In reading "The Treatment of Bibi Haldar," I couldn't help but think that it reminded me a lot of the fairytale "Cinderella." Many aspects of the two stories line up, but "The Treatment of Bibi Haldar," seemed to apply to real life much more than the fairytale.
There are characters in each story that somewhat correspond with one another. Bibi and Cinderella of course play similar roles in their respective stories. Meanwhile, Haldar, Bibi's cousin, and his wife take on similar characters to Cinderella's stepmother and stepsisters: they are somewhat forced to take care of Bibi once her father dies and they pretty much confine her to a storage room where they make her do boring work for them. Aside from these more obvious connections, I saw the other women in the apartment building as similar to the fairy godmother, as they try to help Bibi find a husband. Last but not least, though this may be a bit far-fetched, I saw the baby boy that Bibi has at the end of the story as the handsome prince, as this is what "cures" her.
The plots of the stories also seem to follow the same sort of path: like Cinderella, Bibi's kind father dies and is left with evil relatives who mistreat her and force her to work for them. One day, Bibi finds out that there is an option for her to be cured from her disease (which I thought was like Cinderella going to the ball), but her evil relatives refuse to help her to get a husband. Despite this, Bibi becomes cured and lives happily ever after.
The stories were not perfectly symmetric though. I found that the differences between the two stories were mainly things that simply made Bibi Haldar's story seem like it takes place in real life. After all, "Cinderella" is a fairy tale for a reason: it's not entirely realistic. For example, one difference between the two stories was that Bibi Haldar was described as "not pretty. Her upper lip was thin, her teeth too small. Her gums protruded when she spoke." (p. 160) Meanwhile, much of the story of Cinderella hinges on her being extremely pretty. A second difference is between the "fairy godmothers" of the stories. Cinderella's fairy godmother is definitely too good to be true, and she can magically transform Cinderella into a maiden fit for the ball. In Bibi Haldar's case, the women of her building, though they do sort of play a role as the fairy godmother, give a more half-hearted attempt at transforming Bibi and helping her find a husband. Furthermore, they definitely aren't eager to be responsible for her. This makes the "fairy godmother" character in Bibi Haldar's story seem much more human than Cinderella's fairy godmother.
The biggest difference between these stories though, is that the resolution in Cinderella's story is that she is basically swept off of her feet by a handsome prince and they live happily ever after. Bibi never gets married, but she is saved, like Cinderella, from her life of (somewhat) loneliness, mistreatment, and in Bibi's case, seizures. However, Bibi's "happily ever after" seems to be much more empowering and realistic: she becomes a successful single mother, basically starts her own business, and stops having seizures. We don't know who the father is, but he doesn't seem to have much impact on the rest of Bibi's life.
From these things, I felt like Lahiri took the classic Cinderella story and bent it to fit a more modern day scenario in a foreign setting. I'm not sure if this was actually Lahiri's goal, but I think it makes sense to look at it this way. What do you all think? Were these Lahiri's intentions? Do you see any other connections?
Monday, December 7, 2015
Friday, November 20, 2015
Ysrael vs. No Face
I appreciated that the story "No Face" gave us a new perspective into Ysrael's mind, and his portrayal in this story really contrasted with that of "Ysrael." In "Ysrael," he seemed to almost be a pathetic excuse for a human being, whereas in "No Face," he is portrayed as an empowered boy who is more normal (yet not normal in the same way, with the depiction of him as a superhero).
From both stories, we can see that physically, Ysrael is quite healthy (except for his face). However, the way that his physical abilities are described are very different in the two stories. In "Ysrael," this strength and speed makes him seem almost animal-like, which implies sub-human. For example, when Yunior describes how he hit Ysrael with a rock and then ran away, he says, "He's faster than a mongoose, someone said, but in truth he was even faster than that." First of all, by comparing him to a mongoose, it already seems animal-like. Though Yunior and his friends did seem fascinated by this, it was because they saw him as some kind of odd creature, not a boy their age. Another example of the way Yunior sees Ysrael happens when Yunior first sees him in the field:
"He was about a foot bigger than either of us and looked like he'd been fattened on that supergrain the farmers from Ocoa were giving their stock..."
