They carried all they could bear, and then some..

It was striking and a little off-putting to me the way O'Brien repeated Lavender's death throughout the opening of the novel. The way in which he described "when Ted Lavender was shot" parallels his explanations of few of the many things the soldiers carried, including intangibles, ghosts, and "responsibilit[y] for the lives of [their] men."

As explained by O'Brien, the things the soldiers carried "were largely determined by necessity." Lieutenant Cross carries with him Lavender's death, for up to twenty years after the war, because he felt as though it was his fault. Along with Lavender's ghost, he carries guilt, memory, and ultimately the responsibility for not protecting Lavender's life. Not only does Cross feel this responsibility because he is the lieutenant, but also because Lavender's death was the result of Cross's preoccupation with Martha, the love of his life from Mount Sebastian. Cross repeats again and again how he wishes Martha loved him, how he wishes he has been "brave" by taking her virginity that night, and how he wishes to be on the beach with her. The repetitive style, both from O'Brien's as the narrator and from Cross as a character in The Things They Carried illustrates the inevitability and inability to escape some of the things the soldiers carry. They are able to discard weapons or food they no longer need. They can leave behind the bodies and possessions of fallen soldiers. Essentially, they can dispose of anything tangible that is no longer needed, but they cannot avoid, discard, or expunge the "intangibles" they carry with them.

O'Brien writes in such a way that it makes us ponder what our own intangibles are. What do we take with us? What do we hold close and what do we try to let fade from our memory? Do any of our tangibles represent intangibles?

The Morphing of fact and Fiction in The Things They Carried

            After the war in Vietnam, thousands of courageous and valiant American soldiers returned home to the United States. Those who were not stricken with physical disabilities often suffered from mental ones such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Instead of being treated as heroes like the veterans of World War II, Vietnam veterans were often met with indifference and even scorn, as the US failed to achieve their goal in the war. Some of Tim O’Brien’s stories in The Things They Carried address these issues directly, such as “Speaking of Courage.” Throughout the novel, O’Brien morphs reality with fantasy, leaving the reader with the same feelings that US soldiers experienced before and after the war in Vietnam.

            In The Things They Carried, readers are instructed how to tell a true war story. However, despite the word “true” being in the title of the chapter, O’Brien states that it is difficult to tell what really happened in these stories, and that the surreal nature of a war story “represents the hard and exact truth as it seemed” (68). This paradox defines The Things They Carried and makes it such a tantalizing set of stories. As a reader I honestly do not know whether or not Tim O’Brien ever killed a man in the war. I do not know if Rat Kiley really killed the baby water buffalo, despite having the whole process explained to me in vivid detail. Tim O’Brien manipulates the reader in this way, just like the mysterious and dangerous nature of the Vietnam War manipulated everyone involved with it.

Carry On(s)

Of the many techniques O'Brien uses during "The Things They Carried", exaggeration and pathos are two of the most used. O'Brien uses his own experiences as the foundation of the story, and then subsequently builds upon them through fabrication and elaboration. In a later chapter during the book, he discusses, or rather admits to, this technique that he makes wild use of. While it makes for great story telling, once I read that not everything in the book is 100% true, I found myself questioning not only everything that I read up-to that point, but also everything I read therein after. None the less, still very much enjoyed the novella, however it was quite a point of discontent knowing that the story I was so enthralled in may or may not actually have been true. At the outset I was led to believe that the story I was reading was a work of non-fiction; now, I’m not sure what to classify this story as.

On another front, I would like to comment upon that fact, as if it wasn’t abundant enough already, that there is a significant amount of emotional distancing that goes on in this book. Whether it is intentional or not, it is certainly safe to say that one of the many things that the veterans carried with them was the burden of death, the emotional stresses of losing a loved companion, and the trouble memories of the events that took place during the war. It is not hard to deduce that one of the many themes of the book, if not the major theme, was that one of the heaviest things they carried were their own emotions. In line with the idea presented early during the first chapter that "the things they carried were determined largely by necessity", it is compellingly intriguing to consider that one of the most burdensome items they carried were the ones they needed the most, and at the same time there was a lot of effort on all the men’s parts to distance themselves as much as possible from it. 

The Manipulation Continues

When I began reading "The Things They Carried," all I was looking for were truths and lies; evidence of things we have been “told” to look for—shocker. Before “The Things They Carried” even begins, the prologue claims: “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.” Does this mean O’Brien wants us to believe everything in this book? Because the back of the book claims this is fiction.

Who am I to believe?

As far as my knowledge of the Vietnam War goes, the book seems accurate, but we must keep in mind that, no matter how real O’Brien makes it feel, it is still a work of fiction.

When the chapter “How to Tell a War Story” begins, the first sentence is “This is true.” Assuming this entire chapter tells the truth, does this mean we should read the entire book through this lens? Assuming the stories he tells are only true—truth in this case being what seemed to be true at the time—if they do not make us feel uplifted at the end and are not moral. O’Brien even says that if we believe a war story we should be skeptical; what seems normal may not be true and what seems insane might actually be true.

I do not know about you, but I am already confused.  Trying to understand what is true and what seemed to be true and what is entirely made up is driving me insane, but it does make reading a lot more interesting.

They carried their own lives.

 Though a small part of the repetitive first chapter, the line “they carried their own lives” (15) struck me. In an endless list of things they carry, it seems these men burden the weight of the world. It seems silly to say that these men carry their own lives since they are all living, an obvious remark, but it seems to mean more than this. Carrying your own life implies a burden, as if the lives of these men were just another object on their backs they were trying to protect. Without much real living in Vietnam, it is evident that their lives did become a mere object, something to worry over and wonder about. What would it feel like to just stop carrying it? Will I be able to bear the burden through the war and what will it mean to me when this is all over?

