up truths, which made the line between truth and fiction hard to define. Because of the indefinite line between the two, this passage led us to believe that there was a connection between truth and storytelling. However, we were interested to know just what this connection was.
The fact that O’Brien uses two different truths could lead the reader to have confusion when trying to connect the two ideas or when trying to understand what’s fact and what’s fiction. O’Brien jumps between “happening truth” and “story truth” throughout the entire novel, yet doesn’t create a definite separation between the two. The passage from “Notes” creates confusion because O’Brien admits to taking factual stories and twisting the truth of the actual events so he can develop his own stories. This made it difficult to distinguish between true stories and fictional stories while reading the novel. The Things They Carried is filled with these blurred and unclear descriptions of truth, which led us to believe that there was a deeper meaning and a greater significance for them other than simply creating confusion.
This confusion led us to the question “What is the connection between the way O’Brien handles ‘truth’ in The Things They Carried and his desire to communicate to his readers the value of storytelling and reading stories?” Once we developed this question and began our research, we found that many of the authors were saying that there was, in fact, a direct relationship between truth and storytelling in The Things They Carried. Many of the authors suggested that O’Brien had an emotional motivation for linking the two concepts. Others proposed the idea that Post-Modernism drove O’Brien to create an indistinct idea of truth. Other authors felt that O’Brien was merely trying to get readers to understand that truth can be skewed depending upon the person and the situation. Whatever the case, all of the critiques we read believed that O’Brien had some sort of purpose behind his storytelling and simply desired that readers understand the value of truth and stories and the link between the two.
Showing posts with label Deciphering Between Fact and Fiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Deciphering Between Fact and Fiction. Show all posts
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Discovering the Best Way to Tell a Story
Calloway, Catherine. “’How to Tell a True War Story’: Metafiction in The Things They Carried.” Critique 36.4 (1995): 249. Literary Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 30 Nov. 2010.
In her critique, Calloway expresses her idea that the issue of truth is the root of many of O’Brien’s stories in The Things They Carried. Calloway states that “a war story can be viewed from many different angles and visions.” She explores these various angles and concludes that The Things They Carried is ambiguous and difficult in determining what’s true and what is not. An example she uses is the way the opening page of the novel says that everything is fictional and is then dedicated to the men of Alpha Company a few pages later. Calloway says that this uncertainty leads “the reader to wonder if the men of Alpha Company are real or imaginary,” which adds to the novel’s ambiguity before it even actually starts. This ambiguity is what creates questioning for readers that are trying to discover the “truths” of the novel. It is difficult to learn and understand what is true and what is not, however, because O’Brien’s “tales become stories within stories or multilayered texts within texts within texts.” According to Calloway, these layers upon layers add to the ambiguity of the novel. Calloway points out that the way O’Brien’s novel is about the process of writing, not just about what the text says and creates for readers, also adds to the ambiguity. By writing about the process of writing, O’Brien creates confusion. This confusion is brought on because O’Brien will tell a story, which seems true, and then in his next chapter, will write about the process of coming up with the story. This leads readers to ponder whether his stories are true or are just written from his imagination. Putting truth, questioning, and the many other layers of O’Brien’s novel aside, Calloway says, in the words of Tim O’Brien himself, that the best way to tell a true war story is “just keep on telling it” (91), no matter which view or vision you have of it.
The focus of Calloway’s article is about the way O’Brien uses truth to create fictional stories and how these two completely opposite view points are linked. Calloway’s suggestion that O’Brien uses uncertain “truths,” because truth is often mistaken for fiction, can help readers understand why O’Brien emphasizes the importance of truth in relation to storytelling. One way The Things They Carried connects fact and storytelling is the way O’Brien uses truth to create fictional stories. This can often create confusion for readers and lead readers to question which parts of the novel actually happened and which parts O'Brien made up. Calloway states that “the reader has to piece together information, such as the circumstances surrounding the characters' deaths, in the same manner that the characters must piece together the reality of the war.” Because things continuously need piecing together, it could be assumed, from what Calloway said, that O’Brien may have wanted readers to have to piece together what is truth and what is fictional storytelling and find the line separating the two. Also, according to Calloway, understanding O’Brien’s use of ambiguous truth is something similar to the idea that storytelling keeps the truth and actual, real events alive. Calloway says “fiction is used as a means of resurrecting the deceased.” This quote suggests that there may be another link O’Brien uses between truth and storytelling. Either way, O’Brien has created a definite link between the two, according to what Calloway has written in her article.
