Representing America - American Literature AP - Blog

The Things We Might Carry

As a lot of my classmates mentioned, I was not excited about reading a book about war. It seems so hard to relate to - I would never want to go to war. I would never want to kill a person. I would never want to risk my life or others' lives for a cause that I didn't believe in. So I somewhat reluctantly began reading The Things They Carried... and, much to my surprise, enjoyed it.

The field trip we had was what made me realize exactly why I am enjoying a book about war. The veterans that visited our school talked about how they thought about dodging the draft and running to Canada, or how they signed up before they got drafted so they would be placed anywhere but in Vietnam. And it really sank in when they all said that they were drafted pretty much right out of high school, at ages eighteen or nineteen.

That was when I realized: the Vietnam War soldiers are not at all hard to relate to. They didn't want to go to war - they were forced to go. They didn't want to kill anybody. They would do anything to stay out of Vietnam. And they were just older than me, fresh out of high school.

This is why we all enjoy the novel: we can connect to the characters. We are lucky enough to live in a time in which there is no draft, but if there were a draft for the war in Iraq, we would only have a couple of years before most of us would be thrust into a war that we don't necessarily support, risking our lives for a cause we don't believe in. When I read this book, I put myself in O'Brien's shoes and wonder if I would have run to Canada, whether I would have been able to endure the warfare and stomach the bloodshed, and whether I would be able to cope with my friends dying all around me.

It's not happening now. But it could. Scary, right?

War, What is it good for?

While reading "The Things They Carried", I can't help but think about my views on war and how this book has influenced my views. Tim O'brien at first had my view on war. He knew nothing about the politics of it and wasn't sure what the overall war is being fought over. I have only heard the current war in the media in which all that is brought up is either the money aspect of it or all the deaths and all the people who protest it. Without knowing exactly what goes down during battle it is hard to truly capture what it is like at all.

In a year I have to register for the draft. I know as soon as the letter comes in the mail Iwill react the exact same way O'brien did. A huge lump in my throat will come and I will begin to feel nauseous. As much as I am against war because of my moral beliefs, it will be overshadowed by by overall fear. War is truly hell. It is hard to capture the true emotions of it even if you fought in the war or lived through it. I think the book hasn't changed my views on war but it has changed my opinion on those who fight in the war. They are truly brave people, and even though I may be against it, it may not be their choice but that doesn't mean we shouldn't honor them.

A Fragmented Story

In the story titled “Spin,” I think it’s interesting how O'Brien offers us a series of fragmented scenes, like verbal snapshots, as a way to comment on the act of memory and specifically on the act of remembering the Vietnam War. He presents the war as an event marked by the disorder of anti-war demonstration and military mismanagement. I believe this fragmented expression, the approach used in this chapter and in the novel over all, is the message. The nature of memory is fragmentary; people do not tend to remember an event in a narrative beginning-to-end sort of way. Rather, O'Brien suggests that "what sticks to memory, often, are those odd little fragments that have no beginning and no end."

We see this fragmentation when O’Brien hops between a wide variety of stories—the Vietnamese guide, Mitchell Sanders mailing his lice, Ted Lavender adopting a puppy—within the space of few pages. It’s also interesting to note that the novel is not marked by continuity in which one chapter flows logically into the next. O'Brien does not set the path of memory and remembering as one that can be traversed easily. War, and by extension memory of war and storytelling about war, is not orderly, and its meaning can’t be captured with ordinary storytelling.

Breathe In, Dead Soldier. Breathe Out.

First off, I really really like this book. My favorite book of the year hands down.

I mean, yes, my squeamishness comes out in full force during many stories in this book (Ted Lavender, anyone? Curt Lemon? BABY BUFFALO?) but still. I can feel this book.

And I don't mean "feel it" like "Hey man, I totally feel you", but more as if there is a tangible presence to this book, and it's taken up residence in my lungs.

Breathe in, Vietnam. Sunshine demise and baby buffalo and blood in my mouth.

Breathe out, Tim O'Brian. 43 years old, a writer who still breathes in as a soldier and out as a father who tells his nine-year-old daughter that of course he didn't kill anyone.

Breathe out breath out breathe out.

And alright, yes, I admit I might have read ahead. A little. Or a lot, maybe: I finished the book.

And I can only think "Well damn."

Because what about all the soldiers we're still sending out?

Are they pulling their brothers out of trees, peeling them off the dusty, explosion-riddled road, digging them out of a sloppy, mushy shitfield in the pouring rain?

Probably.

Are there men out there like Tim O'Brian, who don't really want to fight but they do it anyway, because they'd feel like they were betraying everyone they know but themselves if they didn't?

Absolutely. 

I've been reading a lot of war stories lately, and I gotta tell you, I cry. At all of them. Sob my eyes out like there is no longer any rainbows or unicorns or happiness in the world. None.

I cry like a five year old who has just been informed that Santa, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny have all been heartlessly massacred.

And I wonder what would happen if the head honchos, the men and women who start the war but send others to end it, would they feel like a different decision is in order if they read one of these books?

Do you think maybe, that if people who felt like war was necessary to solve whatever problem they have, do you think if someone made them read these war novels, this book, The Things They Carried, would we maybe get somewhere towards convincing the world just what a stupid idea it is to go out and shoot at people, and get shot at, and die, and watch your friends die, ( "Four guys go down a trail. A grenade sails out. One guy jumps on it and takes the blast, but it's a killer grenade and everybody dies anyway. Before they die, though, one of the dead guys says, "The fuck you do that for?" and the jumper says, "Story of my life, man," and the other guy starts to smile but he's dead.")...

Will anyone care at all? Will anyone try their damndest to make a dead soldier breathe again?

 

Will anyone listen to the breathing of a dead soldier? 

These Are The Facts, But Are The Facts The Truth?

Initially, I thought The Things They Carried was solely an ordinary book about soldiers in the war and the effects of the war on their lives. On the contrary, as I continued to read, the book progressed into a unique novel. I discovered that one of the soldiers was not only the narrator of the story, but he was also the author of the novel.

