Please finish reading the book for Monday (if you have not already done so!). Think about the ending of the book. So what happened to Kathy? QUIZ TIME???
Continue to work on your historical fiction short story. A completed story or work-in-progress (at least 5 pages) is due at the end of the marking period (MARCH 16). We'll be getting The Madonnas of Leningrad as soon as the books come in.
CHECK OUT THE VIDEO LINKS FOR TIM O'BRIEN ON THE BLOG (to the right below the followers and links)...
For today's classwork response, please post a comment to one of these reader discussion questions:
3. What does O'Brien accomplish in
the sections titled "Evidence"? What information do these passages
impart that is absent from the straightforward narrative? How do they
alter or deepen our understanding of John as a magician, a politician, a
husband, and a soldier who committed atrocities in wartime? What
connections do they forge between his private tragedy and the
pathologies of our public life and history? Does the testimony of (or
about) such "real" people as Richard Nixon, William Calley, or George
Custer lend greater verisimilitude to John's story or remind us that
it--and John himself--are artifices?
4. Who is the narrator who
addresses us in the "Evidence" sections? Are we meant to see him as a
surrogate for the author, who also served in Vietnam and revisited Thuan
Yen many years after the massacre? (See Tim O'Brien, "The Vietnam in
Me," in The New York Times Magazine, October 3, 1994, pp.
48-57.) (You read this below!) In what ways does O'Brien's use of this narrator further explode
the conventions of the traditional novel? (Also consider how the film version handles the "narrator" as an aggressive reporter)
Thank you for your posts and comments!
4) I think that Tim O’Brien meant for the narrator who addresses the reader in the “Evidence” sections to be seen as a surrogate for the author, who also served in Vietnam and revisited Thuan Yen many years after the massacre. Knowing O’Brien’s personal past with the Vietnam War from his article, “The Vietnam in Me,” the narrator of these sections is very much based on Tim O’Brien himself, as if the fictional character of John Wade is actually an individual who ran for Senator and his wife is missing and Tim O’Brien is narrating their story through the evidence of the case. O’Brien uses the narrator of these sections to separate the action within the chapters and build the suspense for the reader. The evidence sections persuade the reader to believe one theory or another, keeping them guessing with the other characters, rather than drawing conclusions simply from the action within the traditional narration alone.
ReplyDelete3. He accomplishes delving deep into the thoughts and perceptions of others when it came to what happened at My Lai (Thuan yen) and how that visibly effected the surviving soldiers, including John Wade. The information it offers is more about the higher ranking soldiers commands to destroy everything that lived, how family remembers felt about the situation and how other people may have seen John in relation to what happened at My Lai. They alter our understanding oh John as such roles mentioned above by helping clarify, he's only one man who have taken on all these identities perhaps to cover his inner turmoil of his father's rejection and hate, but we only see him as a man who is distorted when it comes to his true vision of reality and how he also sees himself. The connections made is him surviving the war and live on helps builds the pre-existing emotional disturbance inside of him which he manages to conceal in public with his different personas i.e. politician. The testimonies of real people such as the ones mentioned above help remind us that all of the characters including john--the unreliable narrator are in fact artifices in the bigger story O'Brien is telling.
ReplyDelete4. The narrator is perhaps a reporter, or an omni-present narrator, or perhaps even O'Brien himself. Yes, I believe we are meant to also believe tis narrator is a surrogate for O'Brien since the author himself is a soldier who survived the harsh realties of war and has to live with that everyday. The use of narrator breaks down regular barriers for how novels are written by adding excerpts within the chapters from different people, also many Q and A's take place with different characters as well, something not in conventional novels. For the film version, the aggressive reporter as the narrator really shouldn’t have been that way, as it makes the story seem less surreal than in the books. There was always a huge layer of mystery within each chapter of the book, but with the reporter it just seems like an everyday made for TV movie.
This is Carolynnn
DeleteDuring the more straightforward narration of the novel, the reader finds out how John sees himself. We find out how he liked to do magic tricks, about his experience in war, and about his short-lived career as a politician. We get his point of view. During the “Evidence” sections, the narrator achieves a higher sense of understanding for the reader. What the sections encompass are the views of people around John, how they see him. The reader gets a chance to see into Johns mind, but through the “Evidence” chapters, we see more of his influence on the people around him. We see him the way a stranger would see him. We see him through societies eyes.
ReplyDeleteO'Brien does accomplish getting deep into thoughts and perceptions of others when he recalled what happened at My Lai. He got into thought about how the traumatic events affected the surviving soldiers, John Wade included. He talked about the way the military system worked in a sense that the higher ranked soldiers and commanders were the ones that were calling the orders and bomb the places. Also the thoughts are about what the families that lived through it were feeling and going through. These events and thoughts are also what changes our view of John to an extent. He was seen as a malice and almost lost-soul type of character before going into depth of his personal thoughts and feelings. The way that he views himself, and also to show how unclear he is about the things that have happened to him. In a way he isn't familiar with any cooping strategies and doesn't know how to properly address the way that he feeling. The main connection is with him surviving the war and how in some ways he is unable to move past in. He still involves himself to an extent by becoming a politician. All of this, dealing with the things that happened to the survivors and also keeping up with John's story proves that O'Brien is trying to rely a much larger message.
