Blog 3 - Things They Carried

Tim O'Brien's book The Things They Carried is easily one of the best books that I have read in my nearly two decades of earthly existance. I read this novel in my senior year language class. Every person in the class was assigned a chapter to thoroughly analyze and present. After reading this book and breaking down every aspect of every page, one is really able to understand the bits and pieces that make this book the Vietnam War novel.

The author's first chapter works very effectively to give the novel some initial direction. The burdensome and passionate tone that O'Brien sets in the first chapter carries through the rest of the piece. The first chapter describes platoon leader Jimmy Cross and what (or who) goes through his mind while in action. Everywhere he goes he carries a picture of Martha, his hometown crush. She is always on his mind, night and day, even while taking heavy fire. More importantly, O'Brien discusses the things that the soldiers carry with them. They carried pocket-knives, chewing gum, maps, flak jackets, good luck charms, photographs, pot, heavy arms, stationery, and a number of other essentials. O'Brien is using these material items symbolically to convey to the reader that soldiers carry alot of emotional baggage too. Being in a situation where death is just a wrong turn away wears heavily on the head and on the heart, and this first chapter introduces us to this essential truth.

Another interesting concept that the author discusses in this book is the concept of truth vs the true. To most people in most situations, these two words are synonomus, but war is a great manipulator. He talks about truth vs the true in the context of war stories, and how people percieve them. O'Brien defines the truth as the actual factual happenings, the kind of stuff that would be presented in a court hearing. But in the context of a war, a story doesnt have to be the truth to be true. On page 78, the author says, "It comes down to gut instinct. A true war story, if truly told, makes the stomach believe." It's all about how a story "rings." If a war story accurately describes the emotionality, horror, beauty, commradery, division, and human elements of war then it is essentially true. This is also highlighted in the two small paragraphs in the middle of page 83. This passage reads, "You can tell aa true war story by the questions you ask. Somebody tells a story, lets say, and afterward you ask, 'is it true?' and if the answer matters, you've got your answer. For example, we've all heard this one. Four guys go down a trail. A grenade sails out. One guy jumps on it and takes the blast and saves his three buddies. Is it true? The answer matters." True war stories tell of ordinary people in extraordinary situations. Whether these situations have actually happened couldn't matter less.

This concept of the true vs. truth also extends into the genre of the book itself, which I find interesting. This is a work of fiction, factually inaccurate. But does that make this book ficticious? I argue it does not. Did O'Brien actually go fight in Vietnam? Did he spend his time surrounded by a close group of men in the same situation? Was he physicially and emotionally tested every second he was in action? The answer to all of the previous questions is yes. Therefore, this is a true fictional novel. I think it is interesting how a big part of the novel itself applies to the actual qualification of the novel.