Tim O'Brien brings something new to story-telling, because in his third chapter titled "Spin," he brings up the idea that war stories are sometimes altered or made up in order for them to be endured or to make a point. In fact, the title of the chapter creates a little irony because it hints that the stories needed to be "spun," or slightly changed in order to be worthy of re-telling. Up until that point, we read about experiences of certain soldiers during and after the war. However, this chapter brings up introduces the possibility that these stories may or may not be true. Therefore, how will we know what information is real and what information was just made up by O'Brien or another soldier? 

Dang! Those Were Heavy! - The Things They Carried

    Although we are not far in the novel, The Things They Carried brings a about different emotions in me than any other book we have read this year. Just in the first chapter, we hear about the daunting tasks they performed, such as carrying heavy loads on their backs and walking for miles on end without breaks. We also learn of how life was so very fragile in Vietnam, and how at the blink of an eye, a soldier could be killed by enemy fire. During this long and tiresome war with Vietnam, the main character, Lieutenant Jimmy Cross,  portrays actual soldiers who actually fought . The feelings that Cross felt after a soldier under his command died was unexplainable. He was overcome with guilt and anger, which led him to no longer escape back into his memories. These were memories that made him feel happy and loved. All of the emotions Cross feels in the books are portrayed in a way that makes me, the reader, feel those same emotions as well. With other books this year, I just felt sorry for the characters, or would get angry at their stupidity in the book. In this novel, however, I feel as though there is a certain connection with the characters that lacked in all of the previous books we have read this past year. I am excited to read the rest of the novel, and tell me what you think!

Who Has the Strength to Defy Shame?

As I read "The Scarlet Letter", I have seen some comparisons to both "The Things They Carried" and "The Crucible". In all of these books, characters must make life changing decisions. In both "The Crucible" and "The Things They Carried," O'Brien and Proctor must choose between shame and death. Similarly, in "The Scarlet Letter," Hester must choose between living in shame for the rest of her life and death. These books are extremely different but all three prove that all humans have decisions that will change their futures.

In "The Things They Carried", O'Brien had to choose between fleeing to Canada and going to fight in the army. If he chose to go to Canada, he would have to face the shame and embarrassment of not being brave. Family and friends would respect him less for his cowardice. If O'Brien chose to escape embarrassment, he would be risking his life. In "The Crucible," Proctor was accused of performing witchcraft and was going to be hanged. He had to decide between being hanged and the great shame of lying. If Proctor decided to lie to save his life, he would have the shame of a lie hanging over his head for the rest of his life. The shame would ruin his own life and his children's lives. If he chose to be hanged, he would still be ruining his and his family's lives.

"Therefore, first allowing her to pass, they pursued her at a distance with shrill cries, and the utterance of a word that had no distinct purport to their own minds, but was none the less terrible to her, as proceeding from lips that babbled it unconsciously. It seemed to argue so wide a diffusion of her shame, that all nature knew of it."(59)

In "The Scarlet Letter," shame defines Hester's life. She lives in the solitary cottage, she continues to wear the scarlet letter, and she lets people say rude things to her, all because of her shame. She doesn't try to interact with society because she knows that no one would want to interact with someone so sinful. Hester begins to sew and help the poor to atone her sin.

Since she is so strong, Hester chooses life with shame over death. Her life seems miserable but she continues on with her head held high. Others, like Proctor, were not strong enough to defy their shame but Hester manages to get by.

The Hidden Side Of War

In Tim O’Brien’s book, The Things They Carried, he explains how to justify whether a war story is true or not.  O’Brien says “True war stories do not generalize.  They do not indulge in abstraction or analysis.”  He also says, “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.” (78)  I will be comparing the two war stories of Jarhead and The Things They Carried.

Jarhead, produced by Douglas Wick in 2005, is a film about a group of Marines that go to the Middle East to fight in the Persian Golf war.  During their time in the Middle East, the group of Marines is not required to shoot their guns once.  They see little action and a huge portion of the movie is just about their everyday lives living in the desert. 

 I strongly believe that Jarhead is a truer war story than The Things They Carried.  When I think of war films or books, I think of battles and blood and death.  I know that there are stories and films like that but I don’t think those ones are usually the true ones.  In The Things They Carried, there are ample stories of men dying or battle scenes in which a lot include O’Brien’s group of men.  While in Jarhead, it is showing the tedious side of war that no one really thinks about.  Not all war stories are shoot shoot bang bang.   Jarhead illustrates what O’Brien’s says makes a true war story.  The war story of Jarhead did not generalize or indulge in abstraction.  Therefore, Jarhead is a truer war story than The Things They Carried.  

When O’ Brien describes a true war story, he says, “A true war story is never moral,” (68) In Jarhead, when Swofford, one of the Marines that was in the Middle East, is released from duty he goes to his girl friends house only to find her with another man. This betrayal by his girl friend left him feeling unfulfilled.  By doing a moral thing and volunteering to go fight for his country, he is left with an immoral reward by getting dumped by his girlfriend for going off to fight. While, The Things They Carried had more moral at the end of the novel.  In the way that O’Brien was forced to go fight in a war he didn’t believe, which was immoral, but after the war he had a family and seemed to live well after.  The morality caught up to O’Brien at the end of the novel making it lesser of a true war story. 

In my opinion, a true war story leaves people unfulfilled at the end.   I also believe that in a true war story there are no moral or immoral actions.  I think the immorality happens away from the soldiers and instead back at the home front.  O’Brien talks a lot about what a true war story is and I believe Jarhead fit lots of those things and that’s why I believe Jarhead is a truer war story.   

Is It True?

