Multiple Personalities of Tim(my)

Throughout “The Things They Carried”, we are introduced to multiple characters that fight alongside Tim O’Brien. Until the end of the novel, I was sure that each character had their own personality, and presumably their own body. However, the last line changed my thoughts: “I realize that it is Tim trying to save Timmy’s life with a story.” This line negated my previous belief of all the characters being separate individuals and changed it instead to all of the characters being personas of the “Tim O’Brien” in the book.

Multiple sentences on the last two pages also back this dissociative identity disorder idea. “I can see Kiowa, too, and Ted Lavender and Curt Lemon, and sometimes I can even see Timmy skating with Linda under the yellow floodlights. I’m young and happy. I’ll never die. I’m skimming across the surface of my own history…” This sudden and rapid break from the Vietnam War (the supposed topic of the book) points to O’Brien himself, which suggests that he is trying to pull himself back together. All of the stories that O’Brien tells relate to ways in which he mentally copes with the stresses and traumas of war. For example, the story of the brutal killing of the baby buffalo is not Rat Kiley coping with loss of a friend, but rather O’Brien struggling with a deprivation of friendship. By trying to pull the pieces of himself back together, O’Brien tries to make like Timmy before Linda’s death (innocent, naïve, young, and unharmed). But, as also evidenced by the last line, this process of recuperation is not complete. Even though this process might never finish, O’Brien slowly tries to grasp for pieces of himself by writing these stories in order to become whole once again.

Too Much To Carry

The Things They Carried

After reading Cat’s Cradle I was skeptical about what truths and what lies were waiting for me in The Things They Carried. Tim O’Brien, through his words, was creating an invisible line between what was real in the war and what was just some made up war story. In the 136 pages O’Brien tries to tell the reader about some of the war stories he remembers, but how do we know he is telling them as they actually happened. He said he was going to put the facts down on paper but how can he remember it all after 20 something years. 

What I found interesting though was how O’Brien explained all the different things the soldiers were carrying. It was not all just physical but also mental and emotions “things.” These men were carrying anger for being in a war they wanted no part in. They also had guilt because they would blame themselves for being the reason someone died. The title of the novel suggests to the reader that there is more than these things that they carried. A double meaning behind the title perhaps? 

Also he has a whole chapter on how to write a true war story. But in his description of how to he basically tells the reader that it is impossible to believe a war story even if it true. Skepticism is always there as well as not all is true. So how does that help a reader believe his war story? 

Marching on

I think we all can agree that reading Cat’s Cradle was a new experience for everyone, particularly how the reader can be turned around and pulled in so many different directions and still find a meaning in the text. Now that we’ve moved on to The Things They Carried, we shouldn’t be surprised that we are seeing the very same interactions within the text as we saw in Cat’s Cradle, particularly the presence of contradictions.

Very early in the book, it’s clear that the act of remembering is a central action within the book. I first picked up on this action in the middle of the first chapter, where the narrator continually brings up the shooting of Ted Lavender. At first, the shooting is only alluded to as the narrator describes what Lavender carried with him “until he was shot in the head” (2). This occurrence is repeatedly brought up, revealing itself to be a pivotal moment in the text. It is, as it were, the recalling of a memory, here a particularly painful one that slowly surfaces in the memory of the text. Slowly, small details about Lavender’s death are revealed to us—that he was shot in the head (2), that he fell like a rock (6), and that he was coming back from peeing (12). Slowly, as the details of the shooting are placed together, the text acknowledges it as a complete memory when Lieutenant Cross begins to deal with aftermath of Lavender’s death.

Ultimately, we readers experience the act of remembering not only throughout the first chapter, but throughout the book as well. It is one of the central actions of the book, but what makes this action all the more intriguing is what the narrator acknowledges about the action of remembering. As you remember things, “[the] memory traffic feeds into a rotary up in your head, where it goes in circles for a while, then soon imagination flows in and the traffic merges and shoots off down a thousand different streets” (33). In other words, the narrator has acknowledged the fact that remembering involves a certain amount of fabrication. All memories, therefore, are corrupted by falsehood and lies. Yet somehow, these memories, or stories, are presented as “the facts…on paper” (37).

