View part of O'Brien video
Read "Ambush"
"They carried all the emotional baggage of men who might die. Grief, terror, love, longing--these were intangibles, but the intangibles had their own mass and specific gravity, they had tangible weight. They carried shameful memories. They carried the common secret of cowardice.... Men killed, and died, because they were embarrassed not to."
A finalist for both the 1990 Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Critics Circle Award, The Things They Carried marks a subtle but definitive line of demarcation between Tim O'Brien's earlier works about Vietnam, the memoir If I Die in a Combat Zone and the fictional Going After Cacciato, and this sly, almost hallucinatory book that is neither memoir nor novel nor collection of short stories but rather an artful combination of all three. Vietnam is still O'Brien's theme, but in this book he seems less interested in the war itself than in the myriad different perspectives from which he depicts it. Whereas Going After Cacciato played with reality, The Things They Carried plays with truth. The narrator of most of these stories is "Tim"; yet O'Brien freely admits that many of the events he chronicles in this collection never really happened. He never killed a man as "Tim" does in "The Man I Killed," and unlike Tim in "Ambush," he has no daughter named Kathleen. But just because a thing never happened doesn't make it any less true. In "On the Rainy River," the character Tim O'Brien responds to his draft notice by driving north, to the Canadian border where he spends six days in a deserted lodge in the company of an old man named Elroy while he wrestles with the choice between dodging the draft or going to war. The real Tim O'Brien never drove north, never found himself in a fishing boat 20 yards off the Canadian shore with a decision to make. The real Tim O'Brien quietly boarded the bus to Sioux Falls and was inducted into the United States Army. But the truth of "On the Rainy River" lies not in facts but in the genuineness of the experience it depicts: both Tim's went to a war they didn't believe in; both considered themselves cowards for doing so. Every story in The Things They Carried speaks another truth that Tim O'Brien learned in Vietnam; it is this blurred line between truth and reality, fact and fiction, that makes his book unforgettable. --Alix Wilber --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Discussion questions
* Why does the narrator lie to his daughter, and how does he justify it? Do you think she will ask him the same question when she's older? Why/Why not?
* The narrator "keep[s] writing war stories." What does he expect the writing to do? Do you think it is working?
* Why doesn't the narrator let the soldier pass? How do you think you would have reacted in a similar situation?
* Why do you think the narrator focuses on the gory details of the soldier's death?
* Kiowa tells the narrator that it was a "good kill." What does this phrase mean in its military context? Do you agree or disagree with Kiowa's interpretation? Why/Why not?
* How do individuals justify killing during wartime when they would not kill during times of peace? What does this tell you about humans' tendencies toward self-preservation?
* What steps could the narrator take to end his own torment about killing the man? How can we come to grips with the guilt we feel over some of our actions?
Post a comment.
HMWK: For tomorrow, read "The Things They Carried" short story
The steps the narrator could take in ending his torment about killing the man could be to take a step back and think about the real reasons for why he killed him. Doing this should ease his pain a bit more. We can come to grips with the guilt we feel over some of our actions by doing the same thing the narrator should do: Take a moment and think about our actions and why we did them. There is usually always a reason behind every situation, so by doing this, it should give us a better understanding on the guilt we feel over our actions.
ReplyDeleteThe narrator lies to his daughter about if he killed anyone, but it's easily justify for that. She was too young, and so innocent, that it would be way better for her not to know, it least until she is older.
ReplyDeleteHe does not let the soldier just past by because his body reacted before he even had time to thing about this. He focuses on the gory details of the death because he wanted to show the point that war terrible and gory.
It basicly shows that when a person's own life is in danger, that they react, and even sometimes kill another. I would guess that it would be hard to ge tover the guilt of killing another person, not just for the pain that the soldier felt just before death, but more so to the family of the one that was killed.
For the question regarding the narrator's daughter...
ReplyDeleteThe narrator lies to his daughter in order to keep his image intact. He is supposed to play the role of a father, and as that role he is seen and expected to be loving, over-protective, and caring. In his daughter's eyes, he is the "good" guy, the one who would never even think about doing something so horrible to anybody. The narrator was probably afraid of the real answer, afraid of exposing the truth to someone expected to remain so innocent.