"The Things They Carried" by Tim O'Brien is a novel about the truth of war stories. He says that many stories are either exaggerated or just made up. He includes himself in one of those categories, his book is fiction. It is a collection of short stories unified by characters and theme of the Vietnam War. In this novel, the soldiers carried physical things as well as emotional baggage. The soldiers carried  gum, candy, sewing kits, assault rifles, machine guns, grenades. Along with these physical items, the soldiers carry the weight of grief, terror, love and shame. The soldiers in The "Things They Carried" had the task of fighting two Vietnam wars, an internal war and an external war. Externally, the men were fighting the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong. Internally, the men were fighting maturity and adulthood. They were desperately trying to remain young through a war that forced them to grow up.

In "The Things They Carried," O'Brien made reference to the Vietnam war that was closely associated with the physical, psychological, and emotional weight the soldiers beared.  The overall method of presentation of this story incorporated many different outlooks on the things the soldiers carried, dealt with, and were forced to adapt to.  In addition to this, O'Brien showed us the many reasons why and how the soldiers possessed these things individually and collectively and how they were associated directly and indirectly.  The strong historical content in "The Things They Carried" helped emphasize the focus of the story and establish a clearer understanding of details in the narrative and moods of the war itself.  From this, we are able to draw conclusions and assumptions to the events as it relates to the Vietnam war. Tim O’Brien shows the brutal reality of war without adding the propaganda excess details that our society has come to accept.

In the movie "The Three Kings," a group of  American soldiers in Iraq at the end of the Gulf War are determined to steal a big cache of gold reputed to be hidden somewhere near their desert base. Finding a map they believe will take them to the gold, they go on a journey that leads to unexpected discoveries, which help them rise to a heroic challenge that changes their lives. Although President George Bush and the American military encouraged Iraqi citizens to rise up against Saddam Hussein, and pledged their support to a people's movement against the leader, Iraqis found that when they took to the streets against Saddam, the United States did not back them up, and the loss of Iraqi lives was fearsome.

The Three Kings and The The Things They Carried may not seem like they have much in common but they both dig deep into soldiers' lives and show true emotions. The Three Kings seemed like it could be a true war story because although those soldiers were enjoying their time there and were very happy, that was just because the war had ended. It showed true emotions of the soldiers and the real bond that war creates. The movie had happy moments as well as deep and emotional moments which in my opinion defines a true story. In The Things They Carried, it also seemed very realistic because we were told situations of chaos and crazy adventures. When someone in the movie died, it made you feel sad and as if you had been close friends with that person.

Because these stories made an emotional impact on me and made me feel as if I were in these character's positions, them being fiction did not make a difference because the feeling is all that counts.

Carrying Their Fallen Angels

I had always defined truth as something that actually happened, a thing that you could prove happened, until I read Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried. O’Brien defines the truth of a story in a raw and confusing set of requirements that I had never considered before. I read Fallen Angels, by Walter Dean Myers, long before I had even heard of The Things They Carried, but after reading O’Brien’s book I went back and read Fallen Angels again. Keeping O’Brien’s requirements for a true war story in mind, I felt I could make an accurate decision on the truth of Fallen Angels.

Fallen Angels is also about the Vietnam War, starring Richie Perry, a fresh-out-of-high school New Yorker from Harlem. The story follows his arrival in Vietnam, his time in the army, combat, hospital, and everything in between. Although both stories are fictional, I think The Things They Carried is a truer war story, but only for one reason. O’Brien writes, “If a story seems moral, do not believe it” (68). Fallen Angels had many stories immersed in the larger story, but I didn’t really see a moral until the book ended, “A fat man complained that they didn’t have the wine he wanted. We were headed back into the World” (309). The soldiers in Myer’s book refer to the world outside war as “the World,” and the ending of this book seems to imply that the moral of the story is that you don’t know what you actually want until you experience war. I did not feel the same sense of a moral when I read The Things They Carried.

Other than the moral of the story, I think Fallen Angels and The Things They Carried are both true war stories. One of O’Brien’s conditions for a war story being true is “gut instinct. A true war story, if truly told, makes the stomach believe” (78). Both of these authors tell stories in their book that made my stomach believe. The first, in The Things They Carried, was the story of Rat Kiley shooting the baby buffalo. My stomach really believed when O’Brien wrote, “Somebody kicked the baby buffalo. It was still alive, though just barely, just in the eyes” (79). Similarly, Walter Dean Myers leads his characters into combat, firing at an enemy concealed by the wildlife. Soon they realize “Yep, we just shot the shit out of the first platoon” (103), their own men.

Finally, both stories seem true to me because of another component of O’Brien’s definition of a true war story. He says, “You can tell a true war story by the questions you ask…and if the answer matters, you’ve got your answer” (83). For both books, I didn’t question the validity of the stories. I just accepted them, because whether or not they were true didn’t matter. It was still sad, still powerful, and still made my stomach believe.

Truth is Opinion

To me, a "true" war story is similar to reading a history book. Not just because they both have to do with the topic of world history, but because of the side of the story they tell.  Reading an American History textbook on the topic of WWII would be completely different than the Japanese perspective on the war. In the telling of a story, point of view is everything.

In the novel The Things They Carried, Tim O'Brian tries to make readers think about what makes a "true" war story. Throughout the book, O'Brian tells us various stories about his experiences as a soldier in war. Some of these stories are graphic and disturbing, while others are funny and more light hearted. 

In contrast, Flags of our Fathers, a film by Clint Eastwood, gives us a different take on the war. This movie is a story about becoming a hero along with glory and fame. The men in this film are viewed as heroes by their country, while they believed the true heroes to be those that lost their lives fighting. As Jon Bradley tells his son in the movie, "The real heroes of Iwo Jima are the guys who didn't come back." In my opinion, the main focus of this story is less about a war story, and more about the lives of the soldiers after becoming heroes to their country.

To me, the "truer" of the two stories is The Things They Carried, because it focuses on the bad elements of war. Even if the whole story was fictional, I feel that it would seem to have more truth to it because of the way O'Brian tries to define truth.

