It was a love story in the same way that a lot of Christians claim that the New Testament account of Jesus' crucifixion was a "love story". The Bible says that Jesus had to be crucified so the sins of mankind could be avenged, even though Jesus was completely innocent and a "man without sin". John 3:16 says: "For God so LOVED the world that he gave his only begotten son...". So in the same sense that Rat felt the compulsion to kill and torture an innocent baby buffalo to avenge his friend's death, God had to avenge the sins of mankind, but instead chose to give his son. That's just what I saw.
(Beil) Wow Jeffrey, I really like your answer, I had thought of it as sort of the same but not quite that deeply. I just saw the story as one of the love and compassion between the members of the platoon, showing how war may be full of hatred and fighting but can produce bonds stronger than anything else.
It was a love story because he tortured this water buffalo because he wanted to but because he needed to release his emotions. During war the boys feel like they shouldn't cry or really show any emotions because its not the "macho" thing to do. Hurting the animal was a way to express how much he is hurting that his best friend is gone and sense he hurt it so much is showed he really cared for him.
Its a love story because Rat and Curt were such close friends, Rat lost Curt and couldn't show how much it hurt him, he couldn't find any peace, and all this because he "loved" this guy, his best friend, and no one could understand why he hurt so much unless they were there in the war.
This book itself is a true war story, more so than one that just lays out events as they happened. The entire point of a true story is to make a point. The Things They Carried shows how these men changed, these memories racing around in their heads, the pain they felt and how there was no release except death and destruction, that was the only way they could deal with these feelings. Even if O'Brien does't tell the "truth" by actually writing what happened to him, this book is still true, these things happened, or seemed to happen. It was true to the men to endured the war, and the feelings behind all the words create the real story.
This is a link to the song "Lemon Tree." You will be surprised how well it fits in with the story. The second verse is about the vocalist's love spending wonderful times under the tree. Then the Third verse is about how the vocalist's love left him and took the sun with her. Is this just a happy accident? Or is this story made up around the song?
I'm going to make the wild assumption that he had a character already named "Curt Lemon" and then he heard the song and thought: "wouldn't it be funny if..."
I'm not sure what the reason behind the story could be, but I also see the relationship between the story and the song. The big one that really grabs my attention is the line that says "She'd left me for another, it's a common tale but true. A sadder man but wiser now I sing these words to you." I think it is really appropriate for how the author felt. We hear "common tale" about the effects of war and all the people who have died, but it is hard to really relate to the soldiers' feelings because none of us have ever experienced what they have. My best guess is that O'Brien found the song and wrote the story around it because it best described his feelings.
Thanks for posting the lyrics! I wondered how the song went. But anyways, I think that he probably did have a mate named Curt Lemon, who actually died, and who was acutally really good friends with Rat. And so the emotion and the letter were true, but the actual death may have been different. If the song and story really are seperate, thats a weird coincidence.
I think being able to incorporate the song was just a convenient opportunity. But I wouldn't be surprised if O'Brien used the line "One day she left without a word. She took away the sun" to come up with the description of sunlight taking up Lemon when he died.
i agree with lifting the policy that bands coffins of soldiers being photographed. i greee even more so with the fact the the soldier's family get to decide whether or not the coffin is to be photographed. it gives the family some sense of privacy if they say no to the photographers and it is a way to honnor the fallen soldiers if the family says yes. its a good thing either way. the pictures of the fallen soldiers will make american citizens see how bad a war really is and to make them understand what it is that the soldiers are giving up. of course there will be people who twist the pictures into something bad or somthing that doesn't pertain to the picture and sentament of the overall message.
here is a link to a picture of a fallen soldier's coffin
Wow I can't believe that the story in the chapter, On the Rainy River, never happened. He instead played golf and couldn't sleep. That is it. But On the Rainy River described how he felt on the inside.
Do you agree with O'Brien that, "A thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth" (80). Do you believe that the verifiability of a story is second to what occurs within the story? Does it make the Things they Carried irrelevant or lessen its meaning if they did not happen?