I'm not exactly quite sure if the daughter would ever ask the question again. For when you're young, you truly believe that your father has never played the role of the "bad" guy, and even if there are doubts in your mind, you make yourself believe it's true. But as his daughter would grow older, she would eventually learn about the Vietnam War in school. In school, the daughter might put two and two together, to realize that her father was in fact never close to being perfect, and that he made human mistakes and even did things consider "bad." I think that once she is at this point of figuring things out for herself, she will either just drop it (for now she knows the truth)... or become more interested and curious about her dad's personal experiences. I think that once she learns more about what war is about, she will be more forgiving to a not so perfect dad then if she was younger. I also think she might be less frightened of her father... and for these reasons, this is how I think her father has justified it.
"Good Kill" is a term used in the military as a term of achievement said from one soldier to another. It indicates that you have preformed a "clean kill" which means a kill with little to no engagement or resistance from the enemy. Also, it is a way to credit a kill to a specific person, as confirmed kills are known to earn you respect and rank in the military, thus saying "good kill" is a way of saying "That was your kill. Good Job."
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kiowa. In military terms, it was a good kill. Minimal ammunition was spent, no positions were compromised and there were no friendly casualties. Does this mean I think killing is good? Absolutely not, but if you are soldier and it is your job, and in your best interests to kill the man with a gun standing 30 yards from you, that could possibly kill you, than I think it is something worth doing as efficient as possible.
-Zachariah Bellucci
I think the experience was one that O'Brien, or at least "Timmy," was deeply effected by. For example, he creates a daughter to relate the story to, I think to show the comparison between innocence and death, and how a man can be so altered by an action such as this, that he results to lying to his daughter. I think the daughter may also be a symbol for the part of himself that wants to deny, so badly, the fact that he took this mans life, or, in the case of the real story, that he could have. It is this tortured side trying to tell the naive, child like side that he went to Vietnam with that everything is going to be okay.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the question about his daughter he lied to her because at such a young age such as 9 kids dont want to hear that their father has killed someone. They're too young and too innocent to comprehend hearing their father killed someone. At the time he felt like it was the right thing to do. She may ask later on when she's older and if she does ask he would probably tell her the truth this time because she's older and she can handle the truth about what rally happened.
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't let the soldier pass because it was in his nature to kill anyone he saw and his body just acted before he had a time to think about whether or mnot he was an enemy or if he should be killed. If I were in his position and after being at war and being told to kill people I probably would've have done the same thing. It was nailed into his brain that he was supposed to kill and so thats what he did.
The narrator continues to tell war stories to inform people about how tramatic, aggressive, brutal war can be. But also to teach people about war from the point of view of a former soldier who lived it, saw death, killed etc. Most of the time we hear about wars in history books where most of the time the people writing about them haven't experienced war themselves so they can't tell them about personal feelings and expriences.
Steps the narrator can take to lessen his torment would be to realize that he was told and taught to kill people, the enemy. It was nailed into his brain for a period of time and so thats what he did. I think that i he just excepts that he would better off in some ways. I also agree with what Erin said that if we just stop for a moment and think about what we did that we feel guilty about and think about why we did it can give us a better understanding of what we did. If both we and the narrator do this is can lessen our guilt for whatever it is we're feeling gi=uilty about.
I think that the narrator can never truly end his torment about killing another person, but if he accepts that at the time he was not thinking clearly and try to forgive himself then he can move on. When we are guilty because of our own actions then we should try to figure out why we feel guilty, make amends and forgive and accept the mistake we made.
ReplyDeleteThe character lies to her daughter because he wants to protect her from the truth, I don't think she will ask him again, she would already know. I believe that the reason the author goes into detail about the gory dead body is because the character can't get the image out of his head after acting on impulse and ambushing him.
ReplyDeleteHe lies to his daughter because he thought she couldn't handle something like that at such a young age. Also, he may have thought that his daughter would have perceived him as a monster, or that maybe he might kill her too. She may ask him again just our of curiosity.
ReplyDeleteHe keeps writing about war because it's like he's releasing his feelings that he has kept bottled up for so long.
He doesn't let the soldier pass cause he acts on impulse and thinks he could be a possible threat. I would have inspected the person a bit more, instead of immediately chucking a grenade at him.
He focuses on his death because those kind of moments in ones life don't just go away. It sticks with you forever.
"Good Kill" means that the subject has been taken care of, and that their mission is a success because the subject is no longer a threat.
It's their duty, they made an oath to serve their country. They're being told to kill, instead of killing someone randomly they hate back home.