"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"

Even though Flags of Our Fathers is a true story, The Things They Carried paints us a better picture of what war was really like, not what it is like in Hollywood. Tim O'Brian's way of dealing with the stress of the war was to write stories. Simply because these stories came from his own emotions and feelings, I believe that it makes them more real than Flags of our Fathers. My question is, how can there be only one definition of the truth?

What Makes it True?

"The Things They Carried," by Tim O'Brien, is a novel about the validity of war stories. O'Brien claims that a true war story should make your stomach turn, that it should be so gritty and hard to experience that you should almost want to stop reading.

"It comes down to gut instinct. A true war story, if truly told, makes the stomach believe."

O'Brien also makes a really thought provoking point, saying:

"You can tell a true war story by the questions you ask, Somebody tells a story, let's say and afterward you ask, "Is it true?" and if the answer matters, you've got your answer."

"Three Kings" directed by David O. Russell, is a film set just after the first Iraq war in the Kuwaiti Desert. The film is ironically about four soldiers, not three, that set out to reclaim millions of dollars in Kuwaiti bullion. The soldiers get they're hands on the gold but their innate heroism prevents them from abandoning a group of refugees that would be killed without their help. 

Early in the story, the soldiers are sitting in a mine field, near a cow, when the animal steps on a mine and is blown to pieces. The nearby soldiers are grotesquely sprayed with cow guts. It's hard to watch as the blood sprays on the Hummer and people surrounding the cow and it's head flies into the air only to land on the vehicle.I think the scene alludes to the horror of the death and mutilation in the war made even more awful by the fact that this animal is holy to many of the indigenous people. It also reminds the viewer of what life in a mind field looks like.

Later in the film the soldiers are loading their gold into a truck to take back to their camp with them. The Kuwaiti refugees beg the soldiers to take them to safety and away from the Iraqi soldiers. In the fray of the Iraqi/Kuwaiti struggle a young mother is shot in front of her daughter, and husband. The scene is shocking to the point of stomach turning which, by O'Brien's theory,would verify it's truth.

As the soldiers accompany the Kuwaitis out of the village where the Iraqis were persecuting them, all hell breaks loose and tear gas fills the air.In the confusion two small children were separated from the pack. Troy Barlow, played by Mark Wahlberg, chases them through the smoke filled mine field as they run and jump over mines. All the while the viewer is on the edge of their seat hoping the children won't meet an end similar to that of the cow.

The reality of this movie is that it doesn't really matter that its a fictional account of the war, because it expresses the true emotions of it. The soldiers are conflicted through out the film about the value of their own lives versus that of the refugees. It's the the feelings we get from the film that really make it true in terms of O'Brien's concept of truth.

Is "The Correct Accordance With The Facts" Nesessary in a True War Story?

In the New Oxford American Thesaurus  there are a few synonyms of the word true.  The first definition is  "correct or in accordance with the fact".  The second is "sincere or genuine".  In Tim Obrien's The Things They Carried  Obrien argues that the "truth" when applying the first definition is irrelovent to the story and that an author of a war story should be centered around  the "truth" or sinceity as the thesaurus states. The Things They Carried and Three Kings are present Obrien's idea perfectly.

Three Kings is a suspensefull war story putting the Iraq war square in the face of the audience.  in the movie three American soldiers fight to give a group of radical Iraqis freedom from Saddam Husein's power.  They eventually succeed in doing so but lose an American soldier, and friend, before the accomplished their goal.  The soldier's death was not a reminder of how easily life can be taken from you durring war , but rather how even though death consumes your thought throught out the war and you are always ready for all the possibilities, you or someone you know will not be going home after the war.  This story, like Obrien's The Things They carried, explain unsurfaced and unpublicized aspects of war.  When reading or watching these war stories you get hit with a strong sense and feeling of the realities of war. 

Being a member of the audience to the two war stories being discussed I believe that in this case  the authors were talented enough to draw an emotion almost replicating or simulating those of someone who is amidst war. Not only is this an impressive ability but it is a key to good storytelling, and if an author is praised by their creativeness and craft why shouldn't a wonderful storyteller like  Obrien be given the praise he deserves for being able to make his war stories realistic through emotion and language rather than fact?

For Real?

How do you know what makes a war story true? Are there certain rules for one? In Tim O'Brien's book, The Things They Carried, it talks about how to tell a true war story. Certain stories are supposed to show a moral or make you think and get emotional. Would a true war story have these things included? War stories are an oral tradition, told to people, not written. In this article I will be comparing two war stories, Three Kings, and The Things They Carried.

The first war story is the movie, Three Kings, directed by David O. Russell, is an interesting one. The story is basically about four soldiers, who find a map that may lead to some of Saddam's hidden gold. Eventually, they find it, but change their minds and decide to help the Iraqi prisoners being held captive. They risk their lives and decide that they would rather help the refugees, instead of just taking the gold and leaving. Now if someone were to look at this story from a skeptical point of view, one would not say that this is a  true war story because it sounds to fake, too good to be true. In real life, if the soldiers found the gold, they would have immediately left and could have cared less about the prisoners especially, if the Persian Gulf War just ended(for America). The ending was of course too good to be true, they were able to save the people and were even arrested for it, but they did the right thing.

If it was real, they would have had nightmares that would haunt them for the rest of their lives. Some would have lost body parts and lives. But not too much of that though, just a happy story with a happy ending. Which leaves me asking the question, how can any true war story be happy, its war isn't it?

With The Things They Carried on the other hand, now that's a true war story. How? Well, the chapter, "In the Field", provides us with imagery of chaos and what we would usually expect in a war story, something that the Three Kings didn't grasp well.

The field just exploded. Rain and slop and shrapnel, it all mixed together, and the field seemed to boil. He would explain this to Kiowa's father. Carefully, not covering up his own guilt, he would tell how the mortar rounds made craters in the slush, spraying up great showers of filth, and how the craters then collapsed on themselves and filled up with mud and water, sucking things down, swallowing things, weapons and entrenching tools and belts of ammunition, and how in this way his son Kiowa had been combined with the waste and the war.(169)

When you read this, you cannot help but to feel ill inside, and that is what true war stories are designed to do, to make you not feel right.

