To be honest, “How to Tell a True War Story”, by Tim O’Brien, made me nervous as I read through it. Although the words and tone of the narrator were calm enough, there seemed to be a hidden will within the short story. The narrator seemed to be internally frustrated, trying to make the reader understand him. Toward the end, his voice was so earnest and he was trying with so much effort for the audience to see what he was saying that I did not want to misread and understand him wrongly. I wanted to be able to see every little thought that he was thinking, and every word he was saying just as he was trying to tell it. I did not want to step out of the story’s path, because the narrator’s voice seemed so tired.
What caught my attention most in “How to Tell a True War Story” was the use of motif. O’Brien repeatedly wrote about truth, such as when the narrator would say, “This is true”, and when Sanders said, “God’s truth”, including, most importantly, the words sprinkled throughout the short story, and seen in the title, words of “a true war story.” In the beginning of the short story, the narrator spoke about the truth of the war in a definitive way. The truth of the occurrences that he spoke of wasvfinal. It was pure and it was certain. There was no questioning that what the narrator said was the absolute truth. As the short story progressed, though, the narrator’s “truth” began to become slightly muddled. What I gathered was that “truth” is really just how people want stories to end. Heroism and bravery unrewarded is not what the population wants to hear. The population wants glory for those who deserve it. When noble soldiers die for a cause close to their heart, but disappear without rewards, then the population doesn’t want to bear such sadness within their hearts. The population that remains untainted directly by war does not understand how cruel, unnatural, harsh and surreal that killing and the fear of being killed can cause. Even with the basic understanding that one untainted by the war does not understand , I believe that the narrator is trying to say that there is still not an understanding between the listener and the speaker. One must experience the unnaturalness of war to understand, because simply hearing will never equal experiencing.
I think that the author uses beauty to support his idea of a true war story. I do not think that the narrator is advertising the war when he says that there is a certain beauty to it. I think part of the reason why the narrator’s “truth” began to deteriorate into something less definitive was because there are different sides of war. I think what was trying to be said was that even something deadly can be beautiful. And that is what makes his black and white truth something entirely grey.
For making the “truth” change over time, I think that O’Brien’s use of motif was the perfect decision. The word remained constant, while the meaning changed. It very much reflects how war seems to have effected the narrator’s mind. Something once so solid and calm, transforming into something else. The human mind adapts to make each situation a livable place. The beauty that the narrator saw in the war I believe could have been his mind scoping out, through the terror, the differences between the world of the war, and the world of the average person.
I noticed in this war story, “a true war story”, that the manner in which the narrator spoke was calm and subdued. His voice was that of an average person, just living from one day to another. One might not even guess the horrors that he has seen; the picking up of Lemon’s body parts, for instance. I think that the reason for this was to support O’Brien’s theme of “a true war story.” In other war stories that I have read, the voices of the narrators are typically more filled with pain and hardship. One would immediately guess that the narrator has seen indescribable horrors. I was wondering if the reason for this calm voice was to support the idea that a true war story is different from what is generally believed, or perhaps because the narrator’s thoughts were simply different from the average soldier? Does the author’s use of motif really need the backup of a calm voice, or are the motif and voice simply unrelated?
Ashley that was a great post. It really shed some light on some aspects of the story for me. I found it interesting that you felt uneasy by the story. I didn't have this reaction at all. However at the end I did realize how frustrated he was by telling his story over and over and nobody ever getting it. I thought it was really neat how you picked up on this so early in the story. I personally felt that the tone of the story was simply the writer himself. I have never read anything else by him but I would assume it would have a similar tone. Great job!
ReplyDeleteAshley, the narrator's voice never came to mind until I read your post. That was a great one. So far, I don't think anyone else has pick up on that, but I think your right. He was very calm and consistant. Whether he was talking about something he had seen or just what someone else told him. His voice- all the same. His attitude- all the same. Great insight!
ReplyDeleteWow! You had the same feeling I did with the way that O'Brien was talking in this story. He did seem to be a little bit impatient, and was trying really hard for the audience to truly feel the pain he felt. I wrote this earlier on someone else's blog...I think that some people are so scared of not being truly understood. They must feel the false "understandment" of their tales so much that it causes them to be uncomfortable. I have to agree, that when telling a story, it is most important to get your point across, but a lot of times in war stories, I think the point is skipped. Skipping the point is rough on the story teller, especially when it is about such a sensitive subject.
ReplyDelete