I think the verifiability is a huge deal to the actual story. Anyone can make up a story, but I also feel like that's how some people cope best-through writing. Maybe O'Brien felt like the best way to cope with how he felt about the war and his experiences was to tell it through story, even if it isn't all true. Normally, I would say if the story isn't true, then why tell it? But in cases like this, I think the feeling portrayed is more important than the verifability.
I agree with what O'Brien was saying. for example the point of a fable is to teach the reader a lesson/moral. the author's main concern is not that we know that Jack and Jill went up the hill but that we learn from their mistakes. the same concept is true for the war stories. Also these soldiers go through traumatic events they may see things differently so it may not things the same way we do. Does that make their story not true?
I agree that O'Brien needed to make up some of these stories to increase the meaning of some of the things that happened, or to get the moral across. It doesn't lessen the meaning of the story. However, I still don't like it. I think I'm reading a non-fiction story, and he suddenly tells you that none of the stuff ever happened. I know his motives behind making up the stories, but I still feel lied to.
He did publish it as fiction, but it seems so real that people get lost in the story. Also, he puts himself in the story so that makes it seem more like a memoir.
Personally, I think the truth is the truth period. If someone makes up a story and says that it is true when it never happened then it makes the source un-credible (real word?) and untrue. If he published this as a fiction novel then it should be fiction. Sure it can be influenced by some stories but I don't think he should play the "what's true what's not" game.
I don't think that it matters if its true or not he is trying to have people understand how it felt for them. In the heat of the moment they might see things differently than what really happened.
Forever the animal rights activist, the baby buffalo story bugs me. Whether it is true or false, justified or unjustified, a team effort or a single person animal abuse should not be encouraged. Animals today are treated as soldiers, the dog in the article was honored with a Dickin Medal(the highest award of bravery given in Britain to animals. The story would have been okay if they had put the animal out of its misery but instead they mutilated it and left it to die. How will this soldier act when he goes home? Will he be safe around children? I feel that animal cruelty should be treated with the same intensity that human abuse is.
Do you think embellishing the "truth" to emphasize a point matters if it reveals the intended deeper truth? for example: When Sanders made up the Opera and glee club to describe their time at the mountains
I think that Sanders was trying to make his audience feel the way he felt. By simply telling them the basic truth they couldn't truly feel what it was like. By embelleshing a few of the facts, it helped his audience understand better.
Although it is important that the audience understands the messafe, i don't think you should change the facts around in order for them to understand. If you want they audience to truly feel the way you felt you have to tell the story in the right way, without embellishing the facts.
I think for O'Brian the feeling that his reader gets is more important then the actual story. He wants them to get somewhat of the feeling that he has even if he has to exaggerate his stories.
Nothing seems to be black and white in the minds of soldiers. O'Brien emphasizes through his stories that the solidity of every little fact and detail is unrelevant to his point. The deeper truth revealed in this chapter: a true war story is not about heroism, the reality lies in the misplaced anger of soliders and their inability to deal effectively with their feelings. Embellishment seems to be a healing salve and crucial to the deeper truth of O'Briens stroy.
Really interesting. This article covered so many aspects we've discussed-the importance of getting these soldiers' stories down, the guilt they fear upon returning home, and even the treatment they received when they came home. We have yet to talk about-or know about- rats the size of dogs. Yikes!
"It wasn't a war story. It was a love story" (81). How is this a love story?
ReplyDeleteIt was a love story in the same way that a lot of Christians claim that the New Testament account of Jesus' crucifixion was a "love story". The Bible says that Jesus had to be crucified so the sins of mankind could be avenged, even though Jesus was completely innocent and a "man without sin". John 3:16 says: "For God so LOVED the world that he gave his only begotten son...". So in the same sense that Rat felt the compulsion to kill and torture an innocent baby buffalo to avenge his friend's death, God had to avenge the sins of mankind, but instead chose to give his son. That's just what I saw.
