Imma Be....wrapping things up.

This novel was good. I've never been a big fan of reading, but this was different. I was able to learn from the book, but also enjoy it. O'Brien used different writing styles throughout the novel, yet kept the important themes consistent. The characters like Tim, Rat, Mary Anne, and others were easy to relate to but still interesting.
My favorite aspect of the novel was that O'Brien explains his novel's point to the reader by telling what makes a good war story. Page 65 explains that a true war story "does not instruct nor encourage virtue." He later says that a war story cannot always be believed to be factual, but can be taken as truthful in what they seem and teach. O'Brien does not try to sell his extreme stories as totally truthful; he, instead, explains that the message behind the story is the truth. The stories explain the war that he is writing about.
I really enjoyed this novel and and glad that I had to read it. I can definitely see myself reading more Tim O'Brien novels in the future.

All about Mary Anne.

The story about Mary Anne is an odd one. For a woman to come over to Vietnam not as a soldier but just as a girlfriend was an insane idea in that time. It was even crazier for her to run off with a group of soldiers and actually fight. Now if this is a true story, I'm not quite positive about, but I do know what O'Brien was trying to tell the reader through this story.
Mary Anne came over as an innocent girl, and she left as a hard-core soldier. The war changed people, and Mary Anne was a perfect example of that. Everyone that went into the war came out a different person, and the characterization that occurs to Mary Anne illustrates that change to the reader. O'Brien tells us that after the war, "she never returned. Not entirely, not all of her," (page 100). Through this story, true or not, O'Brien paints a picture of the true negative changes that the War brought on in people.

Tone.

The tone of this novel is tough. I've thought of plenty of words, but none of them really encompass the entire novel. Despite this, I've found a word that come pretty close, and that word is regretful. The novel is mostly about people looking back at events in their past and trying to alter what happened so that they feel better about their actions. They try to save themselves by telling the story with some half truths in it.
O'Brien doesn't come out and truly set the tone until the very last sentence. "I realize it is as Tim trying to save Timmy's life with a story," (page 233). O'Brien tells us that he is trying to save his old self through the story that he is telling. Each chapter tells a different story with its unique tone, but the majority show an attempt to correct someones past.
This tone that O'Brien creates adds a timelessness to the novel. At some point in a person's life, they will want to redo something from their past. Even if it isn't as extreme as the novel's examples, the feeling of regret is one that everyone can relate to, no matter their time period.

"Speaking of Courage."

O'Brien wrote this chapter about a man named Norman Bowker. He wrote a letter to O'Brien about one of his books, complaining that it did not tell the real story. That letter inspired the writing of that chapter. Three years after it was written, Bowker killed himself.
The chapter is about Bowker's thoughts and imaginary conversations that had to do with his cowardly behavior that resulted in the death of a fellow soldier. In the next chapter, on page 154, O'Brien tells us that "he did not freeze up or lose the Silver Star for valor. That part of the story is my own." I don't quite get why O'Brien would add that part to the story. If Bowker was heroic that night, why would O'Brien write otherwise?
I'm going to hypothesize as to why he did so.
When O'Brien said that he didn't freeze up, he also mentioned that he has "avoided thinking about his death and his complicity in it." Bowker talked a lot about how Kiowa's death was his fault, even though it was obvious that it wasn't his fault. O'Brien is going through the same thing. Though O'Brien had no effect on Bowker's inevitable death, he feels like he did. That chapter allowed O'Brien to respect and honor Bowker while expressing his own feelings.

A fellow named Rat Kiley.

He liked to tell stories and rambled with the best of them. O'Brien uses him as the narrator of many of his stories. He has an odd style of telling stories, but that's not what I want to talk about. After O'Brien was shot, he hears a story about how Rat Kiley began to hear things at night. After a while he couldn't take it anymore. On page 212, we are told that "the next morning he shot himself."
This story really hit me hard. Rat Kiley, throughout the majority of the novel, is a very lively, fun character. He came to Vietnam happy and joyful, but the war changed him. He ended up shooting himself in the foot as a miserable, pathetic man. As O'Brien tells us, "nobody blamed him" for what he did (page 212). The war changed him.
I'm not quite sure if this story is true or not, but I am sure that this story is true for someone; that is what O'Brien wanted to tell the reader. The war did bring someone to that tragic act, and he wants us to feel that remorse and sorrow for those who lost their lives (or the lives they knew) to the war.

Lies!!??!?!?!?!