The narrator doesn't let the soldier pass simply because of how war has effected his mind. In a time of war, it often boils down to a "kill or be killed" situation. Either you kill a possible assailant, or you are the one running the risk of death. While later in life, the narrator believes that the man would have simply walked by, who said that he would not have? "Timmy" is the only point of view presented to us as an audience, thus we can only see his own thoughts on the subject. Had we been able to see this scene from the man's point of view, we could have learned what his intentions were and have known "Oh he was just walking through" or "Oh, he's trying to kill Timmy!" Personally, I am pretty certain I would have killed the man as well, in the same reflexive manner as Timmy.
ReplyDeleteAnd because I briefly mentioned the first part of the justification question above, I will skip the the second part of that question:
As seen with Timmy, humans are generally more biased towards the preservation of themselves. Self-preservation can actually be seen as a dormant instinct of sorts: When you're about to die, a sudden urge just fills your entire body telling you that you must "live on". Bleh, too many thoughts on this and it's about 10pm. I'll finish this in another post.
The narrator has been brought into a world where split-second timing is the deciding factor between getting home alive and getting blown up. He doesn't let the soldier pass because he has been trained to recognize the enemy and annihilate them quickly and efficiently: he doesn't let the soldier pass because he feels the impulse to throw what weapon he has. It's a mechanical act, completed in the most apathetic way, and I don't know if I, personally, would be able to detatch myself so completely.
ReplyDeleteThe narrator lies to his daughter because he knows she's not ready, not mature enough to have the conversation with her that he wants to have, to tell her the truth. She'll probably would ask the same question again when she was older as she would understands the concept of war better. She'll also look back and understand that she was ambushing her father with one of the questions that seem so simple to a child yet are so hard for their parents to answer.
ReplyDeleteHe does not let the soldier pass because war has been so ingrained in him that the motions are automatic. It's almost as if he watches it remotely from some dark corner of his head, it happens before he even commands his body to do so. He does it because he is part of the war immersed in it a single cell in the great beast, he acts upon instinct.The war is also a part of him. He writes because he is still carrying it, but it's not helping because it's not something he can get rid of. As evidenced by the "ambush" of his feelings, no matter how much he writes it will probably always be with him.
The narrator probably keeps writing war stories to release, release all of those emotions that he has inside of him and can't grapple with but he knows paper can. One way that the narrator can end his torment about killing a man is by talking to someone. One thing that makes people feel guilty is when they know they've done something horrible, and if they tell someone in a way it sets them free, then no longer are they carrying the burden alone. That same process can be used by any of us to come to grips with some of our guilt.
ReplyDeleteThe narrator must keep justifying his killing of the young man with the same excuse, self defense. He says that the man walking by would have done the same thing if their positions were switched. Kiowa justifies the narrator's act by calling it a "good kill", meaning that he was doing the man a favor of killing him quickly. This constant reference to self-defense shows how humans can justify such horrible acts with rationalizations that they need, and it illustrates how humans have waged war after war upon each other, for they believe it was in self-defense.
ReplyDelete* Why does the narrator lie to his daughter, and how does he justify it? Do you think she will ask him the same question when she's older? Why/Why not?
ReplyDeleteHe lies to protect her from the horrid experiences that she might not be capable of handling. He also probably does not know how to tell someone so precious to him something so awful that he may have done. As she matures and becomes more knowledgable she will most likely ask again, but in the mean time she was not mature enough to handle it at the time.
He lied to his daughter to not give her an image of her father as a killer.
ReplyDeleteHe keeps writing to explore the source of his guilt. It doesn't work well but at least it's a release.
He kills the man out of a sense of duty and automatic fear and I think I would have done the same.
He torments himself by focusing on the gore because he can't help it.
"good kill" refers to the clean and inconsequential way the man died.
Humans , when given the option to kill and when in they need to survive, will go to great lengths.
He needs to accept the death as a fact because he can't change the past.
The narrator lied to his daughter to keep from warping her image of him
ReplyDeleteand to protect her innocence from the horrible experiences that people sometimes have to endure. I think the author keeps writing war stories because he may think that the people that fought and killed in the war need a voice in which to tell what living war was like. I think the narrator didn't let the soldier pass because thats what he was meant to do, it seems almost like he didn't have a choice of whether to throw the grenade or not. As stated in the chapter he put no thought into what the consequences of his actions would be, he just tossed the grenade as though it could have been a baseball. If I were in the same situation I think I would have reacted the same way but also would have felt guilty afterward live the narrator. I believe that the narrator focuses on the details of the soldier's death because it was imprinted in his mind, I know that when I remember significant moments in my life I can recall almost every detail.
