In the chapter “How to Tell a True War Story” a story is told by Mitchell Sanders and how six guys had a mission they were sent on. The mission was supposed to be them sitting a week out in a dug out area so they can listen for enemy movements. When they get up there it had a spooky feeling to it because of the mist just hanging on the mountain top to the point where you couldn’t see past five feet. The guys stayed up there because they had to and it was their mission. They heard things up there but it was never clear whether it was their minds doing it to them or the entire country of Vietnam actually talking to them. But the thing was that all six of them heard the same noises up there and it was driving them crazy because it never stopped
Within the chapter “How to Tell a True War Story,” O’Brien writes about a story that Mitchell Sanders recounts to be true. The surrealist part is when Sanders talks about how they heard noises within the forests of Nam. Sanders says, “...but after a while they start hearing -you won’t believe this- they hear chamber music… Then after a while they hear gook opera and a glee club…” (Pg. 71). When he says this he is really adding details to pad the story up. Like when Sanders say, “The whole country. Vietnam. The place talks. It talks. Understand? Nam - it truly talks.” (Pg. 71). He means to say that he added those things that they heard because there were sounds they heard that couldn’t be explained. Later on he says that those things they heard
Throughout Tim O'Brien's, “How to Tell a True War Story”, the concept of truth and how one tells a “true” war story is discussed. Several factors contribute to the “truth” of the stories the soldiers told; the madness of the war, the civilians back home who didn't experience war or understand that it was hell, and the indescribable ways the soldiers felt. O'Brien explains that people willingly accept the facts of what happened during a war but, what they don’t consider is the deception of these facts that change through people’s stories. All of these factors combined caused the soldiers to react to certain situations and tell stories differently. O’Brien’s stories characterize that “truth” isn’t always a straightforward concept; and that it can be revealed in many ways. It can be the narrator’s intention, to provide the truth but the person listening might find a different truth to the story.
Have you ever been hesitant to share a true story because you suspected that it would appear as a fabricated anecdote to your audience? Well, most of the time we add bunch of things or change a true story to make it sound genuine to our audience. We live in a judgmental and complex world where lying has become a part of our daily lives. Because of this habit, it is hard to differentiate the truth from a fabricated lie. Since I was a child, my parents always talked about battle of Adwa and many events that took place centuries ago. It is always amusing to listen to those stories because it is about heroic act that most of the kings of Ethiopia accomplished. Although I heard different versions of these stories, I always tend to believe my parents’ version. The reason is not simply the credibility of my parents’, but the way it was presented. According to the short story, “How to Tell a True War Story” by Tim O’ Brien, a true war story is hard to accept as true because some of the most agonizing parts are true, while some of the natural parts are not. Tim O’Brien’s narrative shows that a storyteller has the power to shape listeners’ views. We can change our perception because of the story teller, and neglect the fact that we are avoiding the actuality. Therefore by listening to different versions of a story, it will actually help the reader find greater truth of the story.
In the chapter “How to tell a true war story” the author Tim O’Brien explains why war stories are complicated to tell and why they are so important to understand what the men actually went through. In order to make his point O’Brien uses the example of how a fellow soldier died and what occurred when the soldiers best friend and fellow soldier wrote to the dead man’s sister. O’Brien explains how each of the men experienced the death of the friend and how each point of view creates a blurred line between what happened and what felt like it happened. The story wraps up by describing the pain the soldier’s friend goes through and how he brutally takes it out on a young buffalo.
After the Vietnam War, O’Brien wrote The Things They Carried. He does so to connect his audience to the events that happened during the war. Also, he wants people, who did not experience the effects of the war, understand how the war affects soldiers, their humanity, and what they left behind. In “How to Tell a True War Story” O’Brien’s message is to point out the events of the war, and that war stories are not always true because people have different views of how the war affected them. The whole book consisted of a plethora of metaphors, but without these other rhetorical devices O’Brien would not have been as effective in getting his point across thousands of people who read his book. Therefore, O’Brien used polysyndeton to further explain what war is, antithesis to explain why war stories are true and untrue, and repetition to ensure that his audience understand what he is trying to say.