ReplyDelete4. I do believe that the narrator that addresses us in the evidence sections are a surrogate for the author. Through the some of the footnotes, we see small notes (although there was one the size of the entire page). Through these footnotes, O'Brien talks about the certain piece of evidence, which leads onto Vietnam. These small notes are sometimes inquisitive, or empathetic, talking about Vietnam and also referring back to John Wade. Speaking to the reader in this way is something I've never seen before and goes way beyond what the conventional traditional novel does. It was very interesting and added another depth to the book, along with the way it flashed forward and backward. And although I thought that the narrator portrayed in the film was a bit cheesy, I thought they did the best they could with what they had. Unfortunately, everything cannot transition well onto film, the narrator being one of them. The aggressive reporter did his role, and made up for what he could, but this portrayal made the film so much more commercial and television than what the novel should've been. But there were other things that influenced that as well.
ReplyDeleteJust like in the Things They Carried, Tim O'Brien is tricking his readers. In someways, yes, the narrator in the Evidence chapters can be considered an extension of Tim O'Biren, but just like the narrator in the Things They Carried, this is not completely true. The narrator is the author in the sense that he put together these facts and ideas to give us an understanding of the situation, but he also is his own. Throughout the small excerpts we get from him, he expresses his obsession with Kathy and John. He is consumed with the mystery and to him, that is really all he needs. He has a very interesting character, in my opinion. He questions how well we know our own family, and explains that in many ways John Wade feels more real to him than his own memories. He offers an interesting parallel to the main story. He was also in Vietnam, he also has his secrets, he also hides from his memories. But instead of being a poitician, he is enticed by mystery and the millions of unknowns. This story is just one of them.
ReplyDeleteSo, back to the point: To me, the narrator is very much his own character, just like Tim int he Things They Carries was his own character. They are maybe extensions of Tim O'Brien, but still very much their own. Furthermore, the narrator was a very important element to the story. It added a personal feeling to all of it, and tricked the reader into caring a little bit more. The entire "Evidence" chapters were very transcending and broke a lot of the norms for fictional writings. It gave us real facts as well as fictional facts, and gave us a narrator only through footnotes. It was very interesting and broke the flow of the novel in a way that made you want to focus.
The investigator of the film is nothing like the narrator, in my opinio. Firstly, the narrator was not a news reporter. He was someone who, likely years later, found passion in the disappearance of John and Kathy. He read up on a lot of books, compiled a lot of facts and did tons of research to come up with all the conclusions that he did. He did not meddle in John's life and was never really a part of it. The investigator in the film gives an antagonist, and a face to the man we see only in words with the novel.
Shannon Kalia
ReplyDelete4.) Throughout the novel, the narrator is unknown, it not being John Wade or Kathy, and it's someone that sees the actions of both characters and what's going on rather than told from one character's point of view. However, in the "Evidence" chapters, both in the beginning and the end, are told by a separate narrator, which I think is meant to be seen as a surrogate for the author. It almost seems like a lot of O'Brien and his thoughts and commentary about John's life and Vietnam are explored in these sections.
These chapters are different from the rest of the book because they're like little side chapters that reflect back to how Kathy's gone missing, which sometimes I'd forget was the main plot of the book because of all the flashbacks, chapters about Kathy and John's relationship, and of his childhood. Having these chapters separates the plot and actions in the chapters, and gives insight into how other people thought of the characters and their life. The "Evidence" chapters are getting views from people and their different theories of what could've happened to Kathy, that all seem very believable - John killing her, her just leaving, a boat accident on the lake, John using his magic to make her disappear, all things that are reasonable and can be backed up with some kind of evidence. The suspense and curiosity for the reader builds while reading this chapter, and keeps them wondering which theory is actually true.
I know when I was reading, I was constantly torn between thinking John killed her because he seems very angry and shady sometimes and probably traumatized from being in war, and the part with him pouring the boiling water almost made me confirm that he did something to Kathy, or at least definitely had something to do with her disappearance. Then, with his fascination of magic, and the scene where he talks about how he wanted to disappear within Kathy, or how in Vietnam he saw the two snakes eating each other's tails, going from two snakes to zero, and how it seemed liked he wished him and Kathy could do the same, convinced me that he performed a disappearing trick. Unlike most novels told through a linear narrative, where the plot leads up to the reader finally figuring out a resolution or answer to what actually happens at the end, this book leaves you hanging and doesn't straight out tell you what happens to Kathy, and it's up to the reader to decide based on the theories explained in the "Evidence" chapters, exploding the conventions of a traditional novel.
