To put it lightly, reading The Things They Carried for the
second time has blown my mind. The first time through, O’Brien’s flowery
language and constant intermissions annoyed me to be quite honest. But having
read it more critically along with our class discussions, I have realized that
both are absolutely crucial to the narrative. As O’Brien himself states, it is
impossible to tell a war story with a moral, and it is impossible to tell a war
story that is absolutely true. Chapters like “Good Form” break the narrative
and make the reader doubt all that he has read. O’Brien outright says that
“almost everything else is invented” (171). Yet, in the very next paragraph he
states that what he said was at least partially true, before going on to debunk
himself again. As he so eloquently puts it, the “story truth is truer sometimes
than happening-truth” (171).
In fact, I believe that the purpose
of O’Brien inserting himself as the narrator of a fictional story is to further
this doubt. Had the narrator been a fictional character with a made up name and
completely made up experiences, the entire novel would lose credibility. Having
to separate between the author himself and his recreation of himself in the
book allows the reader to trust the author’s credibility as a Vietnam veteran,
while at the same time not believing a word that the narrator says. As O’Brien
says, his purpose is to “invent myself” (171). In inventing himself, he creates
a more believable story than if had written the absolute truth.
I think your suggestion that O'Brien's "character" in the novel adds credibility is absolutely right. Because he invented himself into the stories, we as readers are that much more intrigued. If the narrator was given any other name than Tim O'Brien, we wouldn't have cared as much about the stories, the characters, or any of their anecdotes. The fact that he commented on the truthfulness of the stories through out the novel helped the reader on their toes and encouraged them not to fall for his powerful manipulation. I also agree that he used this tactic to distinguish the "happening truth" from the "story truth," and make us question which one is really more important. I think you could argue either side to be correct by backing it up with the stories in the novel as well with the feelings the anecdotes evoked in the readers.
ReplyDeleteYou make a really good point about why O'Brien decided to include himself as a character. While reading, I thought it was confusing that O'Brien seemed to simultaneously want us to believe him and not believe him. But I think now I understand that this is what he intended, and that some credibility needed to be established to make the "story truth" valuable.
ReplyDeleteI agree that adding O'Brien as a character was a very clear and conscious effort on the part of O'Brien. It feels as if we give a lot more credit and meaning to events that we read that 'actually happened'. I sometimes wonder why this is the case. I think it is because we can cherish the happy moments of a piece and gawk at the more depressing elements to a higher degree knowing that they weren't a fictional construct. In any case, at first glance, O'Brien does seem to draw upon this power of "autobiography" and fool the reader.
ReplyDelete