From the story "No Face," we know that Ysrael does some sort of strength training to try to be muscular, and this may account for why Yunior thinks that he looks like he'd been "fattened." Since Ysrael is so tall and muscular, he is definitely a healthy boy, maybe even exceptionally strong, but Yunior only describes these things as abnormalities. He even goes as far to say, as you can see in the quote above, that Ysrael looks as if he got this way by eating like livestock.
Meanwhile, in the story "No Face," Ysrael is portrayed as nearly a superhero, which is perhaps how Ysrael pictures himself in his mind. From this story, we know that he is very muscular because he does fifty pull-ups every morning and other strength exercises. From this, we can figure that he probably has a pretty bulky stature. This is quite a contrast to the story "Ysrael," as I mentioned before, where Yunior speculates that he could be eating like an animal. As for Ysrael's speed, in "No Face," he seems to have superhuman powers, like that of flight, invisibility, etc. I saw the power of flight as a sort of extension of Ysrael being a quick runner in real life (the flight thing seemed to be part of his imagination to me). In this story, the speed is shown as a superhuman thing, rather than a subhuman thing, going back to him being compared to a mongoose.
On a different note, I had one last, somewhat counter-intuitive observation about these two stories. In "No Face," Ysrael is never referred to as "Ysrael," his real name, whereas he is only referred to as "Ysrael" in the other story. And yet the "No Face" was the more empowering story for this character. I thought that being called "No Face" and not his real name would be more demeaning, but looking back, it actually may have been more empowering. Though the nickname "No Face" may have been something cruel that people on the street called him, I felt like Ysrael turned this nickname around in his head to make it a sort of superhero name. Meanwhile, the name "Ysrael" in the story "Ysrael" earns a negative connotation with Rafa and Yunior. Even though it seems that it would be more respectful to call him by his real name, it is actually probably the other way around.
From both stories, we can see that physically, Ysrael is quite healthy (except for his face). However, the way that his physical abilities are described are very different in the two stories. In "Ysrael," this strength and speed makes him seem almost animal-like, which implies sub-human. For example, when Yunior describes how he hit Ysrael with a rock and then ran away, he says, "He's faster than a mongoose, someone said, but in truth he was even faster than that." First of all, by comparing him to a mongoose, it already seems animal-like. Though Yunior and his friends did seem fascinated by this, it was because they saw him as some kind of odd creature, not a boy their age. Another example of the way Yunior sees Ysrael happens when Yunior first sees him in the field:
"He was about a foot bigger than either of us and looked like he'd been fattened on that supergrain the farmers from Ocoa were giving their stock..."
From the story "No Face," we know that Ysrael does some sort of strength training to try to be muscular, and this may account for why Yunior thinks that he looks like he'd been "fattened." Since Ysrael is so tall and muscular, he is definitely a healthy boy, maybe even exceptionally strong, but Yunior only describes these things as abnormalities. He even goes as far to say, as you can see in the quote above, that Ysrael looks as if he got this way by eating like livestock.
Meanwhile, in the story "No Face," Ysrael is portrayed as nearly a superhero, which is perhaps how Ysrael pictures himself in his mind. From this story, we know that he is very muscular because he does fifty pull-ups every morning and other strength exercises. From this, we can figure that he probably has a pretty bulky stature. This is quite a contrast to the story "Ysrael," as I mentioned before, where Yunior speculates that he could be eating like an animal. As for Ysrael's speed, in "No Face," he seems to have superhuman powers, like that of flight, invisibility, etc. I saw the power of flight as a sort of extension of Ysrael being a quick runner in real life (the flight thing seemed to be part of his imagination to me). In this story, the speed is shown as a superhuman thing, rather than a subhuman thing, going back to him being compared to a mongoose.