True War: The Things They Carried vs. Letters from Iwo Jima

When most people think of truth, they picture a tangible experience, something that happened in real life. In the The Things They Carried, Tim O’Brien challenges this traditional meaning of truth. He argues that for a story to be true, the events do not necessarily have to take place.  He states that the message the story communicates and the way it makes you feel is what makes it true. According to him, events that do not occur can be more truthful than events that do occur.  Although it is unclear whether or not O’Brien actually experienced the events that he wrote about, it is clear that he was in the war, so many of his stories were very loosely based on facts. However, it is likely that he exaggerated and even fabricated some of the stories so that they could prove their points and emotionally affect the reader even more.

For the most part, Letters from Iwo Jima (a 2006 film directed by Clint Eastwood) is an example of O’Brien’s definition of a true war story. It describes the World War 2 battle of Iwo Jima from the perspective of the Japanese in a violent, gritty, and uncompromising way.  The violence in the film is incredibly intense, and it makes the audience feel as though they trapped in the vortex of horror, pain, and death that was omnipresent in the battle that occurred many years ago.

At one point, O’Brien states that “a true war story is never moral” (68). Later he stipulates that “a true war story…makes the stomach believe.” (78). There are many striking examples of immorality and sickening truths in Letters from Iwo Jima  that affected me emotionally when I viewed it. For example, when one of the Japanese soldiers decides to stop fighting and surrender to the Americans, he is mercilessly shot down by an American soldier who does not want to deal with the nuisance of carrying around POWs. Although I saw the film three years ago, the utter lack of humanity and morality shown in this scene still sticks with me and causes my stomach and my anger to simultaneously churn. The scene in which many of the Japanese soldiers are shown killing themselves with grenades produced a similar effect on my psyche.  

In Letters of Iwo Jima, the title refers to the letters and documents that archaeologists found in the tunnels of the small island that were written by the Japanese soldiers. Therefore, like The Things They Carried, Letters from Iwo Jima is based on actual events. It is arguably more supported by fact than O’Brien’s novel, because the letters described events that actually happened. Although the film makers therefore had the actual events to work with, they were forced to speculate about how the events occurred, and in this way the story strayed from the tangible experiences of the soldiers. However, the speculations that they made produced a strong effect on me, and I will not forgot it for a quite a long time. Therefore, in accordance with O’Brien’s definition, Letters from Iwo Jima is a true war story.

What is Truth?

While watching the movie Three Kings, I was engrossed with the action and plot. I enjoyed the suspense of the scene with the truck crashing and spilling milk all over the place. I felt sadness when Conrad Vig died. The movie did its job of evoking different emotions, but it isn't a true war story.

According to Tim O'Brien in The Things They Carried,"You can tell a true war story by its absolute and uncompromising allegiance to obscenity and evil,' (69). True war stories do not have warm, fuzzy endings or morals to them. True war stories often end abruptly, leaving one feeling incomplete or unsatisfied at times. When Rat Kiley writes the letter to his deceased friend's sister and she does not reply, he doesn't go on a journey to try and find her only to find out she never received the letter, he calls her a cooze and leaves it at that. Many people can relate to un returned acts of kindness because it is true that there is evil in the world, everyone deals with it. 

In Three Kings, the men, Archie Gates, Troy Barlow, Chief Elgin, and Conrad Vig, are first portrayed as the typical American stereotype, greedy, money-loving fools. Through trials and tribulations the men succeed in completing their mission of stealing back the Kuwait gold. The 'shocking' twist is when the men develop compassion for the civilians and decide to risk their positions to save the lives of the men and women. I can believe that people would risk their lives to save others. In fact, I am sure it is done often. In O'Brien's perspective even though Three Kings is slightly predictable, it is believable, which would make it an untrue war story. "In many cases a true war story cannot be believed. If you believe it, be skeptical," (71).

The movie has a happy, resolved ending. The men got the civilians safely to a refugee camp after almost not being able to because of their arrests. I think this makes it an untrue war story because it is cliché, believable, and is completely resolved.

In my opinion, a true war story does not have to be non-fiction, it has to feel real. The emotions that come with each story have to resonate in your mind and be able to be alike to other people's truths. War stories that are not true are not necessarily bad, The Three Kings was not a bad movie at all, but in O'Brien's eyes, it wouldn't be true as it is not true in mine.

Cliche Soldiers

Generally, when we think of soldiers in a war story, we think of dead serious men covered in sweat and dirt. We also think of them having secret plans and different formations when attacking. They always have it under control and they are all patriotic heroes.

The Things They Carried and Three Kings suggest otherwise. In both The Things They Carried and Three Kings, the soldiers joke around with each other, even in horrible situations. In the book, O'Brien explains that the soldiers were anything but serious, even when a friend was injured or killed. This was a way that the soldiers coped with their hard, depressing lives. O'Brien described it as "stage presence." (20) The soldiers would put on an act (their joking around) to hide their deep and true feelings.

Soldiers are thought of having a plan and being in control. In The Things They Carried, O'Brien's platoon would walk and walk without a real destination. As they passed towns, they would burn them to the ground, just for something to do. 

    They searched the villages without knowing what to look for, not caring...setting fires and sometimes not, then forming up and moving on to the next village. (15) 

Despite the soldiers we see in movies, according to O'Brien, soldiers are not in control all the time. After the war, Norman Bowker killed himself because he was not in control. He was haunted by the terror of war. Many soldiers in the book were haunted by the violence that occurs in war.

We think of soldiers as being extremely patriotic. In the recording we listened to in class, the man who died in war and received a medal seemed very patriotic because he sacrificed himself for his country. In The Things They Carried, "I was drafted for a war I hated...the American war in Vietnam seemed to me wrong." (40) Since O'Brien was against the war, he initially had no patriotism to his country. He was fighting the war because he was forced to and he didn't want to die for his country. 

