Manifestations of Truth in How to Tell a War Story by Tim O’ Brien Essay Example for Free

Manifestations of Truth in How to Tell a War Story by Tim O’ Brien Essay How to Tell a War Story by Tim O’ Brien has taken into account various thematic expression and he uses an unusual style to narrate these thematic expression. It a balance-mix of story and reflective essay. O ‘Brien major concern remain the reality of truth. He illustrates various manifestations of truth and manifests that imagination is the major tool to locate the truth. In addition to that he develops a criterion for narrating a war story. â€Å"O’Brien shares the criteria with which the writer or teller and the reader or listener must be concerned by giving an extended definition of what a war story is or is not. The chapter How to Tell a True War Story focuses most extensively on the features that might be found in a true war tale. (Calloway, 1995) So story is multifaceted and its narrative technique is advanced as well unique. Tim O’ Brien has critically evaluated the criterion for writing a true war story. O’Brien demonstrates that memory and reminiscence are transient in nature and one can tell a story purely based on his memory. Memory is always prone to mental faculty of creating fiction. Sometime the character or the narrator admits the elements of fictionality in a true war story but mostly it goes unnoticed and unobserved. Same is the case with How to Tell a War Story as Mitchell Sanders admits to Tim O Brien (the protagonist) that although most of his tale is based on fact but there are elements of fiction. Hew says, â€Å"Last night, man,' Sanders states, I had to make up a few things . . . The glee club. There wasnt any glee club . . . No opera,' either (O’ Brien, 1998). But,' he adds, its still true' (O’ Brien, 1998). This is not distortion of truth but it is the limited nature of memory to recall things in proper order with minute details that urges human faculties to invent certain details. Furthermore, plain truth is not interesting enough to captivate the attention of the reader and amuse. In a Vietnam War story there can be pathos and miseries, deaths and destruction, but there is nothing pure to tell in the form of a story. O Brien himself explain this; â€Å"I think exercising the imagination is the main of finding the truth†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Naparsteck, 1991, p. 10) So memories are true and well as invention simultaneously. In â€Å"Things They Carried†, collection short stories from which this story was taken, O’ Brien he acts as the narrator. So readers suppose that he himself was veteran of the war and observed everything on his own but his are not the first hand account of these tales. They are told by various veterans of wars and were later crafted by O’Brien. So both veterans and the writers has invented certain situations and mingled it with the real story. O’Brien says that it is not unethical or wrong to develop a story in this way. He says, â€Å"â€Å"You’d feel cheated if it never happened. †(O’ Brien). A story is developed on its own and follows a natural pattern. In this way, O’Brien implies that truth distorts when it passes through the mental processes. Various pre-conceived notions, past experiences, prejudices and men’s inventive powers cast its own impression on it. But it is natural phenomenon. O’Brien explains this in the story; In any war story, but especially a true one, 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. When a booby trap explodes, you close your eyes and duck and float outside yourself. When a guy dies, like Lemon, you look away and then look back for a moment and then look away again. The 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, 1998) Readers accept this balance mix-up of reality and invention but O’Brien, however, does not allow his readers to take these things for granted and inquires the whole idea of memoirs, recollections, and the short capability of memory to communicate the reality with accuracy. As far as the narrative structure is concerned, O’Brien himself calls it a mix of essay and fiction. In an interview to Naparsteck (1991) he says that, â€Å"In a way, it’s part essay and a part fiction but in a way it’s neither†¦To me, it has singleness or unity to it. Rather than part things this and part things that, it’s all those things together. †(p. 9) This manifests his idea of truth as a whole. He does not differentiate genuine reality from perceived reality and considers them conflation of each other and they as whole constitute the truth. Unquestionably, truth and fabrication is another theme that Tim O Brien takes into consideration in the story. He is of the view that in narrating a war story, untruth is not conflicting with truth. They are the facets of a single reality. One is real and other is inventive but both are genuine. During the war, truth is unclear and mostly uncertain. It takes varies semblances band is manifested in various contradictory forms. So both true and inventive part of the story seems contradictory but in reality, they are same and equivalent. This paradoxical manifestation of truth is symbolized by the death Curt Lemon. O’Brien as narrator is familiar with the situation in which Curt was killed. He was shot dead by a 105mm round while â€Å"he was playing catch with Rat Kiley†. But as O’Brien recollect this in his mind; he perceives that Curt was killed by daylight. This narration is different from the first one. But none is untrue. 