On page 68, O'Brien tells us that his stories don't tell the exact truth, but rather "the hard and exact truth as it seemed." This confused me for a bit. How can he tell us a war story if most of it is just made up? But I think I answered my question. He isn't telling the stories for the sake of informing us on the happenings of the war. He is telling the stories for the sake of illustrating the effects of the war. It doesn't matter to him how Curt Lemon died; what matters is that the reader understands the effect that his death had on the soldiers around him. He describes the different reactions to his death and how people dealt with it differently. These were the facts that mattered.
He also did this stories to paint the reader a picture. He describes a grotesque image of a dead man not so that the reader knows which eyeball he lost, but so the reader understands the types of horrors experienced in the Vietnam War. I appreciate this type of fabrication. He isn't doing it to add to the excitement of the novel, but to add to the reader's understanding of the war.

My favorite paradox.

"I hated him for making me stop hating him," (page 190). This is my favorite quote in the novel. It's a paradox that O'Brien uses to describe his situation with Jorgenson. Tim wanted to hate him. He wanted so badly to despise the guy and get revenge for the pain that he caused him. Despite that, Jorgenson's apology and remorse caused O'Brien to, against his will, forgive him. Tim hated that. He hated that he couldn't hate Jorgenson any more. He hated that he had been forced to forgive the man that caused him pain, and, subsequently, he hated that he could no longer hate the war that had brought on that pain.
O'Brien brings a great deal of timelessness to the novel with this one sentence. Every reader has wanted to be mad at someone, but that person has forced them, through their actions, to forgive them. The reader can easily relate to the story that O'Brien is telling and the feeling that the situation elicits.

He "killed" him.

I love the way O'Brien tells some of his stories. He spends an entire chapter talking about the man he killed. "One eye was shut. The other was star-shaped hole," he tells us on page 124. He tells us about the mental torment that killing that man put him through. He even tells us about that man's life plans that he cut short by killing him. Then, all of the sudden, he tells us that he didn't kill that man. He just found this guy on the side of the road and that someone had killed him. Though this kind of bugged me for a while, I am beginning to appreciate his reasons for doing this. I actually see two reasons for doing that. One is to describe the mental anguish that the war caused soldiers. Even if a person didn't kill that guy, they were on the side that caused his death. If it wasn't for them, that person may not have died. Even though his death was not their fault, they would see it that way. The second reason is that O'Brien, though he writes from the first person point of view, may not be writing all of the novel form his experiences. I think that the "I" in the novel maybe the all soldiers that fought in the Vietnam War. Though O'Brien did not kill that man, someone did. That same someone probably thought the same things that O'Brien said he did. O'Brien is telling this story not only for himself, but also for all of the soldiers that don't have the chance to write it.

More of this first person stuff.

As I previously said, most of the novel is written from the first person point of view. It involves sentences like "I wasn't there when he got hurt, but Mitchell Sanders later told me the essential facts," (page 208). The first person point of view is a very effective choice when writing a war story. It creates a believability and a timelessness that the third person point of view struggles to create. The reader knows that the author experienced the events that he is writing about, so they are much easier to believe. The reader is also more likely to feel sympathy for the characters because they are more easily seen as real people, because they are talked about as having relationships with the author. This makes the novel and its stories come to life in the mind of the reader, because it is written from the first person point of view.
The timelessness comes from that fact that the story comes to life. The reader doesn't see the story as a factual account of something that happened years ago, but rather as a set of events that could easily happen in their lifetime. They can now relate to the novel on a deeper level. The novel, though about an event that happened in a specific time in history, can be applied to any era and any person's life. This comes from its being written from the first person point of view.

Point(s) of View.

Well I'm going to talk a bit more about the points of view that O'Brien uses. All of the novels that I've ever read have a single point of view in them, but this novel is different. The majority of the novel is told from first person point of view, but it actually starts in third person point of view. This is a very effective strategy for keeping the reader engaged. The first chapter or so sets up the stories in the novel. It explains the importance of the title as well as explains the setting and what it was like during the Vietnam War. Most sentences sound like the one that starts page five, "what they carried was partly a function of rank, partly of field specialty." Though O'Brien experienced this too, he does not use the first person word "I."
The rest of the novel after this is told mostly from the first person point of view. It involves O'Brien telling the stories as they happened to him. On page 74, he sets up a story by saying "this one did it for me. I've told it before- many times, many versions- but here's what actually happened." This is a prime example of the first person. He involves himself in the story and tells it as he saw it. It creates a much more personal account of the war.