I think the narrator is either a reporter. or even Tim O'Brien himself. I somewhat believe that the narrator is a surrogate for O'Brien, but I also believe the narrator is saying things from his own input as well as O'Brien's. Maybe is was from past experience on the Massacre. The narrator was possibly in the war himself and actually met O'Brien and knew that he took part in the massacre. But then again, maybe the narrator was O'Brien himself. This chapter in the book doesn't really prove that John Wade killed his wife, but rather gives clues and thoughts on what might have happy and where she could be. Tim O'Brien used this character to get more information from the most of the characters. It giving off suspense for the reader to go deeper in the book. It's one of those chapters in the book where almost every word and sentence plays a part in the plot.
ReplyDelete*..in the war himself and actually met JOHN WADE. Not O'Brien.
ReplyDelete3.) By creating the sections titled “Evidence”, O’Brien brings insight into how the protagonist, John Wade, was before he became involved in politics as well as the kind of man others knew him to be. Along with accomplishing how others viewed him as an individual, these sections also demonstrate John’s personal relationships with other individuals involved in his life besides Kathy. By doing this, readers are able to understand John more as a character, rather than only a politician, and thus the characterization of John is built as the novel continues. By being able to view the way other characters see John as a person, readers are able to view the kind of man he actually is. Due to running for the position of senator, John is shaped and crafted into a man people wish to look up to, respect, and overall put their trust in. Because of this, John is portrayed as a man that has all of these qualities. By having the sections titled “Evidence,” readers are able to venture away from that perfect portrayal, and are able to understand the character on a deeper level. After John’s image is shattered from the news of his crimes in Vietnam, many people feel sympathy for John. When his wife Kathy goes missing, speculations are made that his anger for losing the election as well as the re-opened wound of Vietnam play a part in her disappearance. Along with characters within the book making these speculations, readers begin to create their own similar assumptions as to what actually happened to Kathy. By writing the “Evidence” sections of the novel, O’Brien is able to help readers see the personality of John; helping readers figure out whether or not he could have actually been involved in his wife’s disappearance. (These sections also help foreshadow the novel: His anger in the election and from his father dying demonstrating that he could have enough anger to harm her.)
ReplyDelete3. I think that in the “Evidence” sections, the reader is allowed to see things a little more objectively, and that the sections help the readers follow the path that the investigators were on. It gives more perspective to the reader than a normally structured novel does and it gives you lots of different opinions on what is happening and he characters that are involved in the story. They alter or deepen the understanding of the character in that the reader gets to see and understand things that the narrator doesn’t out rightly explain, and it also shows that the character has many many secrets. They intertwine history and tragedy and fact and fiction, and it makes for a more interesting read. Yes and no. The “testimonies” make the story seem more realistic but they also make it seem like its not real. It really depends on the section. That being said, I think that having those parts in the story is a good choice, and I wouldn’t want them to be taken out, because while they seem to lack an air of believability, they also seem to firm the story up.
ReplyDeleteAngela Boyle
3. The “Evidence” sections of the novel was an affective way to leave the regular voice of the narrator and understand what may have happened from other people’s perspective. After reading a story that may have been told by the reporter, the plot becomes more realistic when historical passages and the quotes from other characters are included. The break that separates the course of the story from the original narrative will deepen our understanding of “John Wade’s Box of Tricks.” After reading how unhappy the couple was and the hypothesis, you only know what kind of character John was when it came to his relationship with Kathy. When his mother recalls on John’s childhood in the Evidence section, it becomes clear that he was a troubled kid. A dead alcoholic father was only the beginning of his traumatic lifestyle before he entered into the Vietnam War. All throughout the novel, it is evident that his past has greatly affected his works involving politics and his marriage. His constant flashback to his father eventually has a negative effect on his campaign. The violent tendencies he has towards Kathy only shows that there is possibility that he may have hurt her when they were on the lake. In some cases, a regular narrative is the best way to tell a story. But when it comes to a mystery, it is necessary to add a section that goes deeper into the character’s mind.
ReplyDeleteMy interpretation of the narrator was that he was supposed to be a version of the author, perhaps not O’Brien himself, which would be too obvious, but for purposes of the novel he was someone like that. The narrator had similar experiences as he served in the Vietnam War. Reading the article “Vietnam in Me” and the novel The Things They Carried we gained an expansive background of O’Brien’s experiences in the war, and the way it affected him, and as a result, how it affected his work. The narrator, although explained by O’Brien not to be a manifestation of him, was most certainly inspired by himself, and by other men in his position. These layering degrees of relation in his novels, most specifically in In the Lake of the Woods, helps to add to the suspense, and create the uncertain, ambiguous air that O’Brien so often works to develop.
ReplyDeleteGracie Elliott