https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4kA47odT8g
Respond to the questions for "How to Tell a True War Story". Post a comment.
How to Tell a True War Story
Platoon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPi8EQzJ2Bg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKpQB3bEPbI&list=TLpkj93aMlKiM
Tim O'Brien:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C48fWkljK28
http://prezi.com/i7pnwqaf45c2/the-things-they-carried-lesson-plan/
Read over the following summaries and analysis of "How to Tell a True War Story." Then discuss with your group the key questions posted in red. As a group find passages in the story that show the distinction between "happening truth" and "story truth". Post a group comment reflecting the key points of your discussion and passages you may want to refer to later in your paper. Why are ambiguity and paradox so important to the telling of these stories about the Vietnam War?
Memory and Reminiscence
Because ‘‘How to Tell a True War Story’’ is written by a Vietnam War veteran, and because Tim O’Brien has chosen to create a narrator with the same name as his own, most readers want to believe that the stories O’Brien tells are true and actually happened to him. There are several reasons for this. In the first place, O’Brien’s so-called memoir, If I Die In a Combat Zone, contains many stories that find their way into his later novels and short fiction. Thus, it is difficult for the reader to sort through what is memory and what is fiction.
There are those, however, who would suggest that this is one of O’Brien’s points in writing his stories. Although most readers would believe that their own memories are ‘‘true,’’ this particular story sets out to demonstrate the way that memories are at once true and made up.
Further, as O’Brien tells the reader in ‘‘How to Tell a True War Story,’’ ‘‘You’d feel cheated if it never happened.’’ This is certainly one response to O’Brien’s story. Readers want the stories to be true in the sense that they grow out of O’Brien’s memory. O’Brien, however, will not let the reader take this easy way out. Instead, he questions the entire notion of memoir, reminiscence, and the ability of memory to convey the truth.
Truth and Falsehood
Certainly, the most insistent theme in this story is that of truth and falsehood. O’Brien, however, would be unlikely to set up such a dichotomy. That is, according to ‘‘How to Tell a True War Story,’’ truth is not something that can find its opposition in untruth. Rather, according to O’Brien, because war is so ambiguous, truth takes on many guises. Even seemingly contradictory events can both be considered true. O’Brien uses the event of Curt Lemon’s death to make this point. O’Brien knows, for example, that Curt is killed by a rigged 105mm round. However, as the scene replays in his mind, O’Brien sees the event very differently. It seems to him that Curt is killed by the sunlight, and that it is the sunlight that lifts him high into the tree where O’Brien will later have to retrieve Curt’s body parts. Thus O’Brien distinguishes between the truth that happens and the truth that seems to happen.
Moreover, O’Brien likes to play with words and to undermine the logical connection between words. In Western philosophy, it is considered impossible for a word to mean itself and its opposite at the same time. O’Brien demonstrates it may indeed be possible. For example, when he writes, ‘‘it is safe to say that in a true war story nothing is ever absolutely true,’’ he is creating a paradox. If nothing is ever absolutely true, then even that statement cannot be absolutely true. The paradox suggests that while it might be possible to approximate truth, it must be told, as Emily Dickinson once wrote, ‘‘aslant.’’
Perhaps the most disconcerting moment in this tale occurs when O’Brien tells the story of the woman who approaches him after he tells this tale. Most readers assume that O’Brien the author is speaking, and that perhaps he is telling a story of what happened to him after a reading of his fiction. When the woman says she likes the story about the water buffalo, O’Brien is annoyed. Although he does not tell her, he tells the reader that the entire episode did not happen, that it was all made up, and that even the characters are not real.
Readers may be shocked. How could O’Brien have fabricated all of this? Then the reader may realize that O’Brien is playing with the truth again, for if everything in the story is fabricated, then so is the woman who approached him. This play with truth and falsehood provides both delight and despair for the reader who will never be able to determine either truth or falsehood in O’Brien’s stories in the traditional sense. As Stephen Kaplan suggests in Understanding Tim O’Brien, ‘‘[O’Brien] completely destroys the fine line dividing fact from fiction and tries to show . . . that fiction (or the imagined world) can often be truer, especially in the case
of Vietnam, than fact.’’