On a different note, I had one last, somewhat counter-intuitive observation about these two stories. In "No Face," Ysrael is never referred to as "Ysrael," his real name, whereas he is only referred to as "Ysrael" in the other story. And yet the "No Face" was the more empowering story for this character. I thought that being called "No Face" and not his real name would be more demeaning, but looking back, it actually may have been more empowering. Though the nickname "No Face" may have been something cruel that people on the street called him, I felt like Ysrael turned this nickname around in his head to make it a sort of superhero name. Meanwhile, the name "Ysrael" in the story "Ysrael" earns a negative connotation with Rafa and Yunior. Even though it seems that it would be more respectful to call him by his real name, it is actually probably the other way around.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
The Heart
"How to Talk to Your Mother (Notes)" was one of the most interesting stories in this book, in my opinion. One interesting thing about it was how the narrator chose certain events each year to share, and these events seem quite random. However, some of these events came up multiple times, and one that stuck out to me was the progression of heart surgeries being performed.
Although heart transplants are significant accomplishments for humankind, there were also many other things going on in the world at the same time. So why does Ginnie choose to mention the progress of heart transplants throughout her life? My first guess was that it had something to do with her father, who died of some kind of heart problem. Chronologically, all of the mentions of heart surgeries comes after the death of her father, so Ginnie could be mentioning these events in thinking of her father, maybe wondering if one of these procedures could have saved him. Looking back, Ginnie also didn't have a very great relationship with her father, though, so maybe these heart references to her regretting how she and her father maybe didn't have as much of a connection as she wanted.
The heart idea could also have deeper symbolism, though, that are more specific to Ginnie and her mother. There are three mentions of heart surgery in the story, and all happen in the same year as a significant point in Ginnie's life. The first one (looking at it chronologically) is in 1963, when Ginnie realizes that she doesn't like the man "you thought you'd spend the rest of your life with." She then comments, "People and places you think you love may be people and places you hate." Two lines later, she mentions that a temporary artificial heart is invented. I feel like these two events may have a connection, as the narrator seems to see her own heart as deceiving her, as she realizes that she hates something that she thought she loved. By then commenting on the idea of an artificial heart being invented, it seems more personal to her.
The second reference to heart surgery is in 1967, when Ginnie's mother moves in with her. This is a significant in Ginnie and her mother's lives, as the mother is sick and Ginnie must take care of her. This seems to be a rough time for Ginnie, as she says she feels "many different emptinesses." In the same year, it is mentioned that the first successful heart transplant is performed. Therefore, this could be some symbolism of Ginnie's heart changing towards her mother, as their relationship must change as Ginnie is taking care of her mother.
The final of these references (chronologically, though first in the narrative), was in 1982. Ginnie starts off this year with the words "Without her" and goes on to describe how she sometimes talks to the refrigerator without her mother there. I get the sense that this is when she is finally realizing that she isn't used to her mother being gone, or she is finally coming to terms with it. This lines up with her mentioning that the first polyurethane heart is surgically implanted. This seems to imply that Ginnie has to permanently adjust to the absence of her mother; she has to have another change of heart towards her mother, hence the reference to a permanent heart implant.
This is a lot of me speculating from just five or so sentences in the story, but the recurring idea of a heart must have some significance. What do you all think? Were there any heart references that I missed? Am I reading way to far into this?
Although heart transplants are significant accomplishments for humankind, there were also many other things going on in the world at the same time. So why does Ginnie choose to mention the progress of heart transplants throughout her life? My first guess was that it had something to do with her father, who died of some kind of heart problem. Chronologically, all of the mentions of heart surgeries comes after the death of her father, so Ginnie could be mentioning these events in thinking of her father, maybe wondering if one of these procedures could have saved him. Looking back, Ginnie also didn't have a very great relationship with her father, though, so maybe these heart references to her regretting how she and her father maybe didn't have as much of a connection as she wanted.
