So, after reading this chapter, I think I felt the way O' Brien wanted me to feel. His words affected me, and his story affected me. He conjured images of war in my mind- images that were so real and so explicit that I couldn't believe it. He says, on page 78, "True war stories do not generalize. They do not indulge in abstraction or analysis. For example: War is hell. As a moral declaration the old truism seems perfectly true, and yet because it abstracts, because it generalizes, I can't believe it with my stomach. Nothing turns inside. It comes down to gut instinct. A true war story, if truly told, makes the stomach believe."
At this point in the novel, O' Brien got his story across. For that reason, of all his definitions and explanations of a true war story, the quote above resonates, for me, as the most truthful and the most accurate definition of a true war story. He wrote what cannot be told, and spoke what cannot be spoken. He made me question the validity of his story and his words, he made the implausible and the surreal seem ordinary and REAL. And he told me a true war story.
So how can you tell a true war story? By one that makes your stomach turn, your head spin, your eyes bulge, and your thoughts freeze? By one that questions your beliefs? By one that leaves you wondering, questioning, or wanting more? By one that teaches you something new? What is it for you?
19 comments:
That's a really good question Katie and I completely agree with you that this was an especially difficult chapter to read. The most traumatic part of the chapter for me was when O'Brien would write about Rat Kiley and Curt Lemon's game and then would describe the latter's death; I can not even begin to imagine what it would be like to see someone close to me die right in front of me, especially that way. To answer the question, I detracted something completely different from the chapter. By the end, I thought that O'Brien was trying to say that a true war story is not necessarily the bloodiest or the saddest, but those stories that reveal the true emotions of war that leave you with friendships, love, and memories. Although this was not the main theme of the chapter, I thought of this while reading the final paragraph. I thought the most beautifully written part of this book so far was the final paragraph in which O'Brian says, "And in the end, of course, a true war story is never about war. It's about sunlight. It's about the special way that dawn spreads out on a river when you know you must cross the river and march into the mountains and do things you are afraid to do. It's about love and memory. It's about sorrow. It's about sisters who never write back and people who never listen" (85). I feel that from this paragraph O'Brien is trying to tell the reader that anyone can tell a story of the deaths and atrocities of war; stories can be exaggerated or blatantly made up, but no one can fake the emotions that war evoke.
I completely agree with both of you. While I found the Curt Lemon's death and Rat Kiley shooting the baby bull atrocious, I felt that there was a deeper meaning to those true war stories. It seemed to me that it was not about the gore. Instead, I felt that O'Brien was trying to portray the mental effect of war. For example, in the story of Curt Lemon's death, he describes Dave Jensen: "The gore was horrible, and stays with me. But what wakes me up twenty years later is Dave Jensen singing 'Lemon Tree' as we threw down the parts" (83). Additionally, I felt that the mental side of the soldiers was depicted in the other stories. Rat Kiley shoots the baby bull in order to cope with Curt Lemon's death. The soldiers who hear the rock talking were clearly under mental strain. A true war story, therefore, explains more than just the gore and the victories and explores the minds of the soldiers.
I definitely agree with everything that has been said. I also thought the most traumatizing part of this story was the part with the baby cattle; it was the most difficult for me to read. The most interesting part of this chapter, for me, was the way O'Brien compared the truths and lies of war stories. While reading, O'Brien succeeded in confusing me entirely. However, I think that O'Brien's point in this chapter was that the gore and horrors of war stories can have such an impact on the listener that they seem unreal, yet the truth is war is a phenomenon that effects a soldier for his entire life. The severity of the situations that O'Brien and his platoon were placed in make then question if these events really did take place, as the horrors are too atrocious to believe.
Also, I think a main component of war stories is this concept of silence that O'Brien constantly refers to. Mitchell Sanders' story was particularly significant, with the idea that silence is the moral of a true war story. Literally, in war, certain things remain unspoken, because of the horrors that they evoked. A silence exists because of the common bonds the soldiers hold. I am still questioning whether war can truly be silent, considering that O'Brien himself continues to pass on his own war story.
really good intro Katie. And i totally agree with the contrasting stories in this chapter. It was definitely a hard chapter to read.
