Here goes another one for the blog. Let’s get it started. The Things They Carried by Tim O’Brien gives his readers a different perspective on a typical history subject, the Vietnam War. It is unique from other texts because he blurs the margins between the customary right and wrong, such as the enemies of this war and reasons for it. Many believe that war is fought between two primary groups, the good guys and the bad guys. In World War II, it was especially easy to distinguish this contrast. It was a war fought between Allies, the good, and Axis, the bad. But this fine line vanished once war erupted in Southeast Asia. It was the first war to split the nation in half, patriots who were for it and hippies who were against it. There was riot, protest, and anger everywhere. It was a war where “Certain blood was being shed for uncertain reasons” (O’Brien 40). In the end, Vietnam War veterans were leaving the chaos seen in the jungles and coming home to an unsupportive nation. They were harassed by fellow citizens and called names such as baby killers. It was hard times for these brave men and their only way to get through such troubling times was to let everything out by retelling the stories as they lived them.
Within The Things They Carried, I believe each of the stories themselves reveal the central idea O’Brien is attempting to portray, which is the importance of storytelling. He fully embellishes this message in his narrative “How to Tell a True War Story”. There are many comments about storytelling that O’Brien delicately places throughout this excerpt. One in particular is about the truth behind stories. He states that “it’s difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen. What seems to happen becomes its own happening and has to be told that way. The angles of vision are skewed” (O’Brien 71). What he trying to convey is the truths behind describing and retelling personal experiences and how they will never be exactly how it happened. There are too many occurrences going on that it is impossible for one person, for one pair of eyes to take in the entire experience all at once and to memorize the details of it. He goes on to say that “pictures get jumbled; you tend to miss a lot. And then afterward, when you go to tell about it, there is always that surreal seemingness, which makes the story seem untrue, but which in fact represents the hard and exact truth as it seemed” (O’Brien 71). When this happens, retelling a story becomes a battle between the real truth and the perceptive truth. What actually happens is only what the story teller believes to have happened. It is only coming from his one perspective alone.
He later states that “You’d feel cheated if [the story] never happened,” creating a moment of mistrust and dishonesty (O’Brien 83). But a few lines later, he reveals that “Absolute occurrence is irrelevant. A thing many happen and be a total lie; another thing may not happen and be truer than the truth” (O’Brien 83). In a way, this can be linked to the totalitarian society of 1984 by Orwell. People are persuaded to believe certain “facts” that are written and rewritten in the history books. After, they must force extract everything they believed to be true, which is now considered false, and throw it away and out of their mind. Their reality of truth is a manipulation by a higher power. That was a little off subject but hopefully you see the connection. In the end, it all comes down to the act of communication. By communicating through stories and language, we can allow other people to relate to our experiences and our reality. We want others to see what we see, to feel what we feel. By telling stories, we allow this connection to run from person to person and become an enormous network of emotion and sympathy. If there was an organization such as Newspeak from 1984, where their main goal is to destroy the written language and deconstruct our means of communication into simple terms, then there would be no way of retelling stories with such power and emotion. This is what connects people from every corner of the world. Communication is the key.
“The fact of storytelling hints at a fundamental human unease, hints at human imperfection. Where there is perfection there is no story to tell.”
~ Ben Okri
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
What is Postmodernism?
“See the cat? See the cradle?” (Vonnegut) This is one of Vonnegut’s most important lines in his novel Cat’s Cradle. And I strongly believe that it embraces the fundamental nature of Postmodernism. And what is that exactly? It is the idea that there is no such thing as absolute truth.
Well, let me explain more about this line from Vonnegut. It is referring to a game called cat’s cradle where series of string figures are created between a set of hands. As the game continues, the string pattern becomes complex and the entangling of lines seem never ending. This is a physical description of a cat’s cradle. I believe there is much more to it than that. A cat’s cradle also represents an outlook on truth and difference.
How we see inside the cat’s cradle is how we see the truth. And truth is represented differently by all people. Look at the society of World State in Huxley’s Brave New World. There are buildings that exceed the clouds. Their population is produced by a manufacturing line. And promiscuity between couples is encouraged. The truth I know tells me that buildings are safest low to the ground, people are not produced but created between two people that love each other very much, and promiscuity definitely is not the best way to exercise trust within a relationship. But this is how the people in Huxley’s book represent truth. This is what they see inside the cat’s cradle.
In the end, people all over there world will always have their differences. Whether it their way of life or the religion they believe, we should be accepting of it. Their view inside the cat’s cradle will always be different from ours. What it really comes down to is that there actually is "No damn cat, and no damn cradle" (Vonnegut).
"There's this expression called postmodernism, which is kind of silly, and destroys a perfectly good word called modern, which now no longer means anything."
~ Twyla Tharp
Well, let me explain more about this line from Vonnegut. It is referring to a game called cat’s cradle where series of string figures are created between a set of hands. As the game continues, the string pattern becomes complex and the entangling of lines seem never ending. This is a physical description of a cat’s cradle. I believe there is much more to it than that. A cat’s cradle also represents an outlook on truth and difference.
How we see inside the cat’s cradle is how we see the truth. And truth is represented differently by all people. Look at the society of World State in Huxley’s Brave New World. There are buildings that exceed the clouds. Their population is produced by a manufacturing line. And promiscuity between couples is encouraged. The truth I know tells me that buildings are safest low to the ground, people are not produced but created between two people that love each other very much, and promiscuity definitely is not the best way to exercise trust within a relationship. But this is how the people in Huxley’s book represent truth. This is what they see inside the cat’s cradle.
In the end, people all over there world will always have their differences. Whether it their way of life or the religion they believe, we should be accepting of it. Their view inside the cat’s cradle will always be different from ours. What it really comes down to is that there actually is "No damn cat, and no damn cradle" (Vonnegut).
"There's this expression called postmodernism, which is kind of silly, and destroys a perfectly good word called modern, which now no longer means anything."
~ Twyla Tharp
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)