Delete(Beil)
DeleteWow Jeffrey, I really like your answer, I had thought of it as sort of the same but not quite that deeply. I just saw the story as one of the love and compassion between the members of the platoon, showing how war may be full of hatred and fighting but can produce bonds stronger than anything else.
It was a love story because he tortured this water buffalo because he wanted to but because he needed to release his emotions. During war the boys feel like they shouldn't cry or really show any emotions because its not the "macho" thing to do. Hurting the animal was a way to express how much he is hurting that his best friend is gone and sense he hurt it so much is showed he really cared for him.
DeleteIts a love story because Rat and Curt were such close friends, Rat lost Curt and couldn't show how much it hurt him, he couldn't find any peace, and all this because he "loved" this guy, his best friend, and no one could understand why he hurt so much unless they were there in the war.
ReplyDeleteThis book itself is a true war story, more so than one that just lays out events as they happened. The entire point of a true story is to make a point. The Things They Carried shows how these men changed, these memories racing around in their heads, the pain they felt and how there was no release except death and destruction, that was the only way they could deal with these feelings. Even if O'Brien does't tell the "truth" by actually writing what happened to him, this book is still true, these things happened, or seemed to happen. It was true to the men to endured the war, and the feelings behind all the words create the real story.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/peter+paul+mary/lemon+tree_20107749.html
ReplyDeleteThis is a link to the song "Lemon Tree." You will be surprised how well it fits in with the story. The second verse is about the vocalist's love spending wonderful times under the tree. Then the Third verse is about how the vocalist's love left him and took the sun with her. Is this just a happy accident? Or is this story made up around the song?
I'm going to make the wild assumption that he had a character already named "Curt Lemon" and then he heard the song and thought: "wouldn't it be funny if..."
DeleteI'm not sure what the reason behind the story could be, but I also see the relationship between the story and the song. The big one that really grabs my attention is the line that says "She'd left me for another, it's a common tale but true. A sadder man but wiser now I sing these words to you." I think it is really appropriate for how the author felt. We hear "common tale" about the effects of war and all the people who have died, but it is hard to really relate to the soldiers' feelings because none of us have ever experienced what they have. My best guess is that O'Brien found the song and wrote the story around it because it best described his feelings.
Delete(Beil)
DeleteThanks for posting the lyrics! I wondered how the song went. But anyways, I think that he probably did have a mate named Curt Lemon, who actually died, and who was acutally really good friends with Rat. And so the emotion and the letter were true, but the actual death may have been different. If the song and story really are seperate, thats a weird coincidence.
I think being able to incorporate the song was just a convenient opportunity. But I wouldn't be surprised if O'Brien used the line "One day she left without a word. She took away the sun" to come up with the description of sunlight taking up Lemon when he died.
Deletei agree with lifting the policy that bands coffins of soldiers being photographed. i greee even more so with the fact the the soldier's family get to decide whether or not the coffin is to be photographed. it gives the family some sense of privacy if they say no to the photographers and it is a way to honnor the fallen soldiers if the family says yes. its a good thing either way. the pictures of the fallen soldiers will make american citizens see how bad a war really is and to make them understand what it is that the soldiers are giving up. of course there will be people who twist the pictures into something bad or somthing that doesn't pertain to the picture and sentament of the overall message.
ReplyDeletehere is a link to a picture of a fallen soldier's coffin
http://dailybail.com/storage/military%20coffin%202.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1280342333477
Wow I can't believe that the story in the chapter, On the Rainy River, never happened. He instead played golf and couldn't sleep. That is it. But On the Rainy River described how he felt on the inside.
ReplyDeleteIts like a hyperbole. Its how he felt, but he coped differently in real life. The real story would have sucked, so he told a great one.