Herein lies the contradiction. The narrator accepts partial lies as complete truths and we as readers must question why. Thus far, the reason appears to be survival. In the harsh world of Vietnam, the soldiers convince themselves of illusions, such as Cross pretending that Martha loves him, or the soldiers bringing a mine detector to create the “illusion of safety” (9). As in Cat's Cradle, all of this is done just so the cruelty of war, life, and reality itself are made a bit more bearable and so that man can march on.

Perceived truth vs. Actual truth

       After many class discussions regarding manipulation and what is truth, I opened up The Things They Carried by Tim O’Brien with my guard up.  In doing so I quickly picked up on how O’Brien tells his story contrasting the perceived truth versus the actual truth.  It is difficult to tell where the division between the two truths lie, but there is a definite difference. 

With O’Brien’s focus on the men themselves, as opposed to the action they are involved in, the perceived truth comes across as how the soldiers carry themselves and seem on a superstitious level.  In reality, or what could be considered the actual truth, the men are experiencing something different on a more substantial level.  The narrator explained reality vs. perception well in the first chapter when he compares all the men to actors and how the war was scripted.  Except this “act” has taken on a life of its own.  The truth was blurred, however surreal their actions may feel, it is all very true. 

Another grey area between perceived and actual truth lay in the thoughts of the men.  O’Brien writes about all the things the men have to “hump”, yet what seemed to be the heaviest burden was their own thoughts.  He wrote how “They all carried ghosts” (p.9) and that “Imagination was killer” (p.10).  Both of these descriptions relay how the thoughts of the soldiers took on a reality, for Jimmy Cross this pertained mainly to the love of his life Martha.  Martha drew Cross’s attention away from war and into an entirely different reality.  Although on some level Cross understands the love is different, he holds onto the romance she sends him as a silver lining.  

How Important is the Truth?

In the first 136 pages of the novel The Things They Carried, author Tim O'Brien clearly blurs the lines between fiction and fact. O'Brien dedicates the book to "the men of Alpha Company...to Jimmy Cross, Norman Bowker, Rat Kiley, Mitchell Sanders, Henry Dobbins, and Kiowa," names the characters of his book after these men, and even shares the same name as the narrator. In this way, the reader must distinguish what is fact and what is fiction. But how can they accomplish this task? It seems impossible for the audience to do so, as it is unclear whether any of the stories O'Brien tells actually occurred. In addition, in response to the title, I liked O'Brien's double meaning on the word "things." He explains in great detail the physical objects that men carried: "Jimmy Cross carried a compass, maps, code books, binoculars..."(5). However, Cross carries emotional baggage as well. He probably carries with him an incredible amount of stress and responsibility for the lives of his men, and maybe, deep down, fear of failing them. He also carries the intense guilt of Ted Lavender's death. Perhaps O'Brien believes that what's important is not the cold, hard facts, but rather how the reader feels when reading his stories; their emotional reaction matters more because to O'Brien and to the reader, that emotional response is what is true.

Truth in Fiction

Having just finished "Cat's Cradle," I decided that it might be important to read the pretext of "The Things They Carried."  Sure enough, I found another contradiction quite similar to the paradox in Vonnegut's pretext.  The title page states that this is "A work of fiction by Tim O'Brien."  Just a few pages later, there is a statement from "John Ransom's Andersonville Diary" which states, "...Those who have had any such experience as the author will see its truthfulness at once, and to all other readers it is commended as a statement of actual things by one who experienced them to the fullest."  Is this a paradox to say that a work of fiction could be truthful?  I believe that the truthfulness and actuality of a work of fiction is based in emotion - the stories may not be things that actually happened, but the raw emotions are and can only be explained truthfully by someone who has experienced them.

