The best fiction, in my opinion, is not written simply to entertain. It's supposed to tell us something about ourselves or the world around us, some little truth that's easy to miss on our own. The stories might be made up, the characters might not exist in the physical world, but the truth within fiction applies to us.
The Things They Carried contains a lot of these little truths. I thought it was true the first time I read it, until I hit the part that says he made it all up. I thought O'Brien was telling his readers what war was really like, illustrating it with these crazy true stories; but once I got over the initial shock of realizing it was fiction, it didn't matter. The emotion is real, the sentiment is real. Is that what matters? That we feel something when reading a story, that it makes us realize the truth of the world?
It's like the discussion we had about the pretext in Cat's Cradle... "Nothing in this book is true." For me, it's not about the fact that Vonnegut's story is fiction, that it came from his head. It's the realization that there might be no truth in the story. You go into reading with the thought that you'll learn nothing about the world around you. "All fiction is a transmission of the truth," is a brilliant sentence I heard in Tuesday's discussion. The stories themselves are lies, but what's beneath them--emotion, the author's intent--that's real. That matters. And when Vonnegut says "Nothing in this book is true," he discounts that. He makes it seems as if he had no reason to write this book other than to entertain, when really--although Cat's Cradle fulfills that purpose--it also tells us a deeper truth about religion and science, just as The Things They Carried tells us about war.
What you wrote about Vonnegut seemingly rejecting his own work and suggesting that it's not worth our time is very interesting. By stating outright that the story isn't true, he implies that he's saying nothing worthwhile, which I don't believe for a second. Another thing to think about: is the pretext written by Vonnegut as himself, or Vonnegut as Jonah? That could also affect the meaning.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with what you said about emotion. Emotion plays a central part in executing manipulation. Even though I have yet to start reading The Things They Carried I want to address a difference that you raised, between this book and Cat’s Cradle. In Cat’s Cradle the proclamation that “nothing in this book is true” lays the ground for the plot, whereas in The Things They Carried, according to your post, this revelation (whether it changes later on in the book or not) appears after you read a portion of the story. These manipulations affect the readers in different ways. With Cat’s Cradle I (and I think the entire class) read the book suspiciously, wandering whether the statement is “true” and immersed in an endless loophole of lies, truths, and true lies. With The Things They Carried, as you attested yourself, you read the book believing it is based on real events. When I am under the conception that the book I read describes real-life events and real people I am usually more empathetic towards the characters and more immersed in the story. In The Things They Carried that conception smashes and alters your emotions toward the story. I assume it would have made me feel cheated if I have read the book prior to reading your post.
ReplyDeleteNote: due to the nature of our class, I might suspiciously argue that you posted this to manipulate me (us) to read the book in certain way.
Also, thank you Jillian for reviewing my comment.
DeleteI really like your point about the best fiction is reveals a truth, as opposed to purely entertain--and I really agree with that. I also, at first, originally thought that the "nothing in this book is true" line almost discounts the rest of the novel in the way that he has the readers think that it's a random piece of literature for which to enjoy. However, like you and Lindsey have noted, I think it's clever that Vonnegut makes us think that when, in fact, it is the opposite. And when you realize that it's not just a story that he made up out of no where, that the truth is revealed and we can get lots of meaning from it.
ReplyDeleteYou make a great point about The Things They Carried. Though O’Brien does not tell his stories strictly by how they happened (some of them did not happen at all), his goal is not to inform the reader, but to make him feel the same emotions he did during his experiences in the Vietnam War. More often then not, truth does not elicit the same emotional response as fiction, no matter how riveting the story.
ReplyDelete