The Things They Carried: Gold vs. A Story

Watching the Three Kings for the first time, I thought it was very nicely done. For someone like me, who has never experienced a war firsthand, I think the movie portrayed a very realistic story of the events during war. I feel like the movie was able to convey the suspense and danger and setting of a war well.

The whole motive of the 'secret mission' that George Clooney was leading was to steal the gold worth millions of dollars and keep it for themselves. And so this group of men set off in search of their treasure. I especially liked how at the beginning of their drive towards the bunker, there was Beach Boys music playing on the radio. The music emphasized the relaxed state and sense of ease that the soldiers had. They had no idea about the dangers that lay ahead and the throuble they were getting into.

Now once they had the gold and were ready to take off, George Clooney decides that they should try to save the people as well. Just like how The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien says that the soldiers had many different things to carry, in this case what these soldiers carried started with eagerness for riches, to gold, to the responsibility of the rebels' safety.

Jumping to the end of the movie, to where the border of freedom for the rebels was, the thing the soldiers carried changed again. Although they still did have responsibility of the rebels, they now carried a story. They carried a war story that was of much more importance than the gold now. Their story was of the journey of the the rebels and that the right thing to do was to let them cross the border. It was a story that provoked much emotion and sympathy for these people during the war which was able to do its job thanks to the reporter Adriana Cruz. And I think that this part showed how much a story is important and the meaning of freedom and teamwork.

O'Brien had also emphasized the importance of a story. Although he may not have agreed that this movie was a true war story, I think he would agree in that the movie was telling a good war story.Because what O'Briend and his book talked about was how the essence and meaning of the story was much more important than the actual facts. And I think that both the movie and the novel help to show the power and influence of war stories on the world.

A New Definition Of True

According to the 2009 Random House dictionary, true is an adjective, defined as "being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false." Tim O'Brien, however, sparks controversy by putting a new spin on the word and the genre of nonfiction. In his book The Things They Carried, a collection of short stories about the Vietnam War, he says, "A true war story is never moral. 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. If a story seems moral, do not believe it."

The movie The Three Kings, which takes place at the end of the Persian Gulf War, focuses on four men from the United States Armed Forces who find a map to Saddam Hussein's hidden Kuwaiti bullion. They aim to recover it, although their motives are far from pure; instead of returning the gold to Kuwait, they plan to keep it for themselves. This does fit O'Brien's criteria of amorality thus far.

However, at the Iraqi town surrounding the bunker that houses the gold, the soldiers encounter a horrific sight: civilians being tortured by Hussein's army. Archie Gates, played by George Clooney, decides to come to their defense even though Troy Barlow, played by Mark Wahlberg, hesitates. Throughout the rest of the movie, Barlow, Gates, and their companions Chief Elgin (Ice Cube) and Conrad Vig (Spike Jonze) help the refugees across the border to Iran and give them some of the gold. The soldiers then decide to return the remainder of the bullion to Kuwait.

Thus, because it is a Hollywood movie, morality eventually sets in, and the greedy soldiers become revered heroes due to a sudden change of heart. They befriend the Iraqis and demonstrate that friendship is international. In The Things They Carried, the only Vietnamese person the soldiers had a civil conversation with was an old man who guided them across land mines. However, they did not form a real friendship with him and called him a dink even though he probably saved their lives.

O'Brien also argues that truth "makes the stomach believe," and I think The Three Kings does portray the brutality of war. Instead of depicting the heroes as warriors who shoot a lot of people, they are, for the most part, against using violence. In addition, the camera zooms inside the body of the people who get shot to demonstrate the horror of guns and the wounds that they cause.

Overall, if The Three Kings did not have as happy of an ending, and if the American soldiers did not swiftly become model citizens, then Tim O'Brien would probably have great faith in the truth of the movie. Although it is not true according to a modern definition, it evokes the feeling of wartime, which O'Brien says is more important than the facts.

Maybe*A*Story*Here*?

In The Things They Carried, Tim O’Brien gives a criteria for what makes a war story true. He says that a true war story cannot be believed, does not have a moral or a point, and it does not matter if it’s true or not. So I asked myself: Is M*A*S*H* a true war story?

In the movie M*A*S*H*, I feel a pain in the pit of my stomach... that could just be from laughing though. The movie M*A*S*H*, starring Donald Sutherland and Elliott Gould, is about a Mobile Army Surgical Hospital three miles from the front line of the Korean War. The camp is run by martini-drinking, wise-cracking, womanizing, degenerate surgeons and their incompetent commanding officer. "This isn't a hospital. It's an insane asylum."

In The Things They Carried, O’Brien says

A true war story is never moral. 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. If a story seems moral, do not believe it. (68)

M*A*S*H* is not a moral movie. If there is a moral, I believe it’s ‘If you get drafted in the army, find these men.’ The movie does not invoke virtue or courage. Hawkeye and Trapper, the two main surgeons, provide a comic relief from the thoughts of war while behaving in an improper manor. The story has no point. O’Brien's view on that topic is that “Often in a true war story there is not even a point.” (82)

O’Brien also says that

In many cases a true war story cannot be believed... It's a question of credibility. Often the crazy stuff is true and the normal stuff isn't (71)

M*A*S*H* is full of insanity, and ludicrous situations, such as a racy PA broadcast, a mock suicide, a inter-MASH football game, and going to Japan to operate and play golf.

M*A*S*H* is my favorite war movie and after reading O’Brien’s list for what makes a war story true, I asked myself: Is M*A*S*H a true war story? Not at all, M*A*S*H is fiction. Is it a true of type war story? I think so.

But you watch it. You tell me.