I think the narrator writes about his past because he's haunted by it. He's probably convinced himself that putting his thoughts to paper will help him quell his horrible memories. He does it constantly because it relieves him of his pains. It's become a medicine for him, that he must continually take. As for the detail towards the gore in his stories; it's probably become one of the most painful aspects of his memories. He remains transfixed on it, because he turn away from it. Even if he understands all of this, he could never find a way to express this to his nine year old daughter.
ReplyDeleteThe narrator lies to his daughter because she's so young; he feels that he needs to protect her from the truth. I think he may also be afraid that she will look at him differently, possibly with fear. She probably will ask that question again, since kids figure out that their parents lie to them as they grow older.
ReplyDeleteThe narrator may write his war stories to come to terms with what he and his peers did, to make sense of or find some truth in their actions. It doesn't appear to be working, since the narrator seems to still be haunted.
He kills the soldier out of paranoia and a sort of blind terror. I'm not sure how I would react in that situation. I'd like to say that I would let the soldier pass, but I can see being so scared and panicked that you just make that decision, maybe not even consciously.
I suppose he puts a focus on the gory details because they stand out so vividly in his memories. It may also be that what he saw in the aftermath was easier to tell that what he felt.
A "good kill" in the military sense is one that is swift and clean. I guess in that interpretation Kiowa was right, but it's difficult for me to think of any killing as "good."
Soldiers justify killing as something necessary, since they're in a kill-or-be-killed world. This would suggest that the human instinct for self-preservation is stronger than any morals we may have in a less dangerous situation.
I would think that the narrator probably should talk with other people about it despite his shame, maybe other war vets or a therapist. A lot of times I find that the only way I can forgive myself for something is to consciously think to myself, "It's okay. I forgive you," even if it's something I could have or should have done differently.
And now everyone knows I talk to myself.....
I think that the narrator lies to his daughter in order to protect her innocence and to keep an image of himself as a safe protector who wouldn't kill another human. She'll probably ask him again when she's older just because people tend not to believe everything their parents had once told them. I believe that by writing all the war stories, the narrator wants to figure out his own issues with war that he's had to face and how to deal with them. I feel like it isn't really working because he still seems messed up.
ReplyDeleteindividuals justify killing during wartime rather than killing during times of peace by knowing that they are killing for their country in times a war. The only reason they are at war is to serve their country, which would justify why they must kill. Individuals don't kill during times of peace because there is no needed. If things are peaceful there would be no reason to start an event such as killing. Humans' tendencies toward self- preservation would be to restrain themselves- being there is not a reason to kill.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe narrator focuses on gory details to attract the audience. In any story the audience wants to feel the pain and emotion that is carried within the story. The plot of a story alone does not make up a whole novel it's the extra additions that adds to the excitement in the novel. In order to keep the interest in the audience the narrator must add details that might be a little gory and gruesome.
ReplyDeleteThe narrator can never really get over the fact that he killed someone because of the fact that the took other human life. He may have some mental conflicts where he may be thinking I did what I was ordered to do, but I just took the life of other human. To get over it, I think he much reach a place within himself to forgive himself and face all the wrongs he has done during war.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the 'daughter'...
ReplyDeleteThe narrator decided not to reveal to his 'daughter' if he killed someone in Vietnam because he was afraid of her reaction and feared that it would ruin his fatherly image. Also, the innocence of child youth and civilian life cannot understand the brutality of war. When she is older, she will ask again because children are easily aroused with speculation of important unanswered questions; especially concerning morality in war. The narrator's writing of "Ambush" was his tranquilizer to cope with the fact that he killed another human being. Also, "Ambush" was written for his 'daughter' to read someday to understand how he feels.
(Khari)
ReplyDeleteThe narrator sees the whistling stranger, a recognized agent of the enemy, and reacts. That's why he does what he does-- because he reacts. The brain's job is to take in your surroundings and put them up against templates for behavior and act accordingly. The narrator's quietly hostile situation triggered his mechanical moving through time and space, taking hold of his arms and by extension, the grenade. I don't see why I would've acted any more differently in that situation, except for maybe my frontal cortex would catch up to the back part of the brain which does all the subtle calculating and try to make sense of what it was evaluating. But I'd probably talk myself out of making "sense" of anything, and leave it to my reflexes to take control in a reflexive environment.