AGENDA:
Homework: Read to pg. 219 in The Things They Carried for Thursday
Figures of Speech
http://grammar.about.com/od/rhetoricstyle/a/20figures.htm
Discussion Questions :
“In the Field”
1. Briefly summarize the plot and style of the story. Is this story more of a “true” war story than the account in the chapter “Speaking of Courage”?
2. What point of view is used to narrate “In the Field”?
3. Why is the young man not identified in the story? What is the character’s purpose in the narrative?
4. In “In The Field,” O'Brien writes, “When a man died, there had to be blame.” What does this mandate do to the men of O'Brien's company? Are they justified in thinking themselves at fault? How do they cope with their own feelings of culpability? Consider all of the characters.
5. What, in the end, is the significance of the shit field story (or stories)?
“Good Form”
1. In “Good Form,” O'Brien casts doubt on the veracity of the entire novel. Why does he do so? Does it make you more or less interested in the novel? Does it increase or decrease your understanding? What is the difference between “happening-truth” and “story-truth?”
1. Briefly summarize the plot and style of the story. Is this story more of a “true” war story than the account in the chapter “Speaking of Courage”?
2. What point of view is used to narrate “In the Field”?
3. Why is the young man not identified in the story? What is the character’s purpose in the narrative?
4. In “In The Field,” O'Brien writes, “When a man died, there had to be blame.” What does this mandate do to the men of O'Brien's company? Are they justified in thinking themselves at fault? How do they cope with their own feelings of culpability? Consider all of the characters.
5. What, in the end, is the significance of the shit field story (or stories)?
“Good Form”
1. In “Good Form,” O'Brien casts doubt on the veracity of the entire novel. Why does he do so? Does it make you more or less interested in the novel? Does it increase or decrease your understanding? What is the difference between “happening-truth” and “story-truth?”
From an interview with Tim O'Brien.
It's a great interview. You can read the whole thing at:
www3.wooster.edu/artfuldodge/interviews/obrien.htm
DS: Speaking of credibility, in The Things They Carried there are numerous devices-come-ons, enticements, snares for the reader-such as starting out stories with "It's time to be blunt" or "This is true," having one story supposedly give the facts about the evolution of another story, or naming the narrator after yourself. It seems to me that an appropriate metaphor for talking about this aspect of the book would be that you're seducing the reader, and that obviously the reader can have ambivalent feelings toward such a seduction. Do you see that?
O'Brien: I'd say that maybe it is an appropriate metaphor, probably not one I would use, but it's certainly appropriate. I guess that's what I was trying to do, to make the reader feel those sorts of ambivalences. Hearing a story, being seduced, then having the seducer say "by the way, I don't love you, it all isn't true." And then doing it again. And then saying, "that also isn't true, just kidding," and doing it again. It's not just a game, though. It's not what that "Good Form" chapter is about. It's form. This whole book is about fiction, about why we do fiction. Every reader is always seduced by a good work of fiction. That is, by a lie, seduced by a lie. Huckleberry Finn did not happen, but if you're reading Huckleberry Finn you're made to believe that it is happening. If you didn't believe it, then it would be a lousy work of fiction. One wouldn't be seduced. And I'm trying to write about the way in which fiction takes place. I'm like a seducer, yet beneath all the acts of seduction there's a kind of love going on, a kind of trust you're trying to establish with the reader, saying "here's who I am, here's why I'm doing what I'm doing. And in fact I do truly love you, I'm not just tricking you, I'm letting you in on my game, letting you in on who I am, what I am, and why I am doing what I am doing." All these lies are the surface of something. I have to lie to you and explain why I am lying to you, why I'm making these things up, in order to get you to know me and to know fiction, to know what art is about. And it's going to hurt now and then, and you're going to get angry now and then, but I want to do it to you anyway�and for you. That's the point of the book.
