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.
I totally agree. Unlike The Sun Also Rises, I was actually engaged in this book.
ReplyDeleteAnd btw, I think your pictures should say a fellow humping things and another fellow humping things...
I agree with Nick about the humping thing and about the TSAR thing.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the truth thing goes, I think that O'Brien was a little confused. There is one truth and one event that actually occurred. I understand that memories can blur and mix, and the truth becomes foggy, but there's still one truth. His entire concept of truth was just messed up.
I was really intrigued by O'Brien's little truth spiel. I agree with Grace; it's hard for me to accept the idea of truth meaning anything other than literal, factual truth. I kept wanting to know whether or not his stories were literally/factually true.
ReplyDeletei reread that section actually about 20 times. it has been a month since i have thought about this, but i think i can at least offer my opinion.
ReplyDeleteO'Brien went through many traumatic and truely horrifying ocurances. his mind can't cope with what is going on around him. and when he does finally have a grasp on it, he tries to find a way to get across his emotional trauma to people that werent there. it is impossible for someone to understand wat you have not experienced. I learned that it is very hard to decide if he did the killing of the man or not, or if his stories are tre or not. all i have been able to assume is that he did not kill the man, and some of the stories are changed a bit, but they are that way so we can understand the mental state he went through, and because he did not openly protest the war, he feels that all that did happen (the killing off the man on the trail) was his fault, even if it was indirectly.
this is some quality banter in the comments section!
ReplyDelete