The Savage within the human soul

"...because she belonged to another world whiachwas not quite real..." (O'Brien, 17).

I read this line a couple of times and it got my mind racing on what defines a real world to O'Brien? It also made me question what would happen to a person stepped into that real world defined by O'Brien? Since, O'Brien is a writing about war stories one can predict that it's not a pretty one. War is usually envisioned
withthe elements of violence, cruelty, and disorder. A person would think, what would happen to ana innocent civilian from a world of tranquility if placed in a world of violence? O'Brien vividly portrays the transition of an innocent human being into a human who releases their inner demon of their soul released once placed into the bloody world of merceliessness.

The character innocence is Mary Anne Bell who come from the peaceful macrocosm of Cleveland Heights. Mary Anne comes to Chu Lai to visit her boyfriend, Mark Fossie, basically to keep the other soldiers company. Though, during the stay her animal-like persona begins to drip out of ehr humane soul. "During her first days in-country she liked to roam around the compound asking questions: What exactly was a tip flare? How did a Claymore work?" (O'Brien, 95). Her interest in the army starts off small which does not bother the soldiers much. As time passes by her desire to know more about the war, land, and solider life increased. In addition, as she went to go visit villages in Vietnam, "her pretty blue eyes seemed to glow" and "she could not seem to get enough of it". Moreover, by the second week of her stay, she started to change her physical apperance to that of a soldier, "No cosmetics, cut her hair short, stopped wearing jewelry..." (O'Brien, 98). Her own sane personality started to disappear as well. "The bubbliness was gone. The nervous giggling too..." (O'Brien 99). Though her final transition of releasing her savagery spirit of the soul, is when she joins the Greenies.

"Twice, though, she came in late at night. Very late. And then finally did not come in at all." (O'Brien, 99). After her first trip in an ambush mission the reader would expect that she would call quits on th army life out of fear. This is not so for Mary Anne, "...she came in trooping in through the wire, tired-looking but cheerful..." Though, it does not stop there she slowly cuts herself off from Rat Kiley's unit. She drowns herself into wilderness with haunted look pumping through her eyes. "Her eyes seemed to shine in the dark-not blue, though, but a bright glowing jungle green." At this point I infer that Mary Anne's transformation from the outside is complete. "In part it was her eyes: utterly flat and indifferent. There was no emotion in her stare, no sense of the person behind it. But the grotesque part was her jewelry...the tongues were threaded... of copper wire..." (O'Brien ,111). Yet there is still her demon-like personality to be revealed.

Mary Anne's own thoughts on her transformation from innocent to a savage are best expressed as her realization of her true self-identity. "Sometimes I want to eat this place. Vietnam. I want to swallow this whole country-the dirt, the death- I just want to eat it and have it inside of me. That's how I feel. ...I feel close to myself...I feel close to my own body... I'm on fire almost - I'm burning away to nothing-but it does not matter because I know exactly who I am..." There it is. May Anne in her own words flat out says that this demon-like nature is her true personality, her true identity. By time reach this section of the book, The Things They Carried, I completely forget that there ever was peaceful, innocent, shy Mary Anne. To me only the wild Mary Anne existed. Now, I am thinking if this is Mary Anne's true personality in the real world of inhumanity, what would Martha's personality be? Forget that, what would be the true wild personality of all human beings that lived in a fantasy world of peace and protection(in this story)? Would all the human beings living in this utopia unleash their dangerous personality, if it exists just like Mary Anne did?

Here is a girl who is only 17 and was once a, "...tall, big boned blonde...She had long white legs and blue eyes and a complexion like strawberry ice cream. Very friendly too. (O'Brien, 93). Into a person who made the horrors of the Vietnam War their drive towards this exciting personality change. Furthermore, she became a person who "wanted to penetrate deeper into the mystery of herself, and after a time...wanting became needing... then craving." (O'Brien, 114)

O'Brien just puts it plain word for the reader that even the innocent can learn to be dangerous and learn to kill. Just like Riley says, " -we were real young and innocent, full of romantic bullshit, but we learned pretty damn quick. And so did Mary Anne." (O'Brien 97).

Henry Dobbins

A machine gunner with a heart.