DS: It strikes me as interesting that your first book is a real memoir, while your last is a pseudo-memoir. How do you see that development, the relation between the way you want to accomplish those seductions in nonfiction and in fiction? Would you write nonfiction again?
O'Brien: There are all kinds of things that occur to me in answer to your question. One is that I don't form my career, my writerly interests, consciously. I don't outline a novel and say "Here's where I'm going next" in terms of form and so on. The language just takes me there. A scrap of language will occur to me that seems interesting. And one of the first scraps of language that occurred to me in writing The Things They Carried was the line, "This is true." When that line was written, "This is true," the form of the book wasn't present by any means, but the thematic "aboutness" of the book was there in those three words. "This is true." I had no idea what I was going to do with it, or where it would take me, but I knew in my bones as well as intellectually that this was important, these three words are important words. I didn't know important in what way or how I'd be exploring them, but I knew they were important. In the way I'm responding to your question, I guess I'm not trying to evade it exactly as much as I'm trying to speak in terms of heart. In terms of heart I don't think about these things much, and don't want to think about them. I prefer to look at writing as a heroistic act, finding out what I care about through writing stories. "Why do I care about truth? I don't know why I care about it!" And I'll write a story like "Sweetheart of the Song Tra Bong," for example, in which the guy Rat Kiley is telling the story and within the context of the story the matter of truth gets talked about. All along I've cared about this, but now in writing the story I wanted to know how I cared. That is, I always wondered, "Why am I making this stuff up? Why am I writing these stories?" But I never pursued it intellectually. I just said, "Well, I am." But I always wondered, and by writing those words down I began to realize there's a way you can begin to ask yourself a question seriously, methodically.
DB: So you are talking with yourself, then, while you're writing, especially with the stories in The Things They Carried.
O'Brien: In a way I am talking to myself, although it doesn't feel like that. The way it feels is as though I'm composing a story. It feels as if something else is talking to me. I'm not sure what it is. The characters? I'll write a line, fully believing in it. Then, once it's written, I'll believe it's been uttered by this person, Mitchell Sanders or Rat. They would say to someone else, "You guys are sexist. What do you mean you can't have a pussy for president?" Meanwhile, I've just written this line and I'll say, "What pussy? where did this come from?" Then I'll think, "This guy said this!" He accuses these other guys of being sexist and then he himself uses language like that and it jars a little in my head, but in a good way. Here's a guy talking about being sexist while he's doing it himself. It shows me the complexity of the material until I don't feel I've written it, though I know I have, and so I consciously keep the word "pussy," knowing it bounces off the "You guys are all sexist." But, at the same time, I don't feel as though I've written these words, as though the phrase had been directed toward me. Instead, I ask what some character in the story might say in response. Once a story is underway I no longer feel in complete control. I feel that I'm at the whim of my creations. I'll be pulled by them as much as I'll be pulling them. It sounds mystical, probably too mystical, but that's really how it feels. I think you can understand why I feel that way. Your questions here, for example, are tugging me, while I'm partly responsible for these enquiries because of the consequences of the things I've written. But I no longer feel in control of your responses to the things I've written.
DB: Given your statement that everything in The Things They Carried is fiction, can we believe "Notes" is nonfiction, when at least the surface assumption is that here you're giving us the truth about what went on in the composition of another story?
O'Brien: You ought not to believe it. In fact, it's utterly and absolutely invented. It's an example of one more seduction on top of the rest. No Norman Bowker, and no mother. It's a way of displaying that form can dictate belief, that the form of the footnote, the authority that the footnote carries, is persuasive in how we apprehend things. We think once again we're locked into a factual world by form, and that process is a great deal what the book is about, including the next little note called "Good Form," which is sort of the same thing. It says, "Well, I'm going to confess something to you. It's time to be blunt. None of this stuff happened. I'm going to tell you no guy ever died, and here's what really happened." And then the next paragraph is going to say but that story too is invented. Here's the real story. Of course, that one's invented, too. I just don't say so in the story
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSara and Kyra
ReplyDelete1. In this story, the platoon searches for Kiowa’s body in the mud where he died. This chapter explores the points of view of different characters, as opposed to “Speaking of Courage”, in which only Norman Bowker’s perspective is acknowledged. Because this story describes the perspectives of multiple people surrounding the search and discovery of Kiowa’s body, the argument can be made that this is a true (-er) war story. This event, like many others before, is gruesome and depressing, most likely subject to speculation.