105 round was tool but sunlight also played a major role in his death. Sunlight is also chief cause thus. In this way, O’Brien differentiates between the reality that took place and the reality that appears to take place. No account is untrue but both a different manifestation of same reality i. e. one is real and other is perceived as real. Tim Obrien does not use proper literary devices to convey this dichotomy like Golding does in â€Å"Lord of The Flies† where he use symbol of fire and convey its paradoxical nature. Conventionally, fire refers to destruction and damage but Golding uses it as a rescue symbol when boys trapped in an island use fire to get attention of the passing by ship and in the last, they are saved by the aero- plane that noticed the fire signaling rescue. But mostly, it is not possible to attach two opposite meaning to a single word as beautifully done by Golding in the novel. O’ Brien attempts the same. For example, he says, â€Å"it is safe to say that in a true war story nothing is ever absolutely true,† he generate a contradiction but it is not a single word or a symbols that he utilizes to communicate the paradox. It is the whole context that helps him make this statement. Stephen Kaplan sums up this thematic expression of reality in his book; Understanding Tim O’Brien. He says, â€Å"[O’Brien] completely destroys the fine line dividing fact from fiction and tries to show that fiction (or the imagined world) can often be truer, especially in the case of Vietnam, than fact. O’ Bren plays with truth in How to Tell a War Story and sometimes fabricates it. The chief purpose is to highlight the paradox of truth and to demonstrate its various facets and manifestations. He leaves it to the readers to discern between genuine truth and perceived truth. The writer’s use of a narrator Tim O’ Brien in this collection of short stories is at the same time appealing as well as disturbing. The confusion deepens when it told by the author that the narrator is a middle aged man telling the stories about the Vietnam War. The use of a narrator is interesting as it forces the readers to think that the story is basically rooted in some real life experiences. It also helps in joining together the disjointed elements in the tales. This tool also helps the writer to play and employ some untruths and marvelous things without suffering from the fear of being questioned for their authenticity. The readers suffer from the problem that is the narrator is just playing the role of a mouth piece for the writer or is he an independent character. However, by using this device the writer is able to convey the message to the readers that what is discussed in the story as truth is somewhat similar to what actually happened during the war. If the reader accepts that the narrator is reliable and he is telling the truth than he faced a dilemma. As in the beginning of the stories the narrator tells that he is a real person and going to tell real stories and in the end he tells them that everything that he has just told is just falsehood. The author might be using this illusion to convey the readers a way in which a war story should be told and the basic truths that these war stories carries. He might also be trying to make a point that the story is basically true and logical though it may not have actually happened in the Vietnam War. The construction of this collection of stories is not following the traditional way of telling the stories. There are stories within a story that are linked very beautifully together in a novel way. Each story is basically an endeavor, on the part of narrator, to make a point clear. In order to explain or discuss a thought or experience the narrator start telling another story. These stories, are however, not linked in the traditional way. On finishing the book the reader is made to realize the truth as an organic whole, in a strange way, and not in the ordinary way as is the truth in conveyed to them. In this style of story telling the writer is not bound to follow the chronological flow of time. He is free to roam about according to his will. He can discus the realities and the sequence of the happening of events according to how he deems it right and not by the traditional way of doing it. The writer is basically of the view that the ‘war stories’ need to present the ‘true illustration’ and it need not to indulge in ‘analysis’ so it is important that the short stories should remain true to the reality and the long story or the parent-story need not to be something actually happened in reality. Rosemary Kings explain this phenomenon in this way; OBriens word play in the title hinges on the definition of true, a word he uses alternately throughout the story to mean either factually accurate, or something higher and nobler. He does this through three embedded narratives: Mitchell Sanderss narration of Curt Lemons death; the narrators description of hearing Sanderss story; and Tim OBriens commentary on how to tell a true war story. (n1) Each narrator claims his story is an authentic retelling of events as they occurred in Vietnam, asserting the historicity of their narratives. (King, 1999) The structure of the book is such that the chapters and the short stories are basically there to help the readers understand the real story, the real and the tangible truth. These are basically the ‘things’ carried by the parent story. The comments of the narrator helps the reader understand the organic wholeness of the story just as the chapters in the long story are connected together by the connecting views and ideas of the author thrown here and there in the long story. Rosemary King also highlights the importance of title of the story; â€Å"OBriens title delivers punch not only through the conflated definition of true but also through the distinction of what makes a war story true. He underscores the importance of manipulating what actually happened to get at the essence of truth. † Above-mentioned discussion and supported arguments and evidence clearly manifest that O’Brien has successfully asserted that truth has paradoxical nature and it can be conveyed as a whole i. e. a balance mix- of what happened and what seems to happen. In reality this pradox dissolved in a complete whole. He further illustrated that human mental processes modifies the objective reality. His own description of reality from the subjective point of view of the narrators in the story is a skillful representation of this phenomenon. Thus his story is a successful example of metafiction.

