Throughout The Things They Carried, the author, Tim O’Brien, expresses doubt that his stories are completely true; he blurs the lines between what actually happened and what didn’t. There are many instances when O’Brien says that parts didn’t actually occur as the surreal way he told them. The indistinctness of the difference between truth, fact, and fiction may make the readers feel less interested and also decrease their understanding of the story.
Importantly, O’Brien casts doubt on the veracity of his own stories for one significant reason. O’Brien’s statement, “that surreal seemingness, which makes the story seem unreal, but which in fact represents the hard and exact truth as it seemed” (71) explains why parts of a war story can seem dreamlike. He understood that sometimes the truth might not be what actually happened; it might be what someone believes happened. A soldier may remember the way …show more content…
One example of the surreal seemingness he is referring to is when Sanders tells his story about the six soldiers listening to the talking mountains. Sanders described what the men heard up in the mountains by saying “the rock—it’s talking. And the fog, too, and the grass and the goddamn mongooses. Everything talks.” (O’Brien, 74). Even knowing that that certainly couldn’t be true, O’Brien responds to Sander’s story with “you can tell a true war story by the way it never seems to end. It all happened.” (74). An occurrence like this can cause confusion for readers. It is clear that the rocks, fog, grass, and animals can’t talk, but O’Brien still suggests that is was true. Reading the war stories can create questions; was it a “story-truth” or was it a “happening-truth”? Some readers may intend for only nonfictional information, so the unclear explanation of stories can cause them to be uninterested in O’Brien’s metafiction
Importantly, O’Brien casts doubt on the veracity of his own stories for one significant reason. O’Brien’s statement, “that surreal seemingness, which makes the story seem unreal, but which in fact represents the hard and exact truth as it seemed” (71) explains why parts of a war story can seem dreamlike. He understood that sometimes the truth might not be what actually happened; it might be what someone believes happened. A soldier may remember the way …show more content…
One example of the surreal seemingness he is referring to is when Sanders tells his story about the six soldiers listening to the talking mountains. Sanders described what the men heard up in the mountains by saying “the rock—it’s talking. And the fog, too, and the grass and the goddamn mongooses. Everything talks.” (O’Brien, 74). Even knowing that that certainly couldn’t be true, O’Brien responds to Sander’s story with “you can tell a true war story by the way it never seems to end. It all happened.” (74). An occurrence like this can cause confusion for readers. It is clear that the rocks, fog, grass, and animals can’t talk, but O’Brien still suggests that is was true. Reading the war stories can create questions; was it a “story-truth” or was it a “happening-truth”? Some readers may intend for only nonfictional information, so the unclear explanation of stories can cause them to be uninterested in O’Brien’s metafiction