In her critique, Calloway expresses her idea that the issue of truth is the root of many of O’Brien’s stories in The Things They Carried. Calloway states that “a war story can be viewed from many different angles and visions.” She explores these various angles and concludes that The Things They Carried is ambiguous and difficult in determining what’s true and what is not. An example she uses is the way the opening page of the novel says that everything is fictional and is then dedicated to the men of Alpha Company a few pages later. Calloway says that this uncertainty leads “the reader to wonder if the men of Alpha Company are real or imaginary,” which adds to the novel’s ambiguity before it even actually starts. This ambiguity is what creates questioning for readers that are trying to discover the “truths” of the novel. It is difficult to learn and understand what is true and what is not, however, because O’Brien’s “tales become stories within stories or multilayered texts within texts within texts.” According to Calloway, these layers upon layers add to the ambiguity of the novel. Calloway points out that the way O’Brien’s novel is about the process of writing, not just about what the text says and creates for readers, also adds to the ambiguity. By writing about the process of writing, O’Brien creates confusion. This confusion is brought on because O’Brien will tell a story, which seems true, and then in his next chapter, will write about the process of coming up with the story. This leads readers to ponder whether his stories are true or are just written from his imagination. Putting truth, questioning, and the many other layers of O’Brien’s novel aside, Calloway says, in the words of Tim O’Brien himself, that the best way to tell a true war story is “just keep on telling it” (91), no matter which view or vision you have of it.
The focus of Calloway’s article is about the way O’Brien uses truth to create fictional stories and how these two completely opposite view points are linked. Calloway’s suggestion that O’Brien uses uncertain “truths,” because truth is often mistaken for fiction, can help readers understand why O’Brien emphasizes the importance of truth in relation to storytelling. One way The Things They Carried connects fact and storytelling is the way O’Brien uses truth to create fictional stories. This can often create confusion for readers and lead readers to question which parts of the novel actually happened and which parts O'Brien made up. Calloway states that “the reader has to piece together information, such as the circumstances surrounding the characters' deaths, in the same manner that the characters must piece together the reality of the war.” Because things continuously need piecing together, it could be assumed, from what Calloway said, that O’Brien may have wanted readers to have to piece together what is truth and what is fictional storytelling and find the line separating the two. Also, according to Calloway, understanding O’Brien’s use of ambiguous truth is something similar to the idea that storytelling keeps the truth and actual, real events alive. Calloway says “fiction is used as a means of resurrecting the deceased.” This quote suggests that there may be another link O’Brien uses between truth and storytelling. Either way, O’Brien has created a definite link between the two, according to what Calloway has written in her article.
Finding What's Definite in the Unclear
Kaplan, Steven. “The undying certainty of the narrator in Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried.” Critique 35.1 (1993): 43. Literary Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 1 Dec. 2010.
After researching and scrutinizing The Things They Carried, Kaplan’s opinion of the ambiguous novel is that readers will never fully know the hazy, indefinite “truths” of the Vietnam War or the novel itself. Kaplan examines and explores the way O’Brien uses storytelling to explain truth in The Things They Carried and facts about the Vietnam War. He looks at the way O’Brien questions truth and reality and how he handles and deciphers between fact and fiction. Kaplan struggles with the question of whether “these stories and the characters in them are real or imaginary, or does the ‘truth’ hover somewhere between the two?” He answers by examining the novel’s “narrative structure” and comes to the conclusion that O’Brien is unable to distinguish between the real and the imaginary “because the very act of writing fiction about the war… is determined… ultimately by life in general where ‘the only certainty is overwhelming ambiguity’.” By determining this, Kaplan begins to understand (in his opinion) that O’Brien cannot create certainty nor distinguish between fact and fiction. Ultimately, Kaplan comes to the conclusion that readers will never fully know the “truth” to the war or behind O’Brien’s ambiguous writing because readers did not experience the war. O’Brien explains “that it is impossible to know ‘exactly what had happened’”, which backs Kaplan’s opinion that the novel can never be fully understood. Kaplan concludes that we will never know “the undying uncertainty” of the war or the novel.