The Nefarious Truth

What is true? This is something we encounter every day of our lives. When a friend tells us they were up late last night studying, or when a teacher tells us there will be an assembly, or a pop quiz, or no homework, we are always questioning the validity of their statements. How true is what they say? When a teacher says there is no homework does he mean that you don't have to turn anything in, but you should read ahead for the discussion, or does he really mean go home and do whatever it is you do when you have free time because I am being nice?

In The Things They Carried, O'Brian also addresses this issue of truth. He begins the story entitled "How to Tell a True War Story" with the words "This is true"(67). But throughout the entire book he as the author, and you as the reader, begin to discover what really makes something true, especially in terms of war.

The way O'Brian tells some of his war stories reminds me of the poem Nefarious War by Li Po. Often American culture views war as heroic and manly, and often we forget some of the hard parts. We forget all the lives that are finished because of our army. We forget that when our soldier wins, another human being has been lost. O'Brian understands that killing is hard and that killing is evil, as we see from the guilt we feel as he imagines the life the man he has killed could have had. O'Brian says that a true war story must have a tint of evil in it, and as Li Po describes the way the soldiers kill, you can't help but cringe.

The barbarian does man-slaughter for plowing;
On his yellow sand-plains nothing has been seen but blanched skulls and bones....

In the battlefield men grapple each other and die;
The horses of the vanquished utter lamentable cries to heaven,
While ravens and kites peck at human entrails,
Carry them up in their flight, and hang them on the branches of dead trees.
So, men are scattered and smeared over the desert grass,
And the generals have accomplished nothing.

This poem reeks of evil. As O'Brian requires of a true war story, it turns my stomach.

O'Brian says that often in a true war story there is a "surreal seemingness" because it is difficult to separate what is true from what seems to be true. This is true in Li Po's poem as well. The way it is written, with so many metaphors, it is hard to tell what is true and what isn't and the poem almost seems like it is happening in a dream. 

O'Brian also stresses the lack of importance the facts should have. The story is about something more than what actually literally happened. Because this is a poem, there is no recitation of facts. You don't know who went where or who did what. But you feel the war. You can feel how the war feels to the poet. You feel like you are there, living the war, without even knowing where anyone was standing. This seems like the mark of a true war story.

To read the full poem Nefarious War by Li Po: click here

You Only Live Once

In Tim O'Brien's book, The Things They Carried, one of the things he talks about in "On the Rainy River" was his reaction to getting his draft notice.  He did not support the war in Vietnam.  This particular line really stood out to me. "There should be a law, I thought.  If you support a war, if you think it's worth the price, that's fine, but you have to put your own precious fluids on the line"(42).  I strongly agree with that statement.  Tim worked all his childhood to set up a good future for himself.  All of the years of hard work are gone to waste when he is drafted.  He has a good chance of dying or becoming addicted to drugs.  If he does survive, he may not be able to live a normal life because of disturbing things he might have seen in Vietnam.  On the other hand, it's likely that many people who supported the and war were not drafted will live normal lives.  So how is this fair?  How is it fair that peoples' lives are ruined because of other peoples' selfishness?  You only live once and politicians were forcing Tim and others to have a potentially short one.  I believe that what Tim said had a very strong meaning and that he's telling us that the government can be unjust.  The people who believed in Vietnam should be the only ones to fight.  Not the people who don't.

You might say that you are an American and you should be willing to defend your country.  That is true but I think there is a difference between defending your country in a time of being attacked compared to stopping a civil war(which is what we were doing in Vietnam).  We were at no threat from North Vietnam and weren't defending our country.  Which brings me to this point.  Can you imagine all those long hard years of school going to waste because of the draft?  Knowing you have a very good chance of dying or addiction wouldn't you have protested just as much, if not more, than Tim?

"Spin"

Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried is a fictional story about a young man that is drafted to fight in the Vietnam War. O'Brien's descriptive writing allows the reader to truly depict various scenes of war. These scenes include actual warfare, what soldiers do during down time, and how war can effect an individual's mental state. For example, in the short story "Spin", the war has left Ted Lavender completely dependent on drugs. When he is asked, "How's the war today?", his intoxicated response was,

"Mellow man. We got ourselves a nice mellow war today." (33)

Another soldier that has obviously been effected by the war is Azar. When Ted Lavender adopts an orphan puppy, Azar decides that it would be fun to strap the dog to a Claymore antipersonnel mine and detonate the mine. In response to his actions, he says,

"What's everybody so upset about? I mean, Christ, I'm just a boy." (37)

It is hard to believe that somebody does not see a problem with blowing an innocent puppy to smitherines, yet it shows the negative effects that the war has brought upon these soldiers.

Blurring the Lines of Reality

Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried is about a fictional character named Tim O'Brien. The book and it's stories are written in the first person which attempts to, and succeeds at blurring the line between fiction and reality. The author admits the story is fictional but also claims that it is based on real events.

    "This is one story I've never told before. Not to anyone. not to my parents, not to my brother or sister,       not even to my wife. To go into it, I've always thought, would only cause embarrassment for all of us, a     sudden need to be elsewhere, which is the natural response to confession."

The way O'Brien speak so emotionally about the stories makes it difficult to tell which parts really happened to the author, and which parts are made up in order to illustrate his points.

If I were to say that the story "On the Rainy River" never actually occurred to O'Brien, how does that effect the validity of the whole book? O'Brien's imagination is capable of creating an action packed, dramatic story, that still appears to be real. A real story carries so much more weight than a fictional one because it really did happen to someone out there. It is difficult for me to treat any of O'Brien's writing as reality when I know that much of it is fictional. O'Brien writes about his shame of not being a glorious soldier, but is it possible the shame ought to be more intense? Maybe his claim that he and the other soldiers literally had to carry each other at times is just an attempt to change the past that he still regrets.