DeleteCheck out this interview with the author about the truth of his story.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nea.gov/av/avCMS/Obrien-podcast-transcript.html
ReplyDeleteWhat are your thoughts on this policy? How does it impact citizens' understanding of the war?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/26web-coffins.html?_r=1&
Do you agree with O'Brien that, "A thing may happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth" (80). Do you believe that the verifiability of a story is second to what occurs within the story? Does it make the Things they Carried irrelevant or lessen its meaning if they did not happen?
ReplyDeleteI think the verifiability is a huge deal to the actual story. Anyone can make up a story, but I also feel like that's how some people cope best-through writing. Maybe O'Brien felt like the best way to cope with how he felt about the war and his experiences was to tell it through story, even if it isn't all true. Normally, I would say if the story isn't true, then why tell it? But in cases like this, I think the feeling portrayed is more important than the verifability.
DeleteI agree with what O'Brien was saying. for example the point of a fable is to teach the reader a lesson/moral. the author's main concern is not that we know that Jack and Jill went up the hill but that we learn from their mistakes. the same concept is true for the war stories. Also these soldiers go through traumatic events they may see things differently so it may not things the same way we do. Does that make their story not true?
DeleteI agree that O'Brien needed to make up some of these stories to increase the meaning of some of the things that happened, or to get the moral across. It doesn't lessen the meaning of the story. However, I still don't like it. I think I'm reading a non-fiction story, and he suddenly tells you that none of the stuff ever happened. I know his motives behind making up the stories, but I still feel lied to.
DeleteHe did publish it as fiction, but it seems so real that people get lost in the story. Also, he puts himself in the story so that makes it seem more like a memoir.
DeletePersonally, I think the truth is the truth period. If someone makes up a story and says that it is true when it never happened then it makes the source un-credible (real word?) and untrue. If he published this as a fiction novel then it should be fiction. Sure it can be influenced by some stories but I don't think he should play the "what's true what's not" game.
DeleteI don't think that it matters if its true or not he is trying to have people understand how it felt for them. In the heat of the moment they might see things differently than what really happened.
DeleteForever the animal rights activist, the baby buffalo story bugs me. Whether it is true or false, justified or unjustified, a team effort or a single person animal abuse should not be encouraged. Animals today are treated as soldiers, the dog in the article was honored with a Dickin Medal(the highest award of bravery given in Britain to animals. The story would have been okay if they had put the animal out of its misery but instead they mutilated it and left it to die. How will this soldier act when he goes home? Will he be safe around children? I feel that animal cruelty should be treated with the same intensity that human abuse is.
ReplyDeletehttp://preciousjules1985.wordpress.com/tag/world-war-ii/
Yikes. Jessie Kmietsch=#1 animal activist.
DeleteI love dog stories!
DeleteDo you think embellishing the "truth" to emphasize a point matters if it reveals the intended deeper truth? for example: When Sanders made up the Opera and glee club to describe their time at the mountains
ReplyDeleteI think that Sanders was trying to make his audience feel the way he felt. By simply telling them the basic truth they couldn't truly feel what it was like. By embelleshing a few of the facts, it helped his audience understand better.
DeleteAlthough it is important that the audience understands the messafe, i don't think you should change the facts around in order for them to understand. If you want they audience to truly feel the way you felt you have to tell the story in the right way, without embellishing the facts.
DeleteI think for O'Brian the feeling that his reader gets is more important then the actual story. He wants them to get somewhat of the feeling that he has even if he has to exaggerate his stories.
DeleteNothing seems to be black and white in the minds of soldiers. O'Brien emphasizes through his stories that the solidity of every little fact and detail is unrelevant to his point. The deeper truth revealed in this chapter: a true war story is not about heroism, the reality lies in the misplaced anger of soliders and their inability to deal effectively with their feelings. Embellishment seems to be a healing salve and crucial to the deeper truth of O'Briens stroy.
ReplyDeleteReally interesting. This article covered so many aspects we've discussed-the importance of getting these soldiers' stories down, the guilt they fear upon returning home, and even the treatment they received when they came home. We have yet to talk about-or know about- rats the size of dogs. Yikes!
ReplyDelete