The heart idea could also have deeper symbolism, though, that are more specific to Ginnie and her mother. There are three mentions of heart surgery in the story, and all happen in the same year as a significant point in Ginnie's life. The first one (looking at it chronologically) is in 1963, when Ginnie realizes that she doesn't like the man "you thought you'd spend the rest of your life with." She then comments, "People and places you think you love may be people and places you hate." Two lines later, she mentions that a temporary artificial heart is invented. I feel like these two events may have a connection, as the narrator seems to see her own heart as deceiving her, as she realizes that she hates something that she thought she loved. By then commenting on the idea of an artificial heart being invented, it seems more personal to her.
The second reference to heart surgery is in 1967, when Ginnie's mother moves in with her. This is a significant in Ginnie and her mother's lives, as the mother is sick and Ginnie must take care of her. This seems to be a rough time for Ginnie, as she says she feels "many different emptinesses." In the same year, it is mentioned that the first successful heart transplant is performed. Therefore, this could be some symbolism of Ginnie's heart changing towards her mother, as their relationship must change as Ginnie is taking care of her mother.
The final of these references (chronologically, though first in the narrative), was in 1982. Ginnie starts off this year with the words "Without her" and goes on to describe how she sometimes talks to the refrigerator without her mother there. I get the sense that this is when she is finally realizing that she isn't used to her mother being gone, or she is finally coming to terms with it. This lines up with her mentioning that the first polyurethane heart is surgically implanted. This seems to imply that Ginnie has to permanently adjust to the absence of her mother; she has to have another change of heart towards her mother, hence the reference to a permanent heart implant.
This is a lot of me speculating from just five or so sentences in the story, but the recurring idea of a heart must have some significance. What do you all think? Were there any heart references that I missed? Am I reading way to far into this?
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Eric's Unborn Sibling(s)
Looking back on the story, "The Man Child," I realized that there was a crucial character in the story that I barely even noticed the first time I read it: Eric's unborn brother or sister. We touched on this a little bit in class, but the loss of this child and, presumably, the possibility of having more children, was very important in Jamie's role in the story.
When Eric's mother was still pregnant with Eric's younger brother or sister, we can already see that it is not quite as happy for Jamie as it is for Eric's parents. We get a glimpse of their life before Eric's mother gets "taken away" on Jamie's birthday. The conversation on that day keeps has to do with how Jamie is getting old, which, as we can imagine, doesn't make him very happy. However, the conversation soon turns to Jamie's failed marriage, and how Jamie is getting a bit old to start a life like that of Eric's father, who seems to have it all: wife, son, and land. Jamie gets particularly upset, when Eric's father mentions their next child:
"--if it's a boy this time," his father said, "we'll name it after you."
"That's touching," said Jamie, "but that really won't do me -- or the kid -- a hell of a lot of good."
Here, Jamie is definitely bitter because he probably feels that he doesn't have all of the good things that Eric's father has. It probably feels like the fact that they are having another kid just rubs this in, and by offering to name the kid after him, if probably feels like they're offering him some sort of consolation prize. This all could contribute towards Jamie's general bitterness towards the family.
After Eric's mother is taken away and they lose the baby, Jamie's role in the family seems to change. Although he spends more time at the house while Eric's mother is away, when she gets back, it is implied that the mother is in some way colder toward Jamie. It could be possible that Jamie had some sort of deeper connection to the child (perhaps he was even the father, but that would probably take up another blog post). Whatever that connection was, the loss of this child affected Jamie's relationship with the family.
The fact that Eric will not have a baby brother or sister, and probably not any more in the future, also makes the ending much more brutal. Though the murder of any child is a terrible thing, Jamie's murder of Eric seems to be even more intense because he is taking away the parents' only child that they will probably ever have. This means that he also takes away the possibility that anyone will inherit the land after Eric's father. From reading this story, there seem to be three very important things in life: wife, child, and land. By killing Eric, Jamie has basically taken away two of those three things, because the parents will never have another child or someone to inherit the land.
