Something that has gone through my head throughout our
readings of The Things They Carried is
does it really matter whether or not the stories we are reading are true or
not? One quote that really resonated with me was, “You don’t know Nam”(p. 93).
I can’t speak for everyone but I at least don’t know what the Vietnam War, or
any war for that matter, is like. Sure we can read about it in history books
but often times the stories are sugar coated to protect some innocence that we
as nonmilitary participants possess. If someone did not tell you that this book
was fiction you could go about reading it and believe it because anything could
happen in war and who are we to say it did not happen? The best part about
O’Brien having the freedom of writing fiction is that he can write whatever he
deems necessary to both entertain the reader and immerse them in the life of a
soldier. Many of these stories could be true and any “lies” he might be making
in fact have a purpose. “He wanted to heat up the truth, to make it burn so hot
that you would feel exactly what he felt”(p. 85). Most participants in the
Vietnam War are not looking to relive it but these stories attempt to place the
inexperienced reader into a world that could only exist in their wildest dreams
or in this case fiction. Even as we discussed in class the killing of the water
buffalo attempted to relate the pain of losing a friend to the reader. All in
all would you as a reader feel any different if this book was labeled
non-fiction as opposed to fiction? Or would it change your enjoyment of the
book?
I don't think it really matters whether or not it's true. O'Brien is trying to understand, and help us to understand this enigma that is the Vietnam War. And he does whatever it takes -- telling the truth, making up things, embellishing. He's just trying to dig at the heart of what the war was.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, I feel something people get wrapped in the truth and forget the importance of the story being told. sometimes it is just a story and that is perfectly fine.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. Even if certain experiences didn't happen to O'Brien himself, they could very well have happened to someone else, during a different time, and fighting a different war. Rather then the apparent importance of a work being nonfiction or fiction, I think the question of whether a work is believable or not,is more critical to the reader's understanding of the writer's words. It is a lack of believability that leaves readers unsettled.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a really good point. I feel that I would have the same understanding of the book and the stories if they were non-fiction instead of fiction because I can't directly relate a lot of the experiences from war to my own life. What makes the book intriguing is that even though most readers don't have the experience of war, the characters are still very relatable because of the style that Tim O'Brien uses. To me, the feeling of the book is more important than whether or not it is completely factual.
ReplyDelete