Style

The style of this book is confusing-not as bad as The Sound and The Fury- but still pretty confusing. Though Faulkner does seem to use parallel constructions and, oddly enough, (I'm not sure if there is a separate term for this or if it counts as an odd parallel) he uses the same words but changes the form. Like with Vardaman on page 55: "I strike at them, striking" and " wheeling on two wheels." It sometimes occurs and seems very odd and stylistic. His sentences also seem to sometimes use an odd progression, one thing in one sentence leading to another and so on. It seems very intentional and yet it doesn't make much sense most of the time.

Context

Due to the drawl and having read Faulkner before, I can assume that the place of the novel is somewhere in the South-east of the United States. Alongside of this, because of Faulkner's last book I believe that this novel takes place some time after the Civil War, but also some time during most likely early to mid reconstruction era. Since looking at the back of the book, it has confirmed that the book takes place in the Mississippi countryside, which it true to his form.

TTTC Question

Question: What is the purpose behind the stylistic quirks?

Though simple, this question seems highly important. Everything is done with a purpose/goal. If there were not a reason for the detailed repetition of phrases, sentences, and even certain paragraphs, then O’Brien would have no reason to include them at all. I understand that as a reader, I will never really know his true purpose and thinking behind this sort of writing style, but I feel like there is more to it than even what is picked up by students on a surface level. I personally have not read anything else by Tim O’Brien, and have nothing to compare with- but I wouldn’t think that such specific repetition would show up just as a quirk and a sort of signature for O’Brien. As I said before, there is without a doubt a purpose- especially considering the extent that he occasionally uses to recreate the exact wording (or even the times where he uses similar wording, but increases his level of detail).

Again, being a reader (and a high school student, at that) maybe I’m not supposed to understand. There seem to be many underlying pieces to this book that only come to light with experience or maturity or even simple time. If that’s the case, then so be it. Maybe it has to do with getting the point across or trying to get an outside third party (the reader) to get an understanding of how the mindset flows. However, O’Brien constantly discredits reasons as simple as this, which is why I’m led to believe that there is something more to the repetition than just trying to get the point across or to prove his skill as a writer.

And who knows; maybe I'm looking way to deep into something that is just a staple of Tim O'Brien. It just seems to strange and distinct of a style to be something that can be waived off so quickly as a quirk.

TTTC Reality and Fiction

Throughout The Things They Carried there are points where O’Brien plays with the concept of reality and fiction.

Like we discussed in class, there are points where O’Brien fades the line between reality and fiction- such as his odd dedication and use of self-insertion- but besides this pulling reality into fiction, there are also certain moments where he pulls back, much like a reminder of the true nature of the story.

One of the interesting points is in “The Man I Killed.” It’s on page 119 and starts at “He had been born…” and goes all the way to “even when he was asleep.” Now, not only is this all a part of one paragraph (and takes up nearly the whole page), but I think that this specific insert acts as a reminder that this is a work of fiction. The point of this man is that he is the man killed by O’Brien. In reality the man would have been killed and that would have been the end of it. There would be no backstory, no possibilities. It’s a war and people die (as cold as that sounds, that’s the known reality). This man is never given a name, yet as readers we get a view into his life, his strengths and his weaknesses- aspects that fall outside of physical description and concrete facts. This reminder is also enforced by the fact that after this long, descriptive story of this unnamed dead man, the book moves right back into focus, shifting to conversation.

TTTC #2

So, maybe this is because it's way too late at night/early in the morning, but I think there is a pattern of sorts. Not only is O'Brien going short, short, long (excluding the very first story), he also seems to be exploring other characters/ points of view and then back to himself/ 1st person. I'm not sure if this carries on throughout the book or again- just something that I'm tricking myself into thinking is a bigger deal than in reality- but if this is an actual thing, why? I can't really think of an newer (if there even is one) but I don't know. It just seems weird and repetitive and maybe interesting.

The Things They Carried

I noticed that in some of the sections, O’Brien uses a repetition of structure. Though that is hard to show here, due to formatting, certain lines line up in a fashion that it is the same line on top of itself. It first came up on page 7 when O’Brien writes “they all carried…they all carried.” When a reader looks at these two lines, they see the exact same line-up. This same idea is on page 36 with the repetition of “Kiowa saying…”

My question is why? What is the purpose of setting it up this way?

(I may have a possible answer but I’m not sure if I should include it. Something to do with the the position and the repetition and the militarist mindset.)

Unaccustomed Earth Question

Why does it seem that in the mother's death, Ruma feels more weighed down while her father seems to be happier and more free?

Well, to me it seems that her mother and father tolerated each other and were never really very happy in their marriage. Meanwhile, even though Ruma may not have had the greatest relationship with her mother, the fact remains that it is still her mother and that is a bond that cannot be broken (unlike a marriage).