Tim O'Brien makes a habit of interrupting the flow of the many short stories thus far to remind us that every story is false in reality, but true in emotion. These constant interjections may seem annoying and even infuriating at times, but they are that way by design not to spite the reader, but to instill a sense of uncertainty about the truth behind anything and everything Tim writes. In "How to Tell a True War Story", the very first line is simply "This is true." Despite the fact that the very title page of the novel states that everything is a work of fiction, this single line is enough to make most readers stop and question the validity of both this line and of the book's claim as a work of fiction. If it's true, then Tim has been lying since before a single short story could be read, and if it's false then O'Brien the narrator is lying and can't be trusted. Either way, someone one of the two perspectives seems like it must be false. Except that for Tim O'Brien, they are both true.
Tim as a writer acknowledges that all of the stories in "The Things They Carried" are works of fiction, but as a narrator he insists that the story is true on an emotional level instead of a physical one. Tim the narrator describes each story with a level of detail to make the reader sympathize and feel the emotional pain that the characters would have felt, but all the while tells us that only the feelings inspired are real. In a way, Tim is telling us that the only real thing from any of his stories are the feelings we ourselves create in response to them. And that makes alone makes is supposed to make the reader even more uncertain. The realization that nothing is real, and yet our act of reading it makes it real for us forms a paradox. If his writing and the stories are all false and Tim the narrator is lying, how can we know that the way he's describing the war is accurate at all? If it's inaccurate, then by correlation are our emotional responses just as untrustworthy? Or are there true aspects to the stories that he's only pretending are false? By making the validity everything uncertain, Tim O'Brien plays with the readers emotions in order to inspire a sense of pointlessness. If nothing he says can be trusted, than what's the point in taking him at his word at all? Even as he confesses that everything is fabricated in the story "Good Form", his previous reminders that everything he's said is false makes the reader question even his confession of telling falsehood. By making everything questionable and nothing certain, Tim O'Brien attempts to induce the uncertainty and confusion of war in the mind of the reader. Throughout the short stories but particularly in "How to Tell a True War Story", Tim the narrator explains that there is no moral or real understanding behind a true war story because there is no moral to be understood in most wars. In order to truly experience the emotions that Tim wants us as readers to feel, we have to allow ourselves to be uncertain, to question what's true and what's false, but in the end understand that it's a false story with a true emotional meaning behind it.
My interpretation was that O'Brien was creating these fake stories so that we could understand the feelings associated with the war as regular people who had not been in the war, but I never considered the fact that he was trying to mess with us to suggest the pointlessness of taking his word seriously. This definitely makes me think differently of the book and maybe even fiction in general.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting idea. I did not make the connection O'Brien was trying to make when he said that there is no moral or meaning behind a true war story, just like there is none in most wars. Like Ethan said, this really makes me think differently of the entire book and I think it gives me a new sense of appreciation for what may have originally just seemed like the author toying with us as readers. I think if we, as readers, allow ourselves to be manipulated by the author, we are able to experience the truth in the emotions he's trying to convey much more easily.
ReplyDeleteWhat you're suggesting about Tim's representation of 'truth' mirroring his perception of the war got me thinking about the way another veteran might read these stories. Tim's experiences were entirely unique to Tim. However, in the war, his experiences would have found similarity with those of his fellow soldiers and he would also have been reacting to their reactions to the situations in which they found themselves, and they would have been reacting to his. This is the kind of situation that Tim O'Brien presents us with in 'The Things They Carried;' one where we cannot predict what action may take place and have only his emotional reaction on which to base our own. Moreover, had we been there with Tim, we would probably still only be able to grasp a small percentage of his own emotional upheaval, because we would have been dealing with our own. So ultimately, Tim can't be fighting to be understood because he must know that no one could possibly understand the depth of his experience of Vietnam. What he can do is share fragments and images with us so that we can briefly share in his confusion.
ReplyDeleteI understand, and mostly agree with what you've said here about O'Brien making us feel confused as readers in order to further comprehend the "truth" behind war and being a soldier. If his goal was to confuse and frustrate us, it certainly worked. My only issue is whether this tactic kept us from fully appreciating everything O'Brien had to say. Yes, not all the details are important, but some don't need to be ignored - when the reader is constantly confused/upset, these key, "true" details can be missed. But maybe this further supports your argument. Maybe in feeling like we've missed the point is the feeling O'Brien was trying to conjure up within us.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you've mentioned about O'Brien revealing the truth about his (somewhat) made up stories and I think although it might make him a less likeable author (or narrator in this case), one of his ultimate goals was to make the reader understand this idea of a "true" story (like you said) and by doing so, he makes the reader reflect on how the story impacted them. For me at least, discovering that the stories were actually mostly fake made me realize that in my mind, if the story was written well enough, I would believe it despite the truth behind it. I think this is an interesting discovery and maybe what O'Brien was going for after all.
ReplyDelete