How to Tell a True War Story: Style
Point of View and Narration
One of the most interesting, and perhaps troubling, aspects of the construction of ‘‘How to Tell a True War Story’’ is O’Brien’s choice to create a fictional, first-person narrator who also carries the name ‘‘Tim O’Brien.’’ Although the narrator remains unnamed in this particular story, other stories in the collection clearly identify the narrator by the name Tim. Further, the other stories in the collection also identify the narrator as a forty-three-yearold writer who writes about the Vietnam War, ever more closely identifying the narrator with the author.
On the one hand, this connection is very compelling. Readers are drawn into the story believing that they are reading something that has some basis in the truth of the writer Tim O’Brien. Further, the authorial voice that links the story fragments together sounds like it ought to belong to the writer.
On the other hand, however, the device allows O’Brien to play with notions of truth and ambiguity. Does the narrator represent the author? Or do the narrator’s words tell the reader not to trust either the story or the teller? What can be said unequivocally about the Vietnam War? O’Brien’s use of the fictional narrator
suggests that there is nothing unequivocal about the war. Rather, it seems that O’Brien, through his narrator Tim, wants the reader to understand that during war, seeming-truth can be as true as happening-truth.
Ought the reader consider the narrator to be unreliable? After all, after pledging the truth of the story from the very first line, he undercuts that claim by telling the reader at the last possible moment that none of the events in the story happened. While this might seem to point to an unreliable narrator, a narrator who cannot find it in himself to tell the truth, it is more likely that O’Brien is making the point that the entire story is true, it just never happened. This distinction, while frustrating for some readers, is an important one not only for the understanding of ‘‘How to Tell a True War Story’’ but also for the reading of The Things They Carried.
Structure
‘‘How to Tell a True War Story’’ is not structured in a traditional manner, with a sequential narrative that moves chronologically from start to finish. Rather, O’Brien has chosen to use a number of very short stories within the body of the full story to illustrate or provide examples of commentary provided by the narrator.
That is, the narrator will make some comment about the nature of a ‘‘true’’ war story, then will recount a brief story that illustrates the point. These stories within the larger story are not arranged chronologically.
Consequently, the reader learns gradually, and out of sequence, the events that led to the death of Curt Lemon as well as the events that take place after his death.
This structure serves two purposes. In the first place, the structure allows the story to move back and forth between concrete image and abstract reality. The narrator writes that ‘‘True war stories do not generalize.
They do not indulge in abstraction or analysis.’’ Thus, for the narrator to provide ‘‘true’’ war stories, he must provide the concrete illustration. While the stories within the larger story, then, may qualify as ‘‘true’’war stories, the larger story cannot, as it does indulge in abstraction and analysis.
The second purpose served by this back-and forth structure is that it mirrors and reflects the structure of the book The Things They Carried. Just as the story has concrete, image-filled stories within it, so too does the larger book contain chapters that are both concrete and image-filled. Likewise, there are chapters within the book that serve as commentary on the rest of the stories. As a result, ‘‘How to Tell a True War Story’’ provides for the reader a model of how the larger work functions.
The story that results from this metafictional (metafiction is fiction that deals with the writing of fiction or its conventions) structure may seem fragmentary because of the many snippets of the story that find their way into the narrative. However, the metafictional commentary provided by the narrator binds the stories together just as the chapters of the book are bound together by the many linkages O’Brien provides.
Tim O’Brien’s Criteria:
o A true war story is never moral.
o It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things men have always done.
o If a story seems moral, do not believe it.
o Does not uplift
o No virtue
o Allegiance to obscenity and evil
o Difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen
o Cannot be believed… must be at least skeptical.
o Often the crazy stuff is true and the normal stuff isn’t
o You can’t even tell it—it’s beyond telling.
o It never seems to end.
o If there’s a moral, it’s a tiny thread that makes the cloth, you can’t tease it out or find meaning without unraveling deeper meaning.
o You might have no more to say than maybe “oh.”
o Makes the stomach believe
o Does not generalize, abstract, analyze
o Nothing is ever absolutely true.
o Often there is not a point that hits you right away…
o Never about war.
1. O'Brien says that you can't really tell when a true war story is true or not, and that it doesn't matter. He also says that it's probably fake if it has a happy ending.
ReplyDelete2. It's likely meant to tell the reader that what he's saying in the story is true, not necessarily the story itself. It's the subtext that matters.
3. O'Brien is telling the reader what war is really like by showing them what a war story never is, because those things are never true about war. There are no happy endings, there are no morals, and in many cases it cannot be believed.