In my opinion, the way to tell a true war story is when the listener is cringing and feeling all the different emotions of war, like love, hate frustration etc. I know that my definition makes it really hard to tell a true war story but O' Brien did accomplish it by making the reader feel different emotions at the same time.
I also think it is a good question. For me, a true war story is one that almost seems unbelievable almost like there was no possible way it happened. However, the story is actually believable because it is so out of the question. A true war story should be one that greatly affects the audience hearing it because it is so moving both in good and bad ways. A true war story should never be forgotten.
wow katie, thats a great question.
In my opinion, a true war story is something that makes you think about it so much to the point where it enters your dreams, something that resonates throughout your everyday life. It has to be a story that stays in your mind, but it keeps you from spreading it to anybody else. Like a termite, the thought of it eats at your mind, but it doesn't share it with anything.
I also agree with what everybody said. They way O'Brien conveys his imagery in this chapter is absolutely spell-binding.
Good Intro/ Question Katie...I think that the way to tell a true war story is by having the ability to leave the reader/listener with an understanding of the effects that a war can have on a human and allowing the reader to grasp that feeling as well. O' Brien is able to do so, but not making the reader feel the same as those who were there, but by making them understand what they were feeingl. Telling a true war story is not about making the reader choose sides or cringe at the details of the brutal atrocities that took place, its about making them understand it.
Great question Katie. I would have to say that the way to tell a true war story is to leave the listener/ reader afraid of war. Most war stories haunt you, which was O'Brien's intention. Like Nikki said, he doesn't only mention the violence of war, but the emotional effects of war on the soldiers. This chapter haunts the reader, and leaves them with their own emotions and thoughts about war. O'Brien is trying to make the reader understand the war, however, in most cases, a war story will undoubtably make you quiver or cringe because of the gory details.
Wow katie great intro...the way I feel is kind of similar to what zack was saying. I think that a true war story is defined by the disbelief it makes you feel. If your having trouble believing the story, that is what makes you realize it is true. I think a true war story will also leave speechless which relates to the theme of silence. The theme of silence also refers to the response that those that tell war stories receive. We see this when Lemon's sister does not write back to Rat Kiley.
I think that a true war story scares you into believing it.
My soul* hurts after reading this. Animal cruelty is not my thing. But the worst part of that particular scene is that O'Brien's explanation of Rat's actions make perfect sense. He was hurting, he had an outlet.
The fact that this chapter made clear to me is that we are not by any means meant to understand this story. You had to be there, and I thank G-d that I wasn't.
The worst scene of this chapter was, for me, the woman who says she liked the story. She should be chilled to the core, and yet she seems to believe that saying the story was not awful would make O'Brien feel better.
*Yes, Cedric, I DO have a soul.
-if the person who's being told the story has never been in a war, i guess the best story would be one they wouldn't understand until entering a war. I've been told several horrific war stories that I don't think i've taken full meaning from as i haven't been in a war, nor have i had the such a high amount of responsibility for a group of people or a goal as a soldier does to his platoon and mission. O'Brien says something along these lines with the story of the platoon that went up into the mountains with the radio and heard voices; new to war, he couldn't grasp the full meaning. He later said that often times, the meaning of a true war story isn't realized until twenty years later, once the listener has experienced what the characters went through.
-for a war story to be good to a soldier, i think it has to transcend war itself. Like Olivia mentioned, O'Brien says, "...a true war story is never about war (85)." The story has go go beyond war and speak to the storyteller's emotions and how they've been mentally affected by the war. The carnage could be terrible, but if the story is very straightforward and easy to understand, i don't think it could be considered true.
I agree Katie, the imagery in this chapter was almost too hard to read. I think the only way to tell a true war story is when the reader feels like they were there. When they are feeling the same emotions as the person telling the story. Because that is the only way they will ever know what being in the war was like. And if the author cannot do that, then they aren't telling the story right, they shouldn't tell it at all. O'brien definitely made me feel like i was there watching/experiencing it and for that reason i was terribly disturbed by this chapter.
