Kurt Vonnegut and Tim O'Brien do an amazing job of deceiving the reader and sending ideas, however, many of their ideas seem very pointless if you look at the end result. Tim O'Brien's story telling are a series of self treatments for his lost innocence with the byproduct of describing the emotion of the Vietnam war. Kurt Vonnegut tells us to balance religion and science, something that people do on a daily basis. What is it about empowering ourselves that makes it really worth it? So what if you can list off reasons for your balance between science and religion, its all due each persons version of reality. So if people are reaching the same conclusion without all the trouble what is the point? And in extension what is the point of books then, if they will lead people to generic conclusions?
I think the point, as O'Brien tried to explain, is to make the readers feel how he felt in Vietnam. The way he writes places his readers in his very shoes. I definitely felt the pain, humiliation, disgust, and overwhelming hopelessness when reading The Things They Carried. After reading it, I can barely imagine how Tim O'Brien felt when he was experiencing it for real.
ReplyDeleteAs for Vonnegut, I think your argument of "what is the point" is more prominent and justifiable in Cat's Cradle. I personally did not get as much out of reading Cat's Cradle as I did reading The Things They Carried. Cat's Cradle, to me, is merely a form of entertainment, and I had a hard time seeing the objective and the "so what" of why the story was written. I am not discrediting the language, or way in which the book is well written. I, like you, just don't see the full value in Cat's Cradle, especially when paired next to O'Briens work.