People generally think that they find stories more powerful if the stories "actually happened." However, to back a story up with sources and real life evidence takes much of the emotion out of it. And despite an abundance of evidence, even a "nonfiction" book is still biased by the author's views and cannot be considered an accurate rendition of the fabula. O'Brien clearly sees this and does not try to stay completely true to the fabula. He even tells us in "How to Tell a True War Story" that part of the narrative must be made up to help readers to believe the unbelievable. O'Brien clearly focuses not on the actual facts but on the message he wants to tell and how he wants to make the reader feel. His sjuzet may be far from the facts of the fabula, but it is still true, at least by the Tim O'Brien definition.
"It comes down to gut instinct. A true war story, if truly told, makes the stomach believe."
O'Brien's stories have this gut instinct, this feeling stronger than evidence that what he tells us is true. Surprisingly this feeling remains despite the evidence calling into question everything this book presents as fact. I could not imagine reading the stories in this book out of the context established by such stories as "How to Tell a True War Story" or "Good Form" and getting the same effect. I think that is what makes O'Brien's writing so alluring, the uncertainty about the facts combined with the gut instinct that these stories are true.
"It comes down to gut instinct. A true war story, if truly told, makes the stomach believe."
O'Brien's stories have this gut instinct, this feeling stronger than evidence that what he tells us is true. Surprisingly this feeling remains despite the evidence calling into question everything this book presents as fact. I could not imagine reading the stories in this book out of the context established by such stories as "How to Tell a True War Story" or "Good Form" and getting the same effect. I think that is what makes O'Brien's writing so alluring, the uncertainty about the facts combined with the gut instinct that these stories are true.
I also haven't read a handful of short stories that have captivated my attention as much as this one has. Everything you said is true for me as well. At this point, I don't care if the story is made up or not. I believe everything O'Brien says. For me this book is especially alluring because all the stories play off of each other. Most short story books I read consist of several separate stories. The stories in this book allow us to see character development throughout the story as a whole. As readers, we become more attached to the characters.
ReplyDeleteI can agree with your first statement, but that may be because I can only remember reading two short story collections off the top of my head (and both were for this class). Nonetheless The Things They Carried is still an incredibly strong book, with as you mentioned a great balance between truths and possible falsehoods that leaves the reader guessing. The most important aspect to his book was the subject matter however. No matter what balance was struck, a more lighthearted topic could not have achieved such an effect
ReplyDeleteI haven't read many short story collections however I can say that this is one of the most powerful, most likely due to the intense subject of war. I also agree that "power" does not directly correlate with how true a story is. In my mind a completely true story (which, as you said, is impossible due to authors bias) would be stale. I feel as if, in order to create a more impactful tale, fiction must be added to complement the facts.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in that I have never read a short story collection, or even a book, that is, that has had quite the effect on me that The Things They Carried did. Even though it wasn't clear what was "true" and what wasn't, I think the stories still conveyed to me what the war was like. After reading a few stories, I stopped trying to classify things as "true" and "not true," but rather, I looked at it all as things that might as well all be true. Because although O'Brien may have changed parts of, or entire, stories, the sad, sinking feeling that we get when we know that Kiowa or Curt Lemon is actually dead, or the feeling of horror when the soldiers are shaking the dead man's hand, is, in a sense, true. We would not quite have understood any of these experiences if O'Brien had just told us cold, hard facts about what happened.
ReplyDelete