I do love vernacular.

Usually vernacular is a regional thing, but the vernacular O'Brien uses is a type of language unique to the soldiers in the Vietnam War. The main difference in their language is the profanities. The use of these profanities helps bring the reader into the world that O'Brien is describing. The use of "we pay our f[rea]kin' dues" (page 88) instead of "we pay our dues" helps the reader understand what type of environment the soldiers were in. This use of profanities, for me at least, doesn't bother me in the novel. When reading a novel about the Vietnam War, or any war for that matter, this type of language is expected. It adds a great deal of truth to the novel, as well as help bring the reader into the story. This vernacular is yet another way that O'Brien is able to bring his story to life.

Song Tra Brong.

Well before I start talking about its relevance, I would just like to say aaaaahahahahahahahaha. I could say that name for days and it would not get any less funny. So anywho, this is a name of the river that a lot of the action in the novel takes place near. It plays a major role above that, though. It seems that the Song Tra Brong is used by O'Brien to explain the course and happenings of the war. It overflowed at the most inopportune times, causing much damage, and it took the lives of many, many people.
"Casualties were flown in by helicopter" to a medical facility near the Song Tra Brong (page 86). It was the place of taking lives on the battle fields, but also the place of saving lives at the medical facility. Every aspect of the war could be found at this river. Though it doesn't seem to be a major character in the novel, it can definitely be seen as one. It changes with the weather just like a character changes. I'm not quite sure if O'Brien wanted it to be a character, but I see it as one.

Imagine all the imagery.

When most people think imagery, they don't see themselves being completely grossed out. Despite this, O'Brien, on page 118, is able to use some intense imagery to make a certain scene come to life. When talking about the man he killed, he describes in great detail the state of the body. "His jaw was in his throat, his upper lip and teeth were gone, his one eye was shut, his other eye was a star-shaped hole." This type of detail continues on for an entire page. This grotesque scene was not uncommon in Vietnam during the war. O'Brien is able to bring the reader into his story by painting such a vivid picture of the image he is describing. The reader can experience the horror of seeing a mangled body and knowing that you were the cause of it. It was hard for most soldiers to cope with that feeling, and the reader can fully understand that, because they have been brought into the war and all of its horrors.
This type of imagery also brings a sense of timelessness to the novel, because the reader, even though they may not have been alive during the Vietnam War, they can experience it through the writing.

That's messed up.

Okay so one part of the novel way delightfully disturbing. On page 215, the platoon talks to a dead guy and do some pretty odd stuff to him. After handing him some orange slices, Mitchell Sanders says "a guy's health, that's the most important thing." I'm not sure how most people felt about that, but it gave me a feeling somewhere between nausea and surprise birthday party.
I suppose their actions are understandable. They were getting killing people while getting shot at themselves. They needed some sort of entertainment as well as a way to make light of the situation they were in. By making a joke out of a guy they had killed, they wouldn't be weighed down by guilt and sorrow later in life while thinking about all of the people they killed. O'Brien is hitting on a topic that I'm sure most people can understand. Everyone has laughed when they wanted to cry or made light of some terrible situation. The author is showing the reader that the soldiers still had these human needs. They could not deal with the horror they saw, so they did what all of us would have done. This adds a sense of timelessness to the novel, because everyone can relate to what they did. Even though it might not have been something that odd, everyone has done something like that.

Just a bit of motivation.

The motivation for most things is pretty clear. Jealousy, lust, greed, hunger, or whatever it is, the author usually makes it rather clear. The case is no different on page 184. After being shot and not helped in a timely manner by a new medic, O'Brien tells us that he wanted "to make Bobby Jorgenson feel exactly what I felt. I wanted to hurt him." The motivation to cause this pain is obviously revenge. But I think there is more behind this motivation. I don't think it's just revenge against Jorgenson, I think it's revenge against the war. I wasn't really Jorgenson that caused the pain, he was just an easy scape goat. And it wasn't just the guns shot that brought on the pain, that was just the tangible cause. The real pain was due to the war as a whole. Most of the pain was emotional, but O'Brien couldn't blame anyone for that. He was changed forever by this war, and he wanted someone else to suffer that same change. Deep down he knew that his motivations weren't warranted and that he could never make someone pay for the damages caused. This motivation was one that most people of the Vietnam War were driven by. By not directly stating it, O'Brien is able to illustrate the mental turmoil that the war caused in those fighting it.

