Okay, so I'm really enjoying The Things They Carried. I think that it is super interesting even though it's sad. But the truth is not always happy and easy to handle. Which brings me to the point of this blog, what I think the theme is. I believe that the theme so far is definitely about truth. And ultimately, is this book even reliable and true?
Umm...So I think that this book is true. Ha. What a quick response right? Well, here's my reasoning. I think that O'Brien might just have to label the book fiction as a means of almost, protection. Because if he were to say that his book were truth people might take it as the only truth and not give anything else a chance. Say, a different Vietnam book with different stories. Both could be true. So, by claiming that his book is a work of fiction it is probably easier for people to accept the stories and believe them because it doesn't claim to be the only truth.
O'Brien makes a fantastic point when he says, "In many cases a true war story cannot be believed. If you believe it, be skeptical. It's a question of credibility, Often the crazy stuff is true and the normal stuff isn't, because the normal stuff is necessary to make you believe the truly incredible craziness." This quote pretty much sums up what I have been trying to describe. People kind of refuse to regard something as truth because it is too terrible and they don't WANT to believe it. That is what really separates the truth from the fiction. When people can't seem to believe the "crazy stuff" in war stories that is how you know that they are true.This train of thought also goes along with the quote, "In any war story, but especially a true one, it's difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I totally agree with you about how the book is really good yet really disturbing. It's interesting to learn the author's perspective even if "the truth hurts."
ReplyDeleteI liked all of you psycho-analyzing about how the fact that O'Brien's stories are called fictional makes them more believable. I hadn't really though about it that way. It does make sense that people would be more open to feeling the full emotional impact O'Brien wants you to feel if they approach these stories as something besides a documentary or something. We usually take factual things with more of a dry, clinical frame of mind, so changing that could make a big impact.
I also think it's true that some people might shut themselves off from what O'Brien's trying to say because they don't want to face it. Calling it fiction makes it easier for them I guess.
Good job! Haha sorry this took so much space!
So basically, I think we're taking a class more on truth and how to discover/analyze what is and what isn't "truth."
ReplyDeleteAnyways...I never really thought about allowing people to acdept his book by calling it a work of fiction. It makes a lot of sense when you explain it like that.
people not wanting to believethings makes having a "truth" so much harder. tehy just kind of disregard everything else if it doesn't fit in with what they think is right. "That is what really separates the truth from the fiction." AWESOME!!! If you can't believe something, how can it possibly be true?
Fantastical!
Ree-Ree,
ReplyDeleteHaha. Anyways, I really enjoyed your posting. I especially liked what you said about the novel being a work of fiction for "protection." People don't always want to hear the truth, especially when it's super disturbing. However, that doesn't mean that people shouldn't try to tell the truth...
I also liked what you said about the book being fiction so it would not be perceived as the only truth of what happened. It's like what we were talking about in class: what is your reality may not exactly be someone else's, especially in a war zone where bombs are going off and people are being blown up into a tree (gross).
Well, you have some amazing insights! Go you!
Love, Kathy.