Voltaires Candide Essay -- Voltaire essays research papers

Candide, written by Voltaire and published in 1759, is based in the Age of the Enlightenment. Candide is a satiric tale of a virtuous man's search for the truest form of happiness and his ultimate acceptance of life's disappointments. The illegitimate son of the Baron's sister; Candide is raised in the Castle of Westphalia and taught by his friend and philosopher of metaphysico-theologo-cosmolo-nigology, Dr.Pangloss. Candide is abruptly cast out from the castle when he and Lady Cunegonde are found indiscreetly kissing behind a screen. Broken hearted and emotionally lost by the separation from Lady Cunegonde, his true love; Candide wanders off. After being tricked into servitude with the Bulgar army, Candide discovers that his one and only love Lady Cunegonde is dead and his friend Dr. Pangloss is deathly sick; Candide then decides that all is not lost and that a cure must be found for Pangloss. Tragedy, adventure and a series of horrible events follow Candide as he is forced to over come misfortune to find true happiness; in the end he determines that all is not well and that he must work in order to find even a small amount of pleasure in life. The principal theme presented throughout majority of the novel is "Optimism" by the main character Candide and how that theme is incorporated into his winning outcomes of terrible situations. His good friend and philosopher Dr.Pangloss first introduces this Optimism that Candide believes. Yet this optimist foundation is being con... Voltaire's Candide Essay -- Voltaire essays research papers Candide, written by Voltaire and published in 1759, is based in the Age of the Enlightenment. Candide is a satiric tale of a virtuous man's search for the truest form of happiness and his ultimate acceptance of life's disappointments. The illegitimate son of the Baron's sister; Candide is raised in the Castle of Westphalia and taught by his friend and philosopher of metaphysico-theologo-cosmolo-nigology, Dr.Pangloss. Candide is abruptly cast out from the castle when he and Lady Cunegonde are found indiscreetly kissing behind a screen. Broken hearted and emotionally lost by the separation from Lady Cunegonde, his true love; Candide wanders off. After being tricked into servitude with the Bulgar army, Candide discovers that his one and only love Lady Cunegonde is dead and his friend Dr. Pangloss is deathly sick; Candide then decides that all is not lost and that a cure must be found for Pangloss. Tragedy, adventure and a series of horrible events follow Candide as he is forced to over come misfortune to find true happiness; in the end he determines that all is not well and that he must work in order to find even a small amount of pleasure in life. The principal theme presented throughout majority of the novel is "Optimism" by the main character Candide and how that theme is incorporated into his winning outcomes of terrible situations. His good friend and philosopher Dr.Pangloss first introduces this Optimism that Candide believes. Yet this optimist foundation is being con...

Guidance and Discipline Issues in the Early Education Essay

Children who come from a lower economic background have a much greater disadvantage than other children. Early childhood represents a particularly important time to target children’s risk of behavior problems through proper guidance and discipline. There is a great need for preschool classrooms where processes are able to support a young child’s emotional and behavioral development. Low-income children who attend a lower quality preschool do show an emotional and behavioral adjustment and are placed at a substantially greater risk in the long run (Magnuson, & Waldfogel, 2007). This shows us that even though the intentions to teach the child where there, we may be doing more harm to the child then help. It is imperative to learn whether interventions that target social-emotional development in preschool can avert the risk of higher behavior problems among low-income children while also supporting their emotional, behavioral, and academic adjustment. Children who are exposed to a wide range of psychosocial stressors such as living in a poor neighborhood are at a greater risk for developing emotional and behaviors issues. These children also have minimal access to mental health services (Fantuzzo et al. , 1999). Early childhood is quite possibly the most important time to target children’s risk of behavior problems. Evidence regarding the onset of behavior problems as early as toddlerhood is mounting. With this evidence, it suggests that the earlier the intervention is conducted there is a better chance for a more positive result. The goal is to reduce the early childhood behavior issues while preparing the children for school readiness. In order to do this, preschool classrooms have become increasingly important. Approximately 67% of young children in the United Stated are enrolled in center-based or non-relative care prior to enrollment in kindergarten (Innes, Denton, & West, 2001). If children from ethnic and minority groups are less likely to be enrolled in a beneficial program, the gap in education may be widened. Children who spend less time in beneficial programs and attend lower-quality programs do not receive the benefit that preschool is intended to give. The experience of a high quality preschool may narrow the racial and ethic gaps, if children from minority groups are more likely to be enrolled and spend more time in them. When it comes to preschool programs and ethic gaps in school readiness, there is shown to be a difference in racial diversity of school readiness. It is shown that a child who attends a quality center or preschool program is more ready to learn upon entering school. These children are much more likely able to know what is expected as far as behavior in the classroom. These children are given the skills in classroom guidance that they needed prior to entering elementary school. However, since not all preschools are of high quality and there are differences in the type and quality of programs, not all children are receiving the benefit. According to Magnuson and Waldfogel, black children are more likely to attend preschool than white children, but may experience lower- quality care. Hispanic children are much less likely that white children to attend preschool. (Magnuson & Waldfogel 2005) The best estimates of the effects of early childhood care and school readiness note that these programs enhance children’s cognitive development and academic skills.