The way Kaplan approaches and addresses the uncertainty of “truth” in The Things They Carried reveals and attempts to answer a number of questions O’Brien creates in the novel. O’Brien’s stories are problematic in regards to understanding the Vietnam War and what actually happened in Vietnam; he creates uncertainty by stating facts and then questioning the truth behind them. Kaplan states that “storytelling in this book is something in which ‘the whole world is rearranged’ (39) in an effort to get at the ‘full truth’ (49) about events.” This statement reflects one way that O’Brien ties truth and storytelling together to create an unclear, yet distinct (in style), story. Kaplan also suggests that “the reader is thus made fully aware of being made a participant in a game… and thereby also is asked to become immediately involved in the incredibly frustrating act of trying to make sense of events.” By becoming participants, readers are forced to decipher events and understand them, yet it is difficult because of the way O’Brien handles truth. This article concludes with the idea that readers will never fully know the truth behind the war- whether O’Brien’s The Things They Carried is an actual depiction of the war or just a story with little truth behind it, but reading the article can provide insight as to why O’Brien created such uncertainty in The Things They Carried.
After researching and scrutinizing The Things They Carried, Kaplan’s opinion of the ambiguous novel is that readers will never fully know the hazy, indefinite “truths” of the Vietnam War or the novel itself. Kaplan examines and explores the way O’Brien uses storytelling to explain truth in The Things They Carried and facts about the Vietnam War. He looks at the way O’Brien questions truth and reality and how he handles and deciphers between fact and fiction. Kaplan struggles with the question of whether “these stories and the characters in them are real or imaginary, or does the ‘truth’ hover somewhere between the two?” He answers by examining the novel’s “narrative structure” and comes to the conclusion that O’Brien is unable to distinguish between the real and the imaginary “because the very act of writing fiction about the war… is determined… ultimately by life in general where ‘the only certainty is overwhelming ambiguity’.” By determining this, Kaplan begins to understand (in his opinion) that O’Brien cannot create certainty nor distinguish between fact and fiction. Ultimately, Kaplan comes to the conclusion that readers will never fully know the “truth” to the war or behind O’Brien’s ambiguous writing because readers did not experience the war. O’Brien explains “that it is impossible to know ‘exactly what had happened’”, which backs Kaplan’s opinion that the novel can never be fully understood. Kaplan concludes that we will never know “the undying uncertainty” of the war or the novel.
The way Kaplan approaches and addresses the uncertainty of “truth” in The Things They Carried reveals and attempts to answer a number of questions O’Brien creates in the novel. O’Brien’s stories are problematic in regards to understanding the Vietnam War and what actually happened in Vietnam; he creates uncertainty by stating facts and then questioning the truth behind them. Kaplan states that “storytelling in this book is something in which ‘the whole world is rearranged’ (39) in an effort to get at the ‘full truth’ (49) about events.” This statement reflects one way that O’Brien ties truth and storytelling together to create an unclear, yet distinct (in style), story. Kaplan also suggests that “the reader is thus made fully aware of being made a participant in a game… and thereby also is asked to become immediately involved in the incredibly frustrating act of trying to make sense of events.” By becoming participants, readers are forced to decipher events and understand them, yet it is difficult because of the way O’Brien handles truth. This article concludes with the idea that readers will never fully know the truth behind the war- whether O’Brien’s The Things They Carried is an actual depiction of the war or just a story with little truth behind it, but reading the article can provide insight as to why O’Brien created such uncertainty in The Things They Carried.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)