Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Week 7 Open Topic
I was recently thinking about the discussion that we had in class on Tuesday pertaining to the rules of writing war stories. According to Tim O’Brien war stories are unique in that they are unbelievable. After we had the discussion I sat down to do some reading in The Things They Carried and realized that most of what was going on really wasn’t believable at all. I knew that what I was reading was possible but I really didn’t believe it. And I then began to deeply question the truth in every war story I had ever heard. I couldn’t help but think back to The Red Convertible and Soldier’s Home while thinking about why the veterans lie about what they have seen and done. Some do it to make sense of the war through there own interpretations and others do it simply to make there experiences sound more exciting. I simply found it very interesting that many of the stories that we have read and heard fallow O’Brien’s “formula” for telling war stories
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think that perhaps they tell these "lies" and "make up stories" beause they honestly think it went that way or maybe their emotions manifested into physical form and they heard that music. Their consciousness spoke out. Maybe what O'Brien says is right, maybe they tell these lies as truths because certain stories you don't ever tell and your emotional pain and grief has to give way in embelished versions of other stories or imaginary happenings. Almost like a coping mechanism. Personally, I think it's because they don't want the silence. O'Brien says the silence makes them deaf, ironic and an oxymoron all in the same. It hurts more to be silent than to speak, even if the spoken words aren't true. And in the end, it's not the story that even matters, if it were true or not, a story is nothing more than you chemical emotions in your brain finding outlet through your vocal chords. It's the brain trying to make sense of itself.
It's funny that you bring this up because it now makes me look back at Farewell to Arms to think about what was unbelievable in that story. I guess how they were able to maintain their love during the war and how Frederick Henry discovered himself through fierce opposition. It just seems like a discredited story and to O'Brien he says this is what it takes to constitute a true war story.
The line between "lie" and "truth" is exactly the line that O'Brien is trying to expose as false, at least when it comes to individual memory.
As Leah says, stories (and to this I would add memory, for all scientists and medical specialists who research memory think of it as a story-telling rather than a reporting function of the brain) are a way for the brain to make sense of itself; said another way, narrative, another word for story, is a way to give meaning to or to locate patterns of meaning in our own experience (which can only be done through the vehicle of memory, which as we've said doesn't record but interpret the truth...)
Anyway, part of what O'Brien wants us to see is that the distinction between the factual truth of "what happened" is ultimately indistinguishable from the *memory* of what happened, which is constructed out of a narrative pattern.
Which brings me back to the comment I've made in other areas of your very interesting blog -- the only way to come toward the truth is from multiple angles, taking into account multiple and even contradictory perspectives, drawn from a variety of first-hand accounts but also from higher level analyses such as can be offered from experts.
Post a Comment