Oh the anecdotes.

This novel is more or less a compilation of over sized anecdotes. My favorite, and the one I'm going to focus on is the one about the death of O'Brien's childhood friend. After seeing a dead man in Vietnam, O'Brien tells a friend that the man reminds him of someone. "There's this girl I used to know. I took her to the movies once. My first date," he said on page 216. The girl's name was Linda. O'Brien tells us about the date and how he finds out about her having a brain tumor. He tells us how she died and he went to her funeral. He tells us that though he was only 9, he truly loved this girl.
Though a pretty lengthy anecdote, it is one that puts the turmoil cause by the war into perspective. This anecdote shows us how even the death of someone you didn't know could bring back terrible memories. The memories of the war were very similar to this one. They were vivid and usually not positive. O'Brien uses this anecdote to show the true effects of the war.

Things are looking up.

Okay so I'm not going to go into too much detail about the setup of the book (that's for another post), but I do want to talk about the concept in general. The novel is set up with a bunch of little short stories, some of which connect. All of them are told from the memory of the author, but they aren't always told from his point of view. I think it's a pretty cool concept. One chapter might be informative. "What they carried varied by mission," page 8 tells us. This is in an informative chapter told from the third person. Another might be a chapter in which O'Brien is telling the story and is even a part of it. The varies pretty consistently, and I like that. It's a concept that I've never really seen before. I'm curious to see how he continues this throughout the entire novel. It seems like a good novel so far. It is informative but not boring. That's difficult to do.

Big, juicy simile

I love this. I absolutely love this. "Love what?!" you say. Oh, nothing. Just a freaking awesome SIMILE!!!!!
The chapter entitled "stockings" (pages 111 and 112) in pretty much one big simile party. When discussing Henry Dobbins, O'Brien tells us that "in many ways he was like America itself, big and strong, full of good intentions, a roll of fat jiggling at his belly, slow of foot but always plodding along, always there when you needed him, a believer in the virtues of simplicity and directness and hard labor." The rest pf the chapter continues talking about him, but I was quite intrigued by this sentence. O'Brien is able to describe his view on the country and the war by comparing them to his characters. He thinks that the country isn't the most efficient or successful in their wars, but they always go in for the right reasons. The Vietnam War was a very controversial one, so this was a very tactful way to express what he thought about the war. He shows the reader that all of Henry Dobbins actions will parallel with those of the U.S. by starting the chapter with that very clear simile.
I would also like to add that I am trying to see what O'Brien wants us to get from the creepy pantyhose story, but I just can't figure it out. Any help there would be awesome. Maybe it's just a weird story with no hidden message, but I'm not sure.

Mister Jimmy. What irony.

Lieutenant Jimmy Cross really, from what I've read thus far, is a truly odd character. He really loves this Martha, but the more we are told about them, the more we realize how pathetic he is. O'Brien uses this ironic situation to describe how desperate the soldiers in the Vietnam War were. The reader thinks that Martha and Jimmy are in love when she is first introduced. However, when more is said about her, the reality is revealed that he loves her and holds onto her pictures in an attempt to feel like he is fighting for something or someone. Jimmy really needs to carry this love of her to continue fighting in the war. Its is ironic how she obviously has no feelings for him, but he will not admit this. He needs not to admit this to help him survive.
Jimmy carries the regrets of when "he should've carried her up the stairs to her room and tied her to the bed and touched that left knee all night long," but didn't (page 4). He uses the illusion that she still loves him to give hope of something better after the war.

And so starts The Things They Carried

I am now starting my blogs about the Tim O'Brien novel, The Things They Carried. Going into this one, I was pretty optimistic about my liking it. My APUSH teacher had actually suggested that I read it this past year. Knowing that I don't like reading, she thought this would fit into my interests. I didn't read it then, but was excited when I found out that this was on the list of books to read this summer. I also knew that it couldn't possibly be any worse than the last novel I read. All of that considered, I was still a little shaky going, because I haven't had the best of luck when it comes to school-required books.
The first chapter mainly discussed the things they literally carried and why they carried them. "The things they carried were largely determined by necessity," (Page 2), but they also carried things that just made them feel more comfortable. This chapter seems just to be setting up the rest of the novel. It is rather amazing how heavy the stuff they carried really was.
There doesn't seem to be a plot here, but the book also seems like it doesn't really need one. We'll see whether it ends up having one or not.