            The emotional distance from death becomes clear in the comments about Ted Lavender’s demise. Kiowa explained the shooting like just another falling object: “the poor guy just dropped like so much concrete. Boom-down…like cement” (6). Ted Lavender had stopped carrying this life and it fell like the weight of the world from him. In the game of war your life becomes an object you all hold, hoping the weight of your own life, the heaviest object of all, doesn’t drag you to the ground.

Jaded Eyes

One moment that really struck me in Tim O'Brien’s “The Things They Carried” was when Rat Kiley grotesquely shot the baby water buffalo.  He began by petting the water buffalo and offering it food, and then proceeded to shoot it repeatedly.  “It wasn’t to kill; it was to hurt (79).”  Kiley was putting all of his anger and his burden on this poor, innocent animal.  He was trying to metaphorically let go of all the things he was carrying. 

In this moment, I saw the water buffalo as a physical representation of the men’s innocence and the constant stream of bullets as the war.  The men were essentially the same as that water buffalo, waiting to be blown to bits.  They felt wide-eyed and helpless in the face of the war and they could only wait for their fate to reach them.  Kiley repeatedly shot the water buffalo and it went down slowly but stayed alive until the bitter end “just in the eyes (79)”.  The men lost their innocence in a similar manner.  The devastating events of the war slowly chipped away at them, making them more desensitized and jaded as time went by.  They gradually lost the ability to differentiate between good and evil, right and wrong.  All they had were the objects they carried with them and the images they saw, just like the baby water buffalo.  They couldn’t go back; the rest of their lives, if they were lucky enough to survive, would be through their jaded eyes of war. 

Beyond Physical Pain

    “How to Tell a True War Story” is a difficult chapter to read.  Tim O’Brien writes this chapter to show the reader that the truth of war stories will never be clear to someone who did not live the story.  Simply hearing these war stories cannot make someone sufficiently understand what happened.  The survivors are the only ones who can truly understand what happened.  And even then, as O’Brien writes, “In any war story, but especially a true one, it’s difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen,” (67). 
     This chapter highlights the fact that war stories are not necessarily always about intense combat and death, but rather they can be about instances that defined emotions and pain in different ways.  The story about the baby water buffalo seems to have little to do with the actual Vietnam war; however, it vividly displays the pain that Rat Kiley experienced when he lost his best friend.  This is an extremely emotional passage to read because it expresses Rat's hurt in such a way that can only be imagined by the reader.  These war stories are about times when side effects of the war hurt people so deeply that the truth of how much hurt the war caused them is impossible to explain to someone.  Readers can only get a small sense for the pain these soldiers went through.  Words cannot adequately convey pain, suffering, and loss.  O'Brien explains, "He wanted me to feel the truth, to believe by the raw force of feeling," (70).  Experience is the only way to understand, and O'Brien shows us that even the stories that have little to do with physical combat are ways of showing how terrible war truly is.

Modular Memories

I think one of the most interesting aspects of this book is how Tim O'Brien begins it. He begins by stating the items that each person had to carry, and slowly transitions into describing the emotional baggage each brought as well as the memories they have. I think this was a deliberate distinction by O'Brien, because he wants to show that while each person has their own memories and baggage, they are essentially the same stock feelings that everyone else has. The best way to describe it is to compare it to the weapons they carry. Each weapon is going to be different depending on what each person has to do in the group, but in the grand scheme of things, the fact that one person has an assault rifle and someone else has a machine gun is almost trivial, because both are tools to kill.

Some might say that this distinction may be demeaning to the memories of the soldiers in his platoon, but I personally feel that it gives a universal feel to his message. In fact the quote from John Ransom between the table of contents and the title page explain what Tim is trying to do successfully. By stating that the experiences he writes about are interchangeable, he states that his and his platoon's memories represented the gamut of what the average soldier experienced in Vietnam, while humbly also stating that his memories are in no way special, because they represented the full spectrum of what one experienced. 

Another reason his concept of personal yet not unique memories was so important was because it means that this book was made as a guide to the Vietnam war for those who were too young to experience it. The guide itself may or may not be significant to many, but the fact that it provides the full range of emotions of people forced to fight for something they don't want to is significant.

Lie to Me

Tim O’ Brien is a Vietnam War veteran and in the novel The Things They Carried he writes stories about his experience. Though not all the stories in the novel are true, he makes a strong argument that the fiction in his novel is as good as his experience.  The previous theme of the writer manipulating his readers appears once again in this novel, however O’Brien does it very subtly. He manipulates the war itself, specifically in “On the Rainy River”. The story is not based on O’ Brien’s reality, it is a mere imagination that Brien had, in order to overcome his distress of avoiding shame from not wanting to go to war.

            I loved the “On the Rainy River” story when I first read.  I was caught off guard by the kindness of Elroy; however after researching, I learned that this story was fiction. Tim O’Brien indeed did not want to go to war; instead of crossing the bridge to Canada, he played golf. He did not write about his experience playing golf because it was just not as interesting as the “On the Rainy River” story, and he made the argument that no one would read it if he wrote about playing golf. He is writing for his readers.  When I reread the story, I found the Elory character to be very strange and dream like. There is evidence that even within the context of the world of the novel, O’ Brien did not cross the Canadian border; it is strange that no one in his family knew that he was missing for three days and also there is no evidence of the Elroy’s existence other than O’Brien’s perspective.  O’ Brien could have imagined this story during that time to help him cope with his desire to not go to war. I feel like if I read the story again I would interpret a new reality to this story. This novel is very complex. It is more than a war story, because it plays with the idea of truth versus fiction “A thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth” (83). O’Brien simply does this to entertain his readers. He tells a war story in an elaborate manner not only to share his story but rather more to attract readers.