William Shakespeares Play The Tragedy - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 6 Words: 1652 Downloads: 6 Date added: 2019/07/30 Category Literature Essay Level High school Topics: King Lear Essay William Shakespeare Essay Did you like this example? William Shakespeares play The Tragedy of King Lear is a dark tale of betrayal whose popularity is seen in its many productions and adaptations. The play itself not completely original, in fact, as the main plot and characters are Shakespeares versions of the British cleric Geoffrey of Monmouths recounting of the story in History of the Kings of Britain. Shakespeare does, however, add other characters to his play that are not in Geoffreys version of the story, like Edmund and Edgar who have no direct equivalent in History, but Geoffreys influence on these characters are clear.. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "William Shakespeares Play The Tragedy" essay for you Create order In the play, there is no mention of Cordelias nephews, Margan and Cunedagius, but the roles they fulfill in History match the roles of the Edmund and Edgar. One adaptation of the play, King Lear directed by Richard Eyre, supports the significance of how Edmund and Edgars roles in the play correspond to the roles of Cordelias nephews. Through the staging of the brothers, how the film chooses to modify and deliver their lines, and how they interact with other characters exaggerates Edmund and Edgars influences in the tragedies of the play. The staging of the film King Lear places most of the audiences focus on the acting and plot of the story, rather than highlighting a specific time or place. It appears that two large rooms are used for all the indoor scenes and minimal, simple props signal a change in scene or location (King Lear). In addition to this, the film uses the original language of the play but shortens or removes entirely many of the long speeches given by characters (King Lear). These modifications drive the plot forward, as many of the speeches explain the motives of characters actions which can sometimes dilute the impact of the actions they are speaking about. The combination of simplistic staging and altered lines leaves the portrayal of the characters the focus of the film, which offers more direct points of analysis between the play and its film adaptation. First, Shakespeares Edmund and Edgar have clear connections to Geoffreys Margan and Cunedagius. Both pairs are marked by a desire for power beyond what they have. Cordelias nephews feel that because she is a woman, she should not rule, and so they believe they should rule instead of her (Geoffrey 33). Similarly, Edmund is offended that his legitimacy and age cause him to be unworthy of an inheritance, which he believes he is entitled to, though Edgar will receive one because he is legitimate and the firstborn (Shakespeare 1.2.1-23). To gain power, Margan and Cunedagius imprison Cordelia, where she commits suicide (33). While Cordelia does not kill herself in Shakespeares play, Edmund does imprison her and stages her murder as a suicide (5.3.303-6). There is also a parallel in the demise of Margan and Edmund. In History, Margan no longer wants to rule with his cousin, so he attacks Cunedagius claiming his right to the throne as the eldest of the two (Geoffrey 34). Cunedagius then bests Margans army and kills his cousin himself (Geoffrey 34). This conflict between the cousins is a story of the victim to the hero for Cunedagius. It is seen in the play when Edmund also attempts to gain control over Edgar, and when Edgar discovers this, he challenges his brother and bests Edmund in a duel in which he dies (Shakespeare 5.3.358). Again, while there is no explicit connection between Shakespeares Edmund and Edgar and Cordelias nephews in History, there are many parallels. The film emphasizes this important connection. The most noticeable way the film exaggerates Edmund and Edgars roles is how they stage these characters. Both brothers are on screen or placed in a scene where they are not specifically noted as being on stage in the play. One example is of the first scene of the play, in which Gloucester, Kent, and Edmund are the first characters to enter (Shakespeare 1.1). The film, however, shows Edgar on screen first, writing in a notebook, while Edmund looks at Edgar from behind with a devious smile, as if he is thinking about his plot against Edgar (King Lear). By introducing the brothers first, the film suggests that their story is a focus of the play, rather than a secondary story to Lears. Their introduction also foreshadows Edmunds actions against his brother and presents Edgar as an innocent victim. Additionally, the brothers were staged separately in the film in surprising ways, like Edmund noticeably eavesdropping on a conversation when he enters a scene too early at the end of Act 1 in the film. In the play, Goneril and Regan are discussing what they will do with Lear, and when they exit, Edmund enters at the start of Scene 2 (Shakespeare 1.1.329-355). In the film, Edmund