A reader and How to Tell a True War Story - Essay Example

Two stories that changed my perceptions as a reader “How to Tell a True War Story” explores the complex relationship between the war encounter and how one narrates about the war experiences. The author, as the narrator and protagonist of the story – O’Brien’s role as a soldier tells several different stories, which intermingle with each other, the main theme being the death of another soldier – Curt Lemon. The place of the narration is the Vietnam War. The narrator had returned from the war about 20 years ago and his character is disillusioned. Throughout of the discourse of the story he is trying to illustrate this. The narrator attempts to formulate what is true what is not and surrounds his storytelling with philosophical commentaries and list of “dos and don’ts”. The reader is sometimes perplexed by the contrast whether to believe or not to believe a war story. The way that O’Brien’s character tells the story shows us that the narrator has the power to construct his listeners’ opinions through the techniques of a good storyteller. The narrators goal on telling his story is to provide the reader with real and unreal examples how war distorts the soldier’s perceptions and his values of right and wrong. The O’Brien’s character achieves this through repeating the opposition “true – untrue”. The chapter begins with “This is true (O’Brien 67).” Then the narrator expresses some skeptical views in: “In many cases a true war story cannot be believed (O’Brien 71).” The character tries to explain how soldiers who experienced the war regardless where it happened change their perceptions of what is beautiful and what is ugly. The narrator himself questions the credibility of his own words, implying to the readers to see beyond the telling. “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 (O’Brient 71).” This is the essence of the story – a true war story does not lie in the reality of the situation, but that in a war there are no limits, no values, no moral sense, no justifications. Taft-Kaufman (2000) comments that Tim O’Brien builds up an intentional paradox and irony. This is best expressed in Curt’s sister lack of response and the way Rat reacts. Emotionally, he can not accept that this can really happen, after unleashing his feelings and heart, it is beyond human’s grasp to understand how can she not respond. “The dumb cooze never writers back (O’Brien 68).” The paradox embraces us and this letter is pointed out embarrassingly throughout the story, as a reminder that in a state of war, there is also inward war. “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 (O’Brien 77).” This gripping description tells is all. A true war story is not about courage and heroism, or dignity and survival. It is about the reality of misplaced feelings and the soldier’s inability to deal with their emotions, because they are exposed to horrible war experiences which change everything. O’Brien’s character portrays Curt Lemon’s death as a love story. “It wasn’t a war story. It was a love story (O’Brien 85).” In spite of the grotesque scenes and the graphic and detailed recounting of the situation how they gathered Curt’s body parts from the tree, the actual emphasize is the sunlight radiating from Curt. The focus on the sunlight speaks about the optimism, and not about the terrifying carnage. The description functions as vehicle through for the narrator which he uses to overcome the complexity of war memories that haunt him (Taft-Kaufman pp. 17-38). “True war stories do not generalize. They do not indulge in abstraction or analysis (O’Brien 78).” That is why the narrator’s tactic was to include several different stories and examples. After Curt’s death, the soldiers find a baby water buffalo and decide to bring it to the camp. Rat Kiley gives the baby food, but it is not hungry. Then, most shockingly, he starts to shoot the animal in various places over and over again. Rat does not want to kill the baby buffalo, but to make him suffer. As if through its suffering, he can feel his own. One of the soldiers notes: “Garden of Evil. Over here, man, every sins fresh and original (O’Brien 80).” Rats pain after Curt dies is inexplicable and immeasurable. A simple and direct statement puts as to the ground, truth is what “makes the stomach believe (O’Brien 78).” The image of the torturing buffalo, contrasts with the image of the unspeakable emotions of Rat after Curt’s death. The buffalo, though young refuses to die, it fights for life – evidence that the will for life is stronger than the desire to give up. The role that the narrator’s character plays is to deliver the reader a message about life through the vivid death of Curt Lemon. It does not matter whether is story is true or not, because the beauty and pain are universal. The reader is not surprised when Rat Kiley says at the end of the story that the events did not happen. The audience is not misled, because it understood that even though the characters are described in entirely different way, this might have happened, thus we accept is as true. O’Brien challenges the reader to reread the story and to discover for himself where the truth rests. For the narrator the nature of fiction is to touch your moral grounds. As he explains, the reader can not get the moral while reading it, but the moral can fit him one night after 20 years and you may wake up his wife to share the story. But then, while trying to find the right words to make his point, he has lost it. Thus, the structure of the story tells you that the narrator is struggling to get his