Enemies and Friends

In class we never touched on the chapters Enemies and Friends, both of which I found very interesting. By definition, enemies and friends are oppositional; an enemy being an adversary or opponent, and a friend being a person attached to another by feelings of affection. However, in these chapters Jensen and Strunk are both. But perhaps their relationship is less paradoxical than it seems. The definitions of enemies and friends given above are definitions that apply to traditional society, but these definitions shift in times of war. As O’Brien says, “In any other circumstance, it might’ve ended there. But this was Vietnam” (p. 59). During war, the term enemy is typically a reference to the opposing side, so when describing a personal relationship, “enemy” seems to be a less severe term. As compared to the larger conflict and enemy in the Vietnam War, Jensen and Strunk’s conflict seems miniscule, and using “enemy” to define their relationship seems too harsh. Similarly, “friends” is a term whose definition shifts contextually. In traditional society, “friends” has a positive connotation. However, in times of war this connotation shifts to something more negative. Based on the pact that they signed, Jensen and Strunk’s friendship now serves as a reminder of the imminence of death. So the definitional shift of these two terms based on a war context connotationally brings the terms much closer together. Jensen and Strunk’s friendship is more negative, and their rivalry less severe than originally perceived, making the chapters Enemies and Friends somewhat less paradoxical.

The perception of irony in these two chapters also shifts contextually. In Enemies, Jensen and Strunk have a physical fight despite them being on the same side of the Vietnam War. At a macro level, this internal fight may seem ironic, but when viewed at a more local, relational level, their fight seems understandable. At the end of Friends, Jensen is relieved to hear about Strunk’s death despite their previously established friendship. Again at the macro level, this seems ironic because we assume that one is supposed to grieve for a friend, not feel relief at their death. But in terms of Jensen and Strunk’s relationship, the relief that Jensen feels is understandable because he did not want to face the guilt of breaking the pact if Strunk had lived.

I think that O’Brien (the author) did these things on purpose in order to further emphasize the different world of war. By taking what we believe to be true in traditional society and distorting it, he is able to convey the completely different way of life during war, a way of life that would otherwise be much harder to understand. I also believe that the placement of these two chapters was very purposeful. Placed after the long, eloquent and anecdotal chapter On The Rainy River, these two concise and blunt chapters are a sudden shock, reminding us of the brutality of war.