Many people can’t handle the truth, they fear it. I agree with Plato that the truth is something that is always objective. Tim O’Brien would think that one person’s truth from their experiences isn’t always another person’s truth, it is subjective. Plato and O’Brien have differing opinions about truth and how to deal with fear.
Why is it so hard to tell a true war story? There is never really a true war story, people put their own facts and what others want to hear. A true war story is not about the killing and war itself, it is about what you gain and what you lose during war.
War can be defined as “an active struggle between competing entities. It’s truly hard to tell who is right or wrong during a war. Both sides are fighting for what they believe in and what is true to their heart. In the end there is always two things promised – destruction and death. These two objects can explain the result in every facet of war from the physical to emotional.
I gradually slowed from a run to a walk before coming to a complete stop. I started to listen to my heart instead of my mind as it was corrupted by a fear so profound that it made my blood run cold every time the thought arrived in my head. I never should have left my platoon. It was a mistake. They had always been there for me even when I didn’t think I needed them, but now when they needed me I let them all down. I knew I was weak and that’s why I had run away but it wasn’t my fault that I was here. It wasn’t my decision but the government and its conscription policy. What did the government know about fighting in a war? Why don’t they allow any of their children fight instead of someone else’s? I turned around and started heading back deeper into the jungle that I had come from.
The short story that will be discussed, evaluated, and analyzed in this paper is a very emotionally and morally challenging short story to read. Michael Meyer, author of the college text The Compact Bedford Introduction to Literature, states that the author of How to Tell a True War Story, Tim O’Brien, “was drafted into the Vietnam War and received a Purple Heart” (472). His experiences from the Vietnam War have stayed with him, and he writes about them in this short story. The purpose of this literary analysis is to critically analyze this short story by explaining O’Brien’s writing techniques, by discussing his intended message and how it is displayed, by providing my own reaction,
Tim O’Brien’s classic war chronicle, The Things They Carried, elucidates the theatrical and vivid experiences of his days in Vietnam. In How to Tell a True War Story, O’Brien specifically writes the chapter to explain the reasoning and motifs behind his stories however, decides to alter the truth to do so. Why does O’Brien lie in his writing? This answer to this question is explained throughout the chapter by using coherence to unify the chapter, by including pathos to create pathos to connect with the reader, and by utilizing paradox to question the validity of his writing.
turning my head again I saw Simon dive to my aid. He did not utter a
August 6th, 1945. It was just an ordinary day. I woke up early this morning to help a friend move some things. Everything was well until I saw the light. I plunged myself between two large rocks, no questions asked. When I was able to get a glackr of what has happened I saw nothing but destroyed homes and dust. I’ve never seen so much blood, it was unbearable. A lady and her injured boy came my way and I couldn't help but help them and take them to a shelter to get help. As I looked over the city, a thick black smoke filled the air. Then the thought hit me, what about my family? Immediately after I ran to search for my family. On the way to search for them I began to feel guilty. How could all these people be hurt, injured or even dead,
My hands were covered in blood.. It was only a matter of time till they caught me.. I could hear the roaring of the wind. The heavy breathing coming from my own chest.. My stomach ached in pain. I could feel the tears beginning to escape from my eyes...
According to the author Tim O’Brien, people tend to readily accept the ‘facts’ presented of what happened during a war. People do not consider the existence of fallacies regarding the actual stories of what happens in wars, few consider that the ‘facts’ of an incident often change through people’s words. The film ‘Saving the Private Ryan’ by Steven Spielberg features both facts and seemingness part of the war story. Since it is so difficult to fully describe a war using human language, Spielberg ended up revising his stories to make sense out of it. Spielberg included parts that did not occur or exclude parts that did occur in order to make their stories seem more credible. According