Or so it would appear. Thus far in the story Henry seems to be the one who wants things to be right. As we would look at right. I'm sure he wanted to stop the senseless slaughter of the baby water buffalo. Azar probably got lots of black looks from Henry when he blew up the puppy with a claymore. And finally, and it's the last thing I read so it's stuck in my head, Henry attempted to throw Azar into the well for his mocking of the young Vietnamese girl.

Henry seems to be the conscience of the platoon. Big and graceful and slow and strong and quiet and dumb and expressive and feeling and caring. Henry is all of these things. He is also moral. Henry understands that war sucks and sometimes soldiers do things that don't make sense, but he also knows what is right and what is wrong. Henry knows what should and shouldn't be done. He let Rat Kiley grieve for Kurt Lemon, but I know that he was not the one who kicked the water buffalo. I'm sure that had he known Azar's intentions, he would have never let him near Ted Lavender's puppy.

The reason Henry picked up Azar, and threatened to throw him into a well is simple. Azar was mocking that dancing girl's pain. She was alone, in a village of corpses, in a village of burnt out shells of huts. Her mind was gone, probably retreating to a happy time. A time of dancing and music. Henry understood this. Not only could he not take Azar's mockery of such human suffering, he couldn't take Azar's erotic twist on the girl's dance, it was all too much for him.

I am also sure that if Azar had said yes, Henry would have dumped him into that well without a second thought.

I'm not sure what that all means, but it's what struck me.

: A Novel

I find parts of this book to be enjoyable, though like someone else posted, I'm definitely not a fan of war. I also have to admit, I kind of picture Forrest Gump in all of these scenes, because that's where I learned everything I know about Vietnam. That's probably not good because nothing in the movie was true, but does it matter?? Everyone agrees - it is a GREAT movie. There's even a lot of parallels, but maybe that's just how Nam stories go. There's the girl at home who never loved the soldier the same way he loved her (Jenny and Martha), the soldier later recounts his stories to whoever wants to listen (the whole movie and this whole book), the soldier watches his best friend die.... But like I said, most war stories probably go like that. But Forrest Gump wasn't a war story; it was a love story.

I also think Tim O'Brien wrote this book somehow knowing that a class would someday be created called "Truth, Lies and Literature," in which students would decide whether or not they need to differentiate fact from fiction. He plays with the idea incessantly, putting "Tim O'Brien" as the narrator, dedicating the book to his "fake" war buddies, and rambling for 30 pages or so about truth vs. lies and how to tell a "true" war story. He just plays with our minds, proving for sure (at least to me) that it does not matter if it's true or not. I just don't care anymore. "Almost everything is true. Almost nothing is true" (p. 81). "The truths are contradictory" (p. 80). And on page 83, he points out how the listener or reader would "feel cheated if it never happened." Is that why he refuses to tell is whether or not it's true?

At this point, as long as he just tells a story without contradicting himself about its authenticity, I'll be happy to read it whether it happened or not.

Who's affraid of Virginia Woolf?

If anyone has ever read the play "Who's affraid of Virginia Woolf" you will understand my title perfectly. The first page in the first chapter of The Things They Carried talks about how Martha is learning about Virginia Woolf. Well this is a coincidence this name is brought up. This play is a play based on lies.

I personally have never read The Things They Carried so I am excited to see in the end what the twist is. With what we have read so far I want to believe in some of it and hopefully, like the babywater buffalo, others are made up stories. I think to really understand this book I'm going to have to read it a second time and go back and have those, "ohhh I get it now" kind of moments. My history teacher in high school was a Vietnam vet so some of the stories he told us in class seem similar to what O'Brien tells us.

O'Brien lived through this and being an author has the ablity to tell a story and make the reader wish it was true. Sometimes, at least in my view, people are naive and they will people in what they what to believe even if you have hard factual evidence infront of them. Some people just don't want to believe what is really going on. Sometimes it makes for a better war story. No one really can say what's fact or fiction unless you are witnessing it with your own eyes.

I don't want to go through this novel questioning the whole time is this true? Or did this really happen? I feel that will take away from the stories. Obviously I will make my own assumptions but that's all they will be. I'll never really know what is the truth or what was a lie. All I will have after reading this novel is my view on how I percieved it and how I personally reacted.

This is a true post that was never really posted...

The Things They Carried has me constantly debating with myself as to whether this story is true. Even though O'Brien claims that the book is a work of fiction, I'm not inclined to believe him.

