• In total there are 5 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 5 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

The Dedication

#57: Nov. - Dec. 2008 (Fiction)
User avatar
Saffron

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I can has reading?
Posts: 2954
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:37 pm
15
Location: Randolph, VT
Has thanked: 474 times
Been thanked: 399 times
United States of America

The Dedication

Unread post

Anyone read the Dedication? O'Brien dedicates the book to the men of Alpha Company and then names a few names, names of men in this book. Are they really names or the fictitious names he gave to real people? Does it matter? I think this is more of O'Brien blurring the boundaries between fiction and truth.

How do yo feel about the use of story telling to get closer to the truth?
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: The Dedication

Unread post

Saffron wrote:Does it matter? I think this is more of O'Brien blurring the boundaries between fiction and truth.
How do yo feel about the use of story telling to get closer to the truth?
I suppose that where verisimilitude comes from doesn't matter in the end. The more common way of emphasizing "this is true, this really happened" is to be a reporter of events. But this doesn't guarantee at all that the reporter gets anything right, much less everything right. Using fiction, a writer can perhaps get closer to the truth that really matters to him or her. O'Brien appraises the freedom that stories give him to say what really happened at the level that concerns him most, the gut level. The same approach wouldn't have been very good for political analysis of the war, obviously.

The parallel with Stephen Crane's The Red Badge of Courage is interesting. Crane did not have the option of blurring the distinction between the first-person narrator and the writer because he had never experienced war. Crane's story is a war story without the editorial comment of O'Brien's. It is also a novel, whereas O'Brien's work is usually described as linked stories. But I think the two are close in the way they strip away the illusions that people want to project on the experience of war.

I have to admit unease with O'Brien's technique. I might be stuck on keeping a distinction between story and history. Books that use historical figures, such as E.L. Doctorow's Ragtime, in purely fictive ways have seemed to me to want to benefit from the real-world notoriety of such figures, but what is the point if the author just makes all the stuff up? Wouldn't it be more honest to start with a fiction character? O'Brien, also, is benefitting from the notoriety of a historical situation, which would include the Vietnam War itself, the choice faced by young men whether to go or not, and the fact that Tim O'Brien was one of these. But then he wants to tell us that this framework should not confine him. He has made himself, in a certain sense, into an unreliable narrator on the basic level of whether he was or was not an actor in the story and whether any of the vignettes in the book--for example, returning to the field with his daughter--happened to Tim O'Brien, author. Should this matter to me? I don't know. A writer can create verisimilitude in either fiction or memoir; it's my preference just now that she or he do one or the other in a work.

Maybe this aspect of the book is too post-modern for me. It's very successful in conveying the truth about fighting. I'll have to think more, and probably reread the book, to decide whether "writing about writing" and the shape-shifting of the narrator/author add to or detract from the book.

DWill
User avatar
realiz

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Amazingly Intelligent
Posts: 626
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:31 pm
15
Has thanked: 42 times
Been thanked: 72 times

Unread post

I might be stuck on keeping a distinction between story and history.
I really don't think there is a distinction once we enter the realm of fiction, which this book is. So much of fiction is based on history, truth, reality and experiences that it is up to the reader to decide and interpret.
Autobiographies and biographies that rely on memory and perception may often contain even more fiction than real history.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Unread post

I don't disagree with anything you said. Maybe my hesitation is based more on esthetic reasons. We always know that an author is lurking behind the story, but there is an element of the willing suspension of disbelief; we don't think about that. When the illusion of an independent story is disrupted, as in O'Brien's book, for me the resulting confusion does not seem to seem to enhance the meanings. O'Brien seems to say that there was not a way for him to find the essence of his experience without resorting to imagination, which is not objectionable. Maybe he wanted to make the impossibility of writing pure memoir a theme of his book. This is what I find myself wishing he had not done in the way he did. Although I could be persuaded in the other direction, I think.
Post Reply

Return to “The Things They Carried - by Tim O'Brien”