Truth in Stories

I tried to start reading The Things They Carried without questioning the truth in the book or whether I was being manipulated by the author. It worked well until I reached the chapter titled "How to Tell a True War Story". I had been reading through the book in the mindset that it was non-fiction, or at least that the fictitious narrator was telling true stories from his life. As soon as I read the first sentence, "This is true", I questioned everything I had read before. If this story was true, were other stories untrue? And if so, which ones?

This chapter emphasized the notion that a war story has blurred lines of what is true and what is untrue. Things in war can be happening very quickly, making it hard to determine exactly what is going on. Therefore it may be hard to recall an accurate depiction of what exactly happened. O'Brien says himself, "In any war story, but especially a true one, it's difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen" (67). I think this is applicable to any story about a real event that took place, not just war stories. The individual telling the story may skew the details or exaggerate something to make themselves or another person be perceived in a certain way. This would cause us to question the validity of many nonfiction stories. I also thought it was interesting how O'Brien said that a true war story never generalizes, because if you generalize then almost everything is true, but at the same time almost nothing is true. War stories shouldn't be abstract or analytical, and most war stories don't have a point. Does this book fulfill the requirements for a true war story?

The Blurring of Realities

I think it's important to recognize that while The Things They Carried is called a work of fiction, it is also semi-autobiographical. At least thats what my bit of research has told me. Unlike Cat's Cradle we know the narrator, Tim O'Brien, shares similarities with the author. O'Brien really did grow up in Minnesota, really did go to Macalester College, and really was drafted to fight in Vietnam. The stories he shares with us in the novel are as "true" as we want them to be. There is no clear distinction as to whether the O'Brien we're reading about is the O'Brien writing. Apparently this is called verisimilitude, or as O'Brien explains on page 80, "A thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth." Does it matter if the narrative about Lemon and Rat ever really occurred? If the answer is important to the audience, than the answer is true because you're invested.

In the chapter curiously titled, "How to Tell a True War Story," O'Brien reveals that in the end it doesn't matter whether or not a war story is true, because that's not the purpose. The end goal is an emotional understanding. The tale of Lemon and Rat appears as a war story mainly because it is interwoven with this theme of what a true war story is, but in reality, O'Brien sees it as a love story. A love story whose truth will never be understood because there are so many parts and so many different interpretations. All the different details made to make us feel emotion, like the baby buffalo or Dave Jensen singing "Lemon Tree" while pulling their comrade's limbs out of the tree. In the end, isn't the story true if we believe in it? If while reading the story we lose sight of reality--even for a moment, then doesn't that make it real enough?

The Power of Foresight

I noticed in the first chapter that O'Brien reveals Ted Lavender's death as he introduces him in the story. He then mentions the death a few times before offering an explanation. Vonnegut similarly reveals the Miltons' deaths before the deaths are elaborated upon. These revelations made me consider an authors reason for including such a "spoiler."

If looking at a writer’s manipulation of a reader’s emotions, these “spoilers” may prevent emotional attachment by the reader or perhaps amplify it. They may serve as a warning for the reader to avoid attaching him or herself to the character. If the reader were to connect with the character, the sense of impending doom would perhaps amplify emotions. In any event, the information changes one's perception of the character. In my case, it instilled a sense of pity in both Cat's Cradle and The Things They Carried. 

These “spoilers” may also serve as a reminder to the reader of the authors perspective and scope of knowledge. In Cat’s Cradle, it’s important to remember that the events presented to the viewer have happened and have been analyzed by Jonah. In the case of The Things They Carried, O’Brien allows the reader begin to understand his scope of knowledge. Although it is unclear at the beginning that this is a memoir, it makes sense in retrospect and creates a smooth transition into this form of narration.  