2. “In the Field” is told from third person point of view, being Tim O’Brien, but acknowledges the perspectives of the other members of the platoon, specifically Azar, Lieutenant, and a young, unnamed soldier.
3. The unnamed soldier is left unidentified because he was not a part of the platoon, but more importantly, he was seen as insignificant as he was just another person blaming himself for Kiowa’s death, as he turned on the flashlight that led to mortars and sinking, and let go of his foot in the mud. He was also there for selfish reasons, looking for the picture of his girlfriend that Kiowa had. His character embodies the feelings of the platoon, feeling guilty, but also having feelings of selfishness.
4. The mandate results in the men searching for a reason to blame themselves, each man seeing himself as guilty in different ways. They are not justified in these beliefs, as losing men is a part of war, and although they all feel guilty, only one or two people can truly be to blame. Also, their value of their own lives allows the company to survive as they didn’t lose many lives to save one. Cross blames himself and decides to write a letter to Kiowa’s father, explaining to him that Kiowa was a good soldier. He also examines his own insufficient self, claiming that he never wanted to have this responsibility to lead. The unnamed soldier blames himself as well, but he disguises his guilt as he searches for Kiowa’s body which has the only picture of his girlfriend. The story represents a transformation in Azar, as he no longer copes with horrible situations in a joking manner to hide his pain or fear. He apologizes for the jokes once they find Kiowa’s body, demonstrating a change in his character.
5. The significance of the story comes from the transformation of how the characters, as a whole, develop the way in which they perceive tragedies throughout the war. Instead of focusing on the pain and fear within these situations, they choose to focus on smaller parts of their lives, such as photos or other objects, to cope. These distractions work well to ground the soldiers in this state of vulnerability, but they never completely acknowledge and deal with these traumatic events directly.
1. He casts doubt on the veracity of the novel in order to convey the ambiguities of war and the conflicting emotions and situations which soldiers endure. This is more interesting, as it allows the reader to see how war and the trauma involved can change a soldier’s perceptions of what goes on around them. Tim O’Brien’s perspective is explored as we can see the ways he viewed the war. This increases the understanding as the audience is able to understand how the war affects soldiers. Happening-truth is what actually happened and story-truth is the truth from the perspective of the author, usually involving speculation or a morphed truth.
ReplyDelete1.“In the Field” follows the story of Lieutenant Jimmy Cross and all of the other men in his platoon as they try to recover Kiowa’s body, understanding that he had succumbed to the mud. The entire story is a bit of an analysis of what blame means during the wart and for different people as each man comes to terms with the fact that they were somehow involved in his death. The style of the story is a construction of various accounts and moments that are honed in on as the men search for the body. The closer they get, the more sincere and guilty they feel. This story, based on O’Brien’s description of a true war story, while similar to “Speaking of Courage” has a more factual portrayal of what the men would probably do when faced with the problem. That being said, “Speaking Of Courage” is more fictionally accurate to O’Brien’s portrayal that happening truth is not the same as real truth, showing the real truth there.
2.The point of view that is used to narrate this story is third person omniscient, encompassing the minds and feelings of various different characters. It is never clearly stated that Tim O’Brien plays this role, but it can be somewhat implied based on the rest of the stories. This perspective delves deeper into the entire atmosphere of war and every single soldier’s actions.