point across, because the war theme is elusive. One time you feel it, the next moment you can not find the words for it. Ironically, “that’s a true story that never happened (O’Brien 84).” The only conclusion we can reach is that the truth in any war story is simply irrelevant to the situation. John Barth’s story “Lost in the Funhouse” tells the story of a thirteen-year-old boy who is going on a trip to the beach with his family. The story takes place on Independence Day during World War II. The name of the thirteen-year-old boy is Ambrose and he is travelling together with his older brother Peter, their mother and father, Uncle Karl, and Magda - a fourteen- year- old neighbor girl. The narrator tells the reader that both Ambrose and his brother are attracted to Magda. What is similar between Barth’s story and O’Brien’s is that they tell a love story. Barth uses the metaphor of the funhouse the describe Ambrose’s first sexual perception. He begins the story with a rhetorical question: For whom is the funhouse fun? Perhaps for lovers. For Ambrose it is a place of fear and confusion (Barth 72).” Barth uses the funhouse as multi-layered metaphor. Piedmont-Marton (1999) comments that throughout the story the narrator will test this initial rhetoric question and hypothesis. We can say that comparing the two stories both of them explore the veracity of the posed questions: what is true, what is not. Advised that the beach is covered in oil and tar the family group decides to visit a funhouse instead. Piedmont-Marton (1999) explains that most writers employ particular techniques to enhance their writing. However, the narrator in “Lost in the Funhouse” uses “other aspects of realism, it is an illusion that is being enhanced, by purely artificial means (Barth 73).” Piedmont-Marton (1999) argues that “the funhouse poses mirrors in front of mirrors, tempting the viewer to mistake image for substance, ‘‘Lost in the Funhouse’’ seduces readers into believing the familiar literary truism that sex is a metaphor for language (Piedmont-Marton 179).” The mirror’s reflection is a symbol for the subconscious behavior and realization of Ambrose. In order to reach for his inner feelings he has to see himself in all shapes and sizes. This theme to an extent is similar to O’Brien’s shooting of the baby buffalo. In order to Rat to realize his hidden emotions, he has to cross the boundary between conscious and unconscious. The image of the mirror and the image of the baby buffalo are one and the same. What Ambrose witnesses is the “youthful passion (Barth 84).” This is his first memorable, pleasant experience. In contrast with O’Brien Rat also experience for the first time the death of his fellow soldier. Unlike lover like Peter and Magda, Ambrose can not lose sight of himself, because he is constantly seeing his reflection. “In the funhouse mirror-room you can’t see yourself go on forever, because not matter how you stand, your head gets in the way (Barth 85).” Here comes again the similarity with O’Brien who questions which war stories are real and true and which are not. Barth’s problem is how to find the true self. With the mirror-imagining one can never be sure which self is the real one and which is the reflection. “You think you’re yourself, but there are other persons in you (Barth 85).” After finding the “unofficial backdoor or escape hatch opening (Barth 85)” Ambrose, ironically finds himself ironically in the mirror-room. He is surrounded by his own distorted reflections he sees “more clearly than ever, how readily he deceived himself into supposing he was a person (Barth 86).” The narrators goal on telling the story in “Lost in the Funhouse” is to describe Ambrose’s coming of age. However, the narrative is constantly interrupted by various comments and usage of literary devices. This is done rather deliberately, Barth’s narrator plays with the form of fiction and utilizes it to achieve the effects that it eventually delivers to the readers’ perceptions. “The story is a funhouse for readers, and the narrator is the same kind of ‘‘secret operator’’ that Ambrose aspires to become in the story’s last paragraph (Galens 177).” The story ends by answering the question presented at the beginning – whom is the funhouse designed for. The answer given to the reader is the affirmative that indeed the funhouse is fun for lovers. For Ambrose it turned out to be less a “place of fear and confusion” then he thought before entering there. Both stories impress with their expressive language and employed fiction devices. The similarities between them are connected with the way they try to reach the audience – with stories within the story itself. They differ in the way they actually convey their message. “Lost in the Funhouse” seems more philosophically and literary sophisticated. Whereas “How to tell a true was story” grasps our attention by its simplicity and everyday jargon. Both stories leave the reader in quest for his own emotions, reactions and perceptions. Both stories strive to release the reader’s imagination in discovering his own understanding about what happened in the stories. Works Cited: Barth, John. Lost in the Funhouse, Galens, David (ed.) Short Stories for Students, The Gale Group, Inc Gale and Design and Thomson Learning, 2002. Piedmont-Marton, Elizabeth. Overview of ‘‘Lost in the Funhouse,’’ for Short Stories for Students, The Gale Group, 1999. O’Brien, Tim. How to tell a true war story. Taft-Kaufman, Jill. How to Tell a True War Story: The Dramaturgy and Staging of Narrative Theatre. Theatre Topics - Volume 10, Number 1, March 2000, pp. 17-38 Read More