The whole idea of the contradictory nature of war is critical. Killing others is glorified in war when it is condemned in other contexts. Any idea of morality - a line between right and wrong - is distorted; to the rest of the platoon, Rat Kiley's killing of the baby buffalo was completely justified.
The entire novel is a bit contradictory. In How to Tell a True War Story, O'Brien repeatedly notes that true war stories don't have morals. Yet The Things They Carried is a war story, and I feel that it certainly does have a moral, if a little hidden (maybe O'Brien is telling us that war stories don't have morals so that we look harder for one in his novel).
So, to answer simply, a true war story is inherently confusing and contradictory.
I definitely agree that this chapter was difficult to read. As to answering the question i think war is something that can be heard but needs to be understood completely and affect someone with some sort of feeling. I think a true war story is something that people do not want to believe because of the tragedy that occurs. They rather hear the twisted truth just for the positive yet most of the time fake thought in their own minds. To avoid the idea of war most people do not listen to the stories that would impact them in painful and mental ways. Also, even though the death of Curt Lemon was hard to handle as a physical death it was harder to read the mental impact it had on Rat Kiley. Kiley reacted by killing an innocent baby buffalo which was definitely hard to read but I felt it was also difficult reading how Kiley was suffering himself as a result of his best friend's death. O'Brien definitely had me feeling various emotions while reading this chapter.
katie that gave me chills... but tim obrien made me a little more sick and uncomfortable. most of what ive been thinking has been said already but i believe that a true war story is one that the speaker has difficulty with putting into words. one that when you hear it, you cannot believe it, or that war itself exists, and it brings you shame that someone else endured it, while you were safe at home. a true war story is discouraging - not inspirational, and leaves all who hear it speechless.
after hearing his war stories, its difficult to put my emotions into words. he describes feelings ill never be able to feel, and events i could never bare to witness. his beautiful, powerful language leaves me feeling guilty and insignificant - like nothing, nobody can compare or understand the longing, friendship, or memory that the soldiers experience and carried/carry with them to this day.
I guess that there is no such thing as a true war story. When a horrific event happens, every witness sees something different, so there are many different 'true' stories. The story gets spun many different ways, and the truth for one person might not be the truth for another.
i really liked this chapter. i thought just about everything tim o'brien had to say had meaning. Sometimes though, i wasn't exactly sure what that meaning was, it just sort of had a lot of weight. I think a true war story leaves you feeling just really, really sad. No matter if it's what would be considered an uplifting war story or not, it leaves you with a feeling of utter desolation. For some the stories might be hard to believe, but I don't think it's its a requirement. I think it can be believed but like Tim O'Brien said there is not much more to say than "oh".
i agree with every1 in saying that this chapter was hard to read.although the baby bull and the death were particularly atrocious i thought the most disturbing thing was dave jensen singing lemon tree as they brought down lemon. i thought this was the worst part because it showed how particularly disturbed these men were so much that they could watch one of their friends die and still be able to sing about it afterwards. what makes a true war story to me is a story that is dramatic enough in its own right, so that it does not need to be expanded on like the one about the men on the silent mission. a true war story is a story that needs no hyping up and can just be told honeslty like the lemon story
Great question! I agree with everything that has been written here so far, although I tend to think that the idea of a true war story goes beyond just shocking you with the gore. I think it delves into the minds of the soldiers, not just revealing how damaged they are mentally, but what they choose and don't choose to remember about something. It is the way they cope. Sort of tying back into the silence theme... because some memories are "silenced" or the soldiers do something to block out the pain. The Curt Lemon incident was so unimaginable for Dave Jenson that he started singing some ridiculous song about it.
I actually read something kind of interesting about the concept of war stories while researching for my last book, Catch-22. And much as I would like to forget that whole process, I'll mention it here. It said something like that Joseph Heller's (the author) thesis about war was that it was insane in itself, and therefore insane things are going to happen that are just going to be incomprehensible to people who haven't been in war. As much as that explanation may seem simple to the point of senselessness and the way it answers the question is very circular (a la Catch-22), I think it's pretty resonant. And it goes back to Jenson, who was so affected by the "insanity" of war that he completely blocked it out. We might be shocked as outsiders, but it was actually a very human response.
Post a Comment