3.The young man is not identified in the story to leave his experience as somewhat universal and separating him from the rest of the group. His plight of losing a picture of his girlfriend, Billie, is something paralleled earlier in the novel with Jimmy Cross’ experience with the pictures of Martha. His reaction to the death, seeing as he had flashed a flashlight and might have been somewhat responsible is different from the others in that they are a bit removed from the situation and not directly accountable. The character’s purpose in the narrative is to show the innocence or younger qualities of war and the ultimate fear and guilt that was felt by all soldiers during wartime.
4.This mandate forces the company to all assume the blame, in different ways and at different times. Ultimately, it’s, “Nobody’s fault” (O’Brien 176) and “Everybody’s” (O’Brien 176) and none of them want all of the blame to be felt by one person because that would be completely devastating. Jimmy Cross assumes the blame by saying he should have moved away from the coordinates against orders, while Azar assumes the blame by saying that joking about such a serious topic was not moral. The young soldier assumes the blame by talking about the flashlight incident and his photo. They are not completely justified in thinking themselves at fault for it was ultimately a freak accident that could have happened to anyone, it just so happened the the circumstances lined up with Kiowa.
5.The significance if the shit field story, or stories in general, is to show how guilt or other impressive emotions can take over a person or a whole group of people until nothing is true or false anymore. The story examines the internal struggles of characters and fully depicts the atmosphere of war and what death does to people. In the world, while there are some instances where it is clear who is responsible, most other cases are ambiguous, a major point of the story and the novel.
1.O’Brien casts doubt on the veracity of the entire novel for he wants to make clear that this is not a memoir, but that it still holds a massive amount of truth for him as well as others. It makes me more interested in the novel because the concept of a fabricated instance holding some sense of realism is mind boggling and intriguing, for I am not sure I am that good at that sort writing. My understanding is not inhibited in the sense of O’Brien’s feelings, if not for the actual events, but the whole point is that the actual events do not matter in the grand scheme of things. The difference between happening-truth and story-truth is only that one actually happened while the other did not. They are similar in feeling and can have a similar effect when perceived from a specific view point.
1) “In The Field” tells another version of the story of how Kiowa died, different from Norman Bowker’s story, and shows how other people blame themselves for his death. It reveals how the men all carry their own guilt, how they all think there was something they could have done better, some way to have prevented Kiowa’s death. However, I believe both “Speaking of Courage” and “In the Field” are true war stories, because they don’t try to offer comfort or morality, but tell the story is just unbelievable enough that you want to believe it.
ReplyDelete2) There are multiple point of views in “In the Field,” as the men search the field for Kiowa’s body. It is written in third person omniscient, where the reader knows what is going on in the character’s minds, but the viewpoint switches between three main groups- Jimmy Cross, the young soldier, and the three men looking for Kiowa- which allows for the reader to see how many people feel the blame for one event.
3) The young man is not identified in the book because it contributes to the lost and powerless feeling of war. It provides a contrast on how all the men are very upset about the loss of Kiowa, but Cross can’t even remember the young man’s name. The young man was the last to talk to Kiowa, but he is not remembered enough in the way Kiowa is.
4) I think, when something goes wrong, everyone finds themselves to blame, and thinks there could have been something they did more that would have changed the outcome. However, as we see in this story and “Speaking of Courage,” people sometimes carry blame that is more than they can handle, or more than they should feel. The men did not talk to each other about how much they blame themselves, when all of them are hurting. Both Norman and the young man will blame themselves always for Kiowa’s death, not knowing the other circumstances that contributed.
5) The significance is that the whole situation could have been avoided, but the men didn’t know enough and couldn’t see into the future to realize how disastrous the night would turn out to be. The story shows how many people blame themselves for things they had no way of knowing, and that there are many sides to a story.
1) This piece should have come at the end of the novel, I think. It seemed out of place and cats doubt on the whole novel, which I don’t really like in the middle of the story. It’s not bad, and based on his “How to Tell a War Story” story I guessed that a lot of things were made up, but this piece just made me confused and not very satisfied. However, I can see that it was necessary for him to make up parts of the story, and even though they are not real, they may not be untruthful.