The redundancy of the game “cat’s cradle” correlates
perfectly with the redundancy of telling a war story. Timmy, the writer, finds himself perpetually talking in circles about the same core concepts.
He reiterates time and time again about the embarrassment of not going to war.
In the chapter “The Man I Killed” he goes into excruciating detail regarding
the dead man, always returning to the “star-shaped hole [that] was red and
yellow” (120). In fact very rarely does Timmy seem to have a focused story in
which the beginning and end are entirely clear. Instead, the stories are
manipulated and adjusted as they are being told, and it is all up to Timmy’s
discretion. One would consider these stories pointless if they cannot be nailed
down concretely, and yet Timmy must keep writing these stories, just as the
child continues to play with the cat’s cradle.
War as we have
said, can never be directly addressed but rather it has to be talked around. In
talking around the war, no conclusion can ever be drawn because there is no
focal point to return to. This is the problem that Timmy finds himself ensnared
in. He recognizes the implicit irrelevance of his stories and yet, “it occurred
to [him] that the act of writing had led [him] through a swirl of memories that
might otherwise have ended in paralysis or worse” (152). Writing then becomes
cathartic for him and must be continued. He recognizes that he must keep
playing with the same stories in order to perfect them, and make them fill the
void in his writing, which is the war itself. It is comforting to work through
the events and alter them in order to make sense of them.
I like to think redundancy in this case is a good thing. It allows different generations a chance to relate with each other or even learn from each other. Newt's Father tried to relate with him/ at least try to pass something down to Newt that would never change no matter how much times change. "Cat's cradle" will always be the same game with maybe a few alterations if any. In relation to war stories, war will always put emotional and physical tolls on all that participate. This redundancy is a good thing because maybe one day people will think of the repercussions before starting any more wars. Bringing it back to your post though redundancy is very prevalent in the two texts that you are comparing and will make for a good essay if this is indeed your essay topic.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your concepts about the circular nature of The Things They Carried, but I'm not so sure about the lack of a focal point. O'Brien's novel is a interesting narrative partially because the narrator seems to lack any sense of a conventional storyline. You are absolutely right to say that he never really focuses in on what he wants to talk about. However, I don't think that The Things They Carried lacks a central focus; if anything, it seeks to emphasize its central points by their absence. I think you might be able to make a more cohesive point if you view the structure and function of The Things They Carried like a black hole; we can't see its location, but we can determine where it is by means of the absence of light around it. Similarly, the analytical struggle readers face in The Things They Carried is finding out what exactly Tim is unable to address head-on. If that is the argument that you are trying to address, I also agree that the use of redundancy might make for powerful evidence. Massive leaps in narrative tone, such as in “The Man I Killed” and when Jonah is discussing ice-nine (before he is able to confirm his suspicions), would also be useful evidence. It cites an area where the narrator switches focus, still unable to reveal his central point but unwilling to let the ineffable remain unspoken for.
ReplyDelete