Back To The Front

In the short peace story that Mitchell Sanders tells in the chapter "Spin," he speaks of the solider that ditches his unit to go to a hospital and sit out the war in the company of a Red Cross nurse. Only to later return eagerly to the unit that he went AWOL on ready for combat. Saying

"All the peace, man, it felt so good it hurt. I want to hurt it back." (35)

As I read this, I got the impression that what he was saying was that after a short while waiting for the war to end. He got something close to being so bored or anxious waiting that he had to make his way back through the bush to his comrades or else he was going to go crazy. So I thought that this story had to do something with a soldier's nature, meaning that a solider would rather be fighting than twiddling  his or her thumbs waiting.

Then in the next paragraph, my impression of Tim O'Brien's interpretation of the story is that he believes that there is a little bit of peace on the battlefield that no other moment can compare with. So what I would like to know is if Tim O'Brien meant that that little bit of peace is so tempting that the solider would risk his life for it, because he says

"...you never felt more at peace." (36)

Or if interpretation Tim O'Brien offers of the story is as unrelated to the actual point Mitchell Sanders is trying to make as I believe.

  

Friends

Dave Jensen and Lee Strunk have an odd relationship in the chapter’s Enemies as well as Friends. After they had gotten in to a fistfight Dave seemed to be nervous to face Lee.

 

“Like fighting two different wars he said. No safe ground: enemies everywhere.” (63)

 

He was not able to trust anyone because of what he had gotten in to with Lee. To finally make things right with Lee he decided to break his own nose to show that they were even.

After this Dave and Lee began to trust each other. So much so that they made a pact, if one of them should ever get injured badly enough they would take them out of there misery.

Lee and Dave might not have been the best of friends but they had tremendous trust and respect for one another despite how there friendship began.

 

The Things They Needed

In the book, The Things They Carried, by Tim O'Brien, I thought it was very interesting how in almost every paragraph it either said, "The things they carried were...", or "They carried...". It talks about how they carried guns and other weapons as well as all of their personal things. Their whole lives were on their backs so whatever they couldn't carry, they couldn't have. "The things they carried were largely determined by necessity." (pg.2). These men and women who went to war couldn't just have whatever they wanted, they only could bring what they needed. "They carried their own lives." (p.15). In my opinion, many of us Americans would not be able to handle being in this situation. I believe that because a lot of us are very materialistic and have so many wants. I think this book is trying to send a message to us Americans to focus on more than just having things. It wants us to realize that there are so many more important aspects in life than having the newest Coach purse or True Religion jeans. The book tries to encourage us to appreciate life more and not take what we have for granite.

Hidden Feelings

As The Things They Carried began, Tim O'Brien described not only the literal things the soldiers of the story carried but also the emotional burdens they bore. Amongst their personal loads were good luck charms, sentimental objects, weapons, and gear. Together, they also carried "a silent awe for the terrible power of the things they carried" (7). Although each soldier had ways of calming himself down, such as playing checkers, they mostly bore their feelings inside, therefore appearing brave and calm on the outside.

"On The Rainy River" is one of the first stories where the feelings of the character are specifically described. When Tim O'Brien is drafted, he resents the draft because he is against the war. This anger is illustrated as he describes not only laws that should hypothetically be made, but imaginary arguments with his neighbors as well.

Although he is angry, I believe some of it is a front, concealing one of the main reasons he doesn't want to go to war; he is simply afraid. Unlike the soldiers in other stories, Tim admits his feelings to himself. He says, "I was bitter, sure. But it was so much more than that. The emotions went from outrage to terror to bewilderment to guilt to sorrow and then back again to outrage" (46). While he could admit these feelings to himself, he was similar to the other soldiers as he kept his feelings from other people. Would this pattern of concealed feelings still be present in war if women were there? Also, could this expectation of keeping feelings inside be a reason why so many veterans suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?

The Outer Shell

At a couple of points in "The Things They Carried" in The Things They Carried, O'Brien presents one of the dominating ideologies governing the soldiers' lives in the Vietnam War. He presents the idea that the soldiers' main objectives are to look tough, courageous, and valorous. Often times, they fear that they will be labeled as cowards more than they fear death.

Consider the following quotes which describe this tendency:

They were afraid of dying but they were even more afraid to show it (20).

Men killed, and died, because they were embarrassed not to...They died so as not to die of embarrassment (21). 

They were too frightened to be cowards (22).

This idea was particularly shocking and it caused me to pause in my reading. I find it very odd that the soldiers dread showing evidence of their warranted and natural fears that are omnipresent in their lives among other soldiers who share the same fears. I think this tendency is related to the pressure of our society on soldiers, and men in general, to be tough and "macho." It is these pressures that cause the soldiers to act like they are unaffected by the fear gnawing at their sanity. Therefore, they put on an outer shell of toughness in order to conform to the views of our society.

However, the following question must be asked: is such an outer shell necessary in times of war? If the outer shell is nonexistent, and the soldiers give in to and outwardly express their fear, what happens to the war effort?

In my opinion, none of the soldiers would be able to fight without that shell because they would be possessed by their fear, which would be exasperated by the outward expressions of fear by their fellow soldiers.

 

Guilt

In the chapter, "On the Rainy River" in The Things They Carried, the author Tim O'Brian tells us of a very personal struggle. While along the road nearly losing his mind over weather or not to run for Canada, he made the ultimate decision to fight in the war. Even though he was always opposed to the idea of fighting and war, there was something inside of him telling him that it was his duty to go, and there had to be enough of that something pushing him all the way.

"It was a kind of schizophrenia. A moral split. I couldn't make up my mind. I feared the war, yes, but I also feared exile." (44) After this quote, the author goes on do describe what else he feared. The respect of his parents, the law, etc. These are all very scary things to lose, at his age especially.

At that time in his life, O'Brian was filled with guilt. Guilt for himself, his family, and possibly his country. I think that if he had chosen not to go, he would have to live with that guilt for the rest of his life. In retrospect, because he did fight, he now has the guilt on his shoulders of killing other men in combat.

It seems that either way, O'Brian was going to feel a tremendous amount of guilt. The big question is, live with the guilt of killing men in war, or live with the guilt of letting down his friends, family, and his country.