4. The cruelty and lack of necessity of it along with the descriptive and drawn out account of its torture.
5. If we're being honest, I don't really have any idea as to why it could be a love story. If I'd have to guess, I'd say that maybe it's a love story to war itself? There's a juxtaposition of the ugliness and beauty of war in the story, so maybe that could be it.
1.) O'Brien shows through his stories that his truth are the truths of war and not always the truth of the interaction that did happen but the aspect of. war itself told in a way that would happen is just as true.
ReplyDelete2.) The line begins to make the reader think about the validity of the claim as the events are fictionalized but question how the morals of war are twisted and of no importance of the people fighting the war.
3.) O'Brien shows the reader the anxiety and crudeness of war as things are unpredictable such as Rat Kelly offering a buffalo some rations but then mutilating and murdering it.
4.) The scene with the buffalo is so disturbing to most being as they haven't killed an animal and we see them as helpless and somewhat inferior. In contrast to the soldiers and men in our society, they are seen as somewhat disposable the gore is seen as unbelievable but acceptable; however, an animal is personified like a child in most scenarios.
5.) This quote escapes me as I can only think of this maybe trying to reverse the situation as the love of war and and parallel to Love stories.
1) You tell a true war story by entering into it by using a story that leads into something that happened in the war.
ReplyDelete2) The story begins with the line “This is true” because it is something that has happened while a war was going on but not while fighting in it.
3) O’Brien thinks these elements are important because it’s not something that should be moral. You can look at it anyway you want but at the end of the day you’re still killing someone who just wants to protect their country.
4) It’s more disturbing because the baby water buffalo didn’t deserve to die. Not only that but it did nothing to them and they took it away to a secluded area and caused harm to the baby water buffalo.
5) It’s a love story in the sense that it involves nature, love for your comrades, and the memories you are given.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. According to O'Brien a true war story is most likely not about war. It's about the things that happened throughout the war and the people you spent the time with and the things that you saw. The things that you grew to be thankful for. A true war story is true when you find no point in it. You just listen/read it, but it has no point. It doesn't have a moral and never seems to end.
ReplyDelete2. When you read that first line, you think, is it? That is because he is preparing the reader to understand that even though the story has no pint in it and continuous and continuous, he is not adding or taking things away to make it seem beautiful. He is just saying it the way that it happened. It is true because it has no moral or doesn't show proper human behavior.
3. A few elements of a true war story is that it is never about war, you can't find any deeper meaning, the crazy things are more true than the normal things, it does not uplift the reader, and sometimes it feels like there is no point in it. O'Brien believes that these elements are important because he is telling them the things that really happen that writers never write about war that is true.
4. The baby buffalo scene is the most disturbing because Rat didn't just want to kill it, he wanted that innocent animal to feel pain because he was in pain. That poor animal tried to get back up after being hurt, but it was hard to get back in place, so he was in pain. Instead of dying instantly, he would die with pain and torture.
5. O'Brien say that it is a love story because he explains the beauties of being in war and sees everything as beautiful. While talking about Lemon's death, he explained the beauty of death. O'Brien was in love with the things that happened/his thoughts/what he saw during war because it seemed to fulfill his life.
1- You tell a true war story when it has no moral, no virtue. He says that its only really a true war story if it embarrasses you. You don't care about telling your embarrassing story because it is true, you don't make anything up. True war stories get mixed up because most of the time, you see everything after it happens, so you don't really know it all. What you see gets mixed up with what you might have seen and that's how your "real" story comes up. Historical truth has to do what has already happened, while fictional truth blends in with what you think might have happened and what actually happened.
ReplyDelete2-The story begins with "This is true" because in a way it shows us how fake war stories begin. The person telling it is apparently sure of what they will say and will tell you that it is the most amazing and life-changing war story... but war stories have no moral. Therefore what they are about to say is mostly just a made-up story. This prepares readers because apart from showing how fake stories can start, it also shows us that O'Brien's story is not true either.
3- He believes that no morals, no typical human behavior and no virtue is what makes up a true war story because you don't care for obscenity. You simply don't care how it seems to others.
4- The baby water buffalo scene is more disturbing than the death
Curt Lemon because O'Brien goes so much into detail about how the buffalo died and how Rat Kiley was feeling and what led him to do that.