enters while the sisters are still talking, and, thus, makes his first impressions on Goneril and Regan (King Lear). While he does not talk in this part of the film, the way he looks at them is with obvious flirtation, and the film is planting the seed of competition between the sisters early on. Edgars unexpected placement is seen less throughout the film, but he is depicted holding Lear as the king dies (King Lear). The film is drawing on the relationship Edgar and Lear fostered while out in the storm together to make their connection stronger than that between Lear and Kent or Lear and Albany, who are both witnessing Lears death as well (King Lear). This connection also suggests a familial bond, which reinforces that if Edgar was Cordelias nephew, he would be Lears grandson. Even without the connection to Histroy, Edmund and Edgar are prioritized through their placement in the film. As mentioned, the film changes the original lines of the play for primarily functional purposes. There are also modifications of lines that reveal insights about the characters motivations, especially for Edmund and Edgar. One way the film does this is by voicing over soliloquies, treating them as thoughts, rather than the actors voicing them allowed on stage as in the play. An important occurrence of this change is at the beginning of the film when Edmund is talking to Gloucester and Kent. In the first scene of Act 2 in the play, Edmund expresses his resentment about not inheriting from his father because he is illegitimate and that he will overcome it (Shakespeare 1.21-23). The film places a part of this soliloquy into his conversation with Kent and Gloucester as thoughts (King Lear). The effect of introducing Edmunds intentions early in the film puts a focus on his character as being the villain of the brothers. Similarly, Edgars soliloquy is also voiced over as thoughts in the film when he is leaving the shelter to help take Lear to Dover (King Lear). However, his thoughts contrast Edmunds because he is recognizing that his grief does not compare to Lears [w]hen that which makes me bend makes the King / bow and so comes to a selfless conclusion (Shakespeare 3.6.118-9). Presenting the brothers as opposites in the film by paralleling their soliloquies gives the audience a further reason to think of Edmund as a villain. This prompts their fight at the end of the film a nd play and supports the rift between Margan and Cunedagius in History. The way the film portrays the interactions between Edmund and Edgar and other characters also maintains the brothers importance to the plot. Further support for the concept that Edmund is evil while Edgar is innocent can be seen in their first interactions and their clothing. Though it is stated that Edgar is some year elder than [Edmund] in the play (Shakespeare 1.1.20), the film makes no such explicit distinction, though Edmund behaves as if he is older (King Lear). This show of age difference is seen in Edmunds pretend concern for his brother when he warns Edgar about their fathers anger at him as if he is playing a protective, brotherly role (Shakespeare 1.2.166-9). In this scene, Edmund is wearing dark clothes and has short, dark hair which heavily contrasts with Edgars loose, white shirt and long hair (King Lear). The audience can see visually how different the two are on the outside which corresponds to their motives and actions in the whole film. Aside from the actions with each other, Edmund and Edgars interactions with other characters seem to be prioritized in the film. One important instance of this is toward the end of the film, what is the end of Act 4 and the beginning of Act 5 in the play. In the last scene of Act 4, Cordelia and Lear reunite for the first time after her moving to France (Shakespeare 4.7). The scene before is Edgar killing Oswald and discovering the plot to kill Albany (4.6). However, the film skips the scene with Lear after Edmunds scene and goes directly into the first scene of Act 5 in which Edmund promises his love to Regan (Shakespeare 5.1.9-20). This second occurrence of Edmund and Edgars story being placed before Lears story is further evidence of the importance the film places on the brothers story. The audience is shown that Edmund and Edgar are not only important but just as important as the title character, King Lear. Overall, the film makes deliberate changes to situate Edmund and Edgars story as one of the main focal points of the movie. The influence of Cordelias nephews in History on the brothers in the play is also clear. Shakespeares integration of the brothers into the story of King Lear, as opposed to placing them at the end like Geoffreys Margan and Cunedagius, adds another dimension of betrayal and tragedy to the play. In the end, the film and play both point to Edmunds final confession: What you have charged me with, that have I done, / And more, much more (Shakespeare 5.3.195-6). Thus, the audience is to believe that Edmund has done more harm than the characters know, and more than the audience knows themselves.