So now that I’m caught up, I’m thinking that the central theme of most of the stories so far is the difference between what truth is and what storytelling is. Practically in every story Tim is questioning what the truth is compared to a war story and what listeners should believe and such. Its all up to the readers to decided whether each war story in the collection is the truth or made up to sound like a possibility that might have happened. “In any war story, but especially a true one, it’s difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen” (71). Over the years it seems as though the mind can play tricks on oneself, distorting the distinct line between what truly happened and what was believed to happen. A true war story can never be exactly all truth, “often the crazy stuff is true and the normal stuff isn’t, because the normal stuff is necessary to make you believe the truly incredible craziness” (71). I guess a war story has to be manipulated at some point to make it somewhat believable because without the lies embedded here and a war story may sound just unbelievable in the end.
Anyway, this leads into the whole postmodernism concept. The idea of postmodernism is always questioning the truth and what it really is. Is there ever really a truth or is it just a bundle of lies that were believed in so much they turned into truths (if you get what I’ saying). So back to the novel, I think it’s a great representation of the postmodern theory. I never really thought about it until class on Friday when Veerprit was talking about it all day from first period to sixth.
So overall, is there such a thing as a true war story or is every war a story a combination of truth and made up realities to believe the truth? I guess we will never find out unless we go back in time to experience the whole event in a first person point of view.
"Forty-three years old, and the war occurred half a life-time ago, and yet the remembering makes it now. And sometimes remembering will lead to a story, which makes it forever" (38). So now the question is, does it really matter if a story is true? Or are the feelings and emotions experienced more important than the details?
Oh, now that i thought about it, it gets me wondering about war reenactments and how they now what is truth or not as well as history. Depending on who it is, history may be a total lie or all truth, who knows. Anyway, just a quick little thought.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree. I find this struggle between truth and perception to be very vexing. In the book, a lot of the stories seem to say that there are no true war stories with good morals, lessons, and endings. And I find this hard to believe. Another quote that kinda fits along with your blog, (morgan found it) is, “In a true war story, if there’s a moral at all, it’s like the thread that makes the cloth. You can’t tease it out. You can’t extract the meaning without unraveling the deeper meaning. And in the end, really, there’s nothing much to say about a true war story, except maybe ‘Oh’.” I think its probably true about a lot of war stories because war is such a horrible topic that there are rarely any profound or positive things to take from it. But at the same time, a part of me still believes that there has to be some true war stories that have good morals! Like what about the ones where people sacrifice their lives for eachother! And save little kids from tyranny and oppression and stuff! Are we supposed to believe that all these stories are not even true? This is what the book seems to suggest… And O’Brien was actually in the war, so he probably knows a lot more than we do about it. But maybe its just his perception that there are no good, true, war stories with good things to take from them? Or maybe its just the VietNam war? Idk… but personally, I have a hard time believing that those touching, inspirational war stories about self-sacrifice, courage, hope, and love are all fake.
ReplyDelete"So overall, is there such a thing as a true war story or is every war a story a combination of truth and made up realities to believe the truth?" I like that question. You definitely are on the right path with your blog. I think there is a thing as a true war story depending on the person. Each individual defines "truth" differently, therefore, it's the effect the story has an individual person. I think that's maybe what O'Brien is trying to get at- the effect of his stories on different people. That in and of itself is postmodernism, well since I believe it is undefinable, then this whole "believing" thing is on the same topic! &&& "Forty-three years old, and the war occurred half a life-time ago, and yet the remembering makes it now. And sometimes remembering will lead to a story, which makes it forever" (38). ----I TOTALLY included that quote to, I just think it's WOAHHHHH!! There are actually a LOTTT of really good quotes in this novel, that's maybe why I'm excited to write this essay- maybe? Haha, weirrdddd, excited to write an essay? Yes, I am. Hahah. But yeahh...you are deffff on the right path.
ReplyDelete"Its all up to the readers to decided whether each war story in the collection is the truth or made up to sound like a possibility that might have happened." this is so true. and i think this applies to any type of reading, it all depends on how the reader interprets the writing. i like how you illustrated how postmodernism comes into play with this whole theme. when you said "The idea of postmodernism is always questioning the truth and what it really is. Is there ever really a truth or is it just a bundle of lies that were believed in so much they turned into truths (if you get what I’m saying)." yes i totally get what you are saying because i feel the exact same way. we are always searching for the truth but the truth isn't defined and since the truth isn't defined we don't even know if any truth exists..or even what this word means because is it true? i don't know..i could go on for hours...so confusing.
ReplyDeletenice job!