5- This could be interpreted as a love story because in a way, love is a battle. It's not all just easily handled and you never know what will really happen. Love and war come together because they both consist of people having a hard time to get what they want.
1.According to O'Brien, war stories don't have any moral so asking why or how when hearing the story is pointless. He stresses how war stories are never true because when something happens, it's hard to "separate what happened from what seemed to happen"(O'Brien 71). To O'Brien, a true story sometimes sounds so out of this world, it may not sound true and it probably isn't anyways.
ReplyDelete2.Starting the story with "This is true" makes the reader question what gives the author the need to have to first explain this. It makes the reader question whether maybe it is true or not or if the author is simply trying to tell a story to prove a specific point.
3.One element of a true war story O'Brien explains that is interesting is "...a true war story cannot be believed ...be skeptical"(71). He says this because it may be hard to tell a war story, specifically a true one. He explains that questioning the believable aspects of a story is important to see whether it is true or not.
4. The scene of the baby water buffalo shows the hurt and pent up emotion that not only Rat Kiley holds but all of the soldiers as well. The death of Curt Lemon is normal to them and just another day in the war.
5.O'Brien explain the control you have when telling a story because that person may not necessarily know whether your'e telling the truth or not. He says "It was a love story"(85) which makes sense because he doesn't tell Curt Lemon's death as something gruesome and part of war but something beautiful and describing images of nature to explain his death.
1.) It's hard to tell if any war story is true. That most of the time it doesn't matter if it is true or not because as long as there is no happy ending then it's most likely not fake.
ReplyDelete2.) To let them know that what the character in the story is saying is true but not necessarily the story itself in general. The undertone is what you should really pay attention to, and is all that really matters.
3.) He always emphasizes that there is no happy endings in war or no happiness necessarily. That with war it’s a mixture of things such as beauty, drudgery, hell, and fun. There are no morals when in war, nothing really matters except killing or being killed and trying to make it out alive.
4.) Because he literally tortured the baby water buffalo. He prolonged it’s death just to get out his pent up anger, grief, and other emotions. By doing so he killed an innocent animal in a brutal way just to release some of what he was feeling.
5.) I’m not exactly sure how this was a love story. I could really only guess that maybe it's because he always talks about how there is beauty in war.
1.You tell a true war by not including morals or having it not actually be about war. A true war story is true when it gives the reader a sense of what it was like, the event doesn't have to be historically true.
ReplyDelete2.He begins his line with that because he wants the reader to believe it and to say "this is what it must've been like" even though it was all made up.
3.Elements: No moral, does not generalize, make it believable.
4. it's more disturbing because torturing an animal is seen as inhumane and killing humans in war is natural,
5. It's seen as a love story because Tim finds the beauty in war.
1. What O'brien says is that it isn't always possible to tell a true story from a fake one. Stories that are true usually don't have a happy ending, so if the story has a happy ending then it might not be true. He says it's hard to separate the truth from reality.
ReplyDelete2. The story starting out like that, would make the readers question if this is actually true. It'll make them wonder if ay of the other stories are also true. He seems to start it like that because he wants them to believe that this is what it's actually like.
3. There are no morals/ lessons to be learned. There never can really be a happy ending when there's a war. Neither can it be an amazing experience, one can't truly be happy going to a war and coming out of a war. Shows how messed up the war is.
4. Rat takes out everything that he's feeling on this baby buffalo, because he can't keep his emotions bottled up inside anymore. At first he offered it some rations, then he tortured it to death. This shows what the soldiers feel inside. Rat Kiley seemed to be the one to react to what he was feelings. This is different, if he were killing another human being it wouldn't be as surprising considering in the war you kill other human beings, not animals.
5. He calls this a love story, but not exactly between two people. It's a love story that helps us realize the beauty of the war.
1. According to O'Brien, telling a war story isn't easy. These types of stories don't really have a happy ending. There are no morals in war stories.
ReplyDelete2. He begins his story like he was there. He pretends he was in the war and is telling "his" story of it. He put himself in the place of a soldier and tried to understand what they actually go through.
3. O'Brien believes that there shouldn't be any morals in the story or lessons to be learned from the story. A happy ending is not present in war. There are no pleasant memories or experiences during war.
4. Rat took out his frustration on a baby buffalo. The audience can tell that he was just building up all of his emotions and finally decided to let them out.
5. O'Brien calls it a love story. He calls it this because he is trying to persuade us that there's beauty in war.