My distrust in O'Brien not only as a narrator but as the author comes from just that- he is both the narrator and the author. He claims that this story is fiction but then places a character in the book with his own name. Sure an author can narcissistically revolve an entire book around a character who shares his name, but I don't think this is the case. I believe that O'Brien placed this character in the book because this book is paralleling experiences from his own life.

I'm not saying that the book is actually a work of non-fiction; however I'm still not convinced otherwise. There is a quote from the book that leads me to believe that the book may be both fiction and non-fiction. O'Brien writes, "That's a true story that never happened" (84). I believe that O'Brien took true stories from his time in the military and put some sort of twist on them therefore making the book a work of fiction.

Where the twist in all of O'Brien's war stories lies, we may never know. However, I do believe that this book is a "true story that never happened." For O'Brien to say that the book is completely a work of fiction is somewhat misleading seeing as O'Brien the author had to have some sort of connection with O'Brien the character. This is what makes me distrust O'Brien the author and also makes me think- what else in this fictional book holds some sort of truth?

I hate war, and now I hate war stories

Realistic human beings tend to not care for stories. Like the narrator points out on pg. 83, (in the most annoying chapter EVER!) you feel cheated if told a story and it never really happened. "Without grounding reality, its just a trite bit of puffery." Then why read stories?

We read stories not only because a teacher says to, but for entertainment. With a really good story, we may take some value or lesson away from it. With war stories, I believe we are suppose to take away an understanding of war or maybe just hope that it will soon end. Shortly followed by the quote of being cheated, it is also stated "a true war story does not depend upon that kind of truth. Absolute occurence is irrelevant." The truth is what we want to hear, especially in a war story. Putting myself in the characters shoes', I would want to hear that a buddy attempted to save the lives of those around him, rather that they all got blown to pieces by a gernade. I wouldn't care if it happened or not, to believe those around me are willing to risk their lives for mine grants me hope. In war, soliders need some sort of hope for a positive outcome. If a solider hasn't witnessed this for his or herself, they would need a story to hold on to. Without hope, there is no reason to be a brave soilder, because all is lost anyhow. I think this is what the author is trying to explain to us, or he is just trying to makes us all hate him!

Blurring the Lines between Right and Wrong, Fact and Fiction

The integral themes of Tim O’Brien’s novel, The Things They Carried directly relate to the core themes of this class. O’Brien challenges the reader to consider the boundaries of truth, consistently challenging the reader’s imagination and making them ask – ‘Where do the lies start and the truth begin?’ In describing the qualities necessary for a “true” war story O’Brien says “absolute occurrence is irrelevant” (83). Throughout the novel, the lines between fact and fiction are consistently blurred. O’Brien deliberately names himself as the protagonist of the story and uses fellow soldiers, whom he fought with as characters, making it impossible for the reader to know where truth ends and fiction begins. In effect, the personal truths of what the war means to soldiers and how it alters them personally is more important than the factual details of each story.
Morality and accuracy have little to do with the truth of the stories O’Brien tells. Through storytelling O’Brien fleshes out a broader truth. The story of Mary Anne exemplifies storytelling to identify a broader truth. After visiting the jungle Mary Anne undergoes root changes in her personality, she transforms from a bubbly youth to a hardened soul. At the end of the story, she wears the same innocent pink dress and white sweater as she did in the beginning of the story, with one cardinal change- she has a necklace of human tongues tied around her neck. The necklace represents Mary Anne’s transforms, from effervescent and innocent to fearlessness and ruthless, losing her American identity. Participation in war forever changed Mary Anne. Even though this story may not be factually true it holds inherent truth, illustrating that war eternally changes those who endure it.
Another example of the ambiguity and insignificance of morality and truth within O’Brien’s stories is the chapter “How to Tell a True War Story” where Colonel Mitchell Sanders describes a silent mission in the woods: The soldiers hear voices in the woods, only to have Sanders admit later to altering facts to make a point. Despite being factually untruthful, the story is still significant because it speaks to the collective truth of the power of imagination, a soldier’s fear can enable him to do seemingly unthinkable things.
After being exposed to the bitter reality of war the characters senses of right and wrong, blur from black and white to varying shades of gray. The skewed portrayal of truth in The Things They Carried heightens the reader’s understanding of the characters, helping the reader understand the moral ambiguity of war.