True Stories Within True Stories

 I thought the chapter “How to Tell a True War Story” in The Things They Carried had many similarities to Cat’s Cradle. Just like during Cat’s Cradle, I found myself reading about stories within stories and trying to solve the never ending puzzle of “what is the author actually referring to?” In this chapter, O’Brien discusses qualities of a true war story. At first, it seemed as though he was explaining why his war stories are definitely true. However, this is confusing because as a reader I knew before even opening the book that this is a work of fiction. I found myself wondering if O’Brien used this particular chapter, which is a story of its own, to discuss the truth in all of his other stories. It becomes even more confusing because he is talking about the idea of true war stories during a war story, which reminds me of the confusion we found in Cat’s Cradle while reading about books within books.

O’Brien wrote later in the chapter that “in any war story, but especially a true one, it’s difficult to separate what happened from what seemed the happen.” This implies, similarly to what have discussed in class, that “truth” might not be one definite thing. That line in the chapter shows that O’Brien believes stories can have events that didn’t definitely happen, but the story can still be true. This brings us back to the question of, what is truth and what makes a war story true or not true? O’Brien wrote on page 80 that “a thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth.” Can something be true without ever happening? Maybe the truth in a war story comes less from what actually happened and more from the way the story makes people feel. However, the concept of something being true without ever actually happening is definitely hard to wrap your mind around.  

Truth vs. the Portrayal of Truth

            In an attempt to procrastinate starting this book, I looked through every page that preceded the actual story, pages that I normally pay no mind to. As I flipped to the title page, my eyes quickly caught sight of the smaller print above the author’s name: A WORK OF FICTION BY Tim O’Brien. Given the nature of this class, I would’ve assumed that it would be a fictional story. Why had O’Brien found it necessary to point this out to his readers? Wouldn’t it be obvious? Such questions immediately filled my mind, and then I began to read. And as I read, each page made me feel what I imagine to be the truths of the war. His writing is so powerful that I couldn’t help but assume the words on the pages in front of me to be truth. O’Brien’s captivating account of the war events drew me in immediately. Had I not been warned, the thought of this story being factual would have certainly crossed my mind. I began to question how much of a role his imagination had played while he was writing this. This is a story about his remembering. He tells us that stories last forever; when our memories are gone, there is nothing left to remember except the story itself. So how much truth lies in this story? How much of it is an actual recollection of the war, and how much of it is a falsification of reality?

            O’Brien himself is the main character, both a Vietnam veteran telling his experiences during the war and a writer exploring how to write a story. Having the same character involved in both factual and fictional events introduces a blurred line between truth and the portrayal of truth. Realism and fantasy are juxtaposed in a way that brings the truths of a war and the fictions of storytelling together, leaving the reader unable to know for sure which of the events truly happened to O’Brien. It is impossible for us to tell apart what is indeed fact and what is simply representing the truth as it seems. Some events are so surreal that we would dismiss them as fictional, yet it is often those that make the story seem untrue that are the exact truth. We know that O’Brien is sharing with us the harsh and gruesome realities of the war. But he tells us to be skeptical. He tells us that it is hard to differentiate between what happened and what seemed to happen. So it is up to us to decide for ourselves where the truth lies in this story.  

Fiction Presented Through Fact

It’s pretty incredible, actually. After reading the first 30 pages of Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried, I finally discovered that this book is a work of fiction. The label, fiction, dramatically alters both the tone and my perception of O’Brien’s creation. His writing, while lauded for its accuracy by those with war experience, remains a lie and a situation created, not observed. As a historical piece, how can The Things They Carried function as informative account? How can its accuracy be judged if it has none to begin with? Certainly, based on the provided reviews, O’Brien crafted a situation that accurately describes the ambiance of war, but to what extent is the environment reliable? As I see it, it’s impossible to distinguish between the research O’Brien presumably collected and the imagination of a writer obsessed with the romance of modern war.

In contrast to such confusion, O’Brien builds his novel on the specific data, exact weights, measured to the tenth of a pound. Whether accurate or not, the measurements of tangible baggage add a definite ethos to The Things They Carried. Such intimate numbers imply a direct connection to the front, providing a platform from which to explore the intangible emotional weight of the primal monotony that consumed Vietnam.