Anyway, I know these thoughts are a bit scattered, but I thought it was really interesting how pivotal a role Eric's unborn sibling plays in the story, even though it was silent and basically invisible.
When Eric's mother was still pregnant with Eric's younger brother or sister, we can already see that it is not quite as happy for Jamie as it is for Eric's parents. We get a glimpse of their life before Eric's mother gets "taken away" on Jamie's birthday. The conversation on that day keeps has to do with how Jamie is getting old, which, as we can imagine, doesn't make him very happy. However, the conversation soon turns to Jamie's failed marriage, and how Jamie is getting a bit old to start a life like that of Eric's father, who seems to have it all: wife, son, and land. Jamie gets particularly upset, when Eric's father mentions their next child:
"--if it's a boy this time," his father said, "we'll name it after you."
"That's touching," said Jamie, "but that really won't do me -- or the kid -- a hell of a lot of good."
Here, Jamie is definitely bitter because he probably feels that he doesn't have all of the good things that Eric's father has. It probably feels like the fact that they are having another kid just rubs this in, and by offering to name the kid after him, if probably feels like they're offering him some sort of consolation prize. This all could contribute towards Jamie's general bitterness towards the family.
After Eric's mother is taken away and they lose the baby, Jamie's role in the family seems to change. Although he spends more time at the house while Eric's mother is away, when she gets back, it is implied that the mother is in some way colder toward Jamie. It could be possible that Jamie had some sort of deeper connection to the child (perhaps he was even the father, but that would probably take up another blog post). Whatever that connection was, the loss of this child affected Jamie's relationship with the family.
The fact that Eric will not have a baby brother or sister, and probably not any more in the future, also makes the ending much more brutal. Though the murder of any child is a terrible thing, Jamie's murder of Eric seems to be even more intense because he is taking away the parents' only child that they will probably ever have. This means that he also takes away the possibility that anyone will inherit the land after Eric's father. From reading this story, there seem to be three very important things in life: wife, child, and land. By killing Eric, Jamie has basically taken away two of those three things, because the parents will never have another child or someone to inherit the land.
Anyway, I know these thoughts are a bit scattered, but I thought it was really interesting how pivotal a role Eric's unborn sibling plays in the story, even though it was silent and basically invisible.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
Salinger and Social Status
In reading several of J.D. Salinger's stories, we have discussed in class how most of the stories are about pretty wealthy people who are pretty high up in society. In many of these stories, though, it seems that Salinger puts in some subtle indications that these people are not content, and they see an appeal in a more relaxed lifestyle.
I most prominently saw this in "Uncle Wiggily in Connecticut.'' We can clearly see that Eloise leads a pretty cushy life: she has a maid, she seems to be a stay at home mom. However, she doesn't seem content with her family or situation as she is catching up with Mary Jane. The tone she uses with her daughter is pretty harsh, and she talks very impatiently about Lew, especially when comparing him to Walt:
'"Doesn't Lew have a sense of humor?" Mary Jane said.
"What?" "Doesn't Lew have a senseof humor?"
"Oh, God! Who knows? Yes. I guess so. He laughs at cartoons and stuff." Eloise raised her head, lifted her drink from her chest, and drank from it.
"Well," Mary Jane said. "That isn't everything. I mean that isn't everything."
"What isn't?"
"Oh . . . you know. Laughing and stuff."
"Who says it isn't?" Eloise said. '
Here, we can see that Eloise doesn't seem to care about having an easy life or lots of material things, which she clearly has. What she thinks is important and appealing is a good sense of humor, which indicates that she isn't satisfied with her nice life and high social standing.
Eloise was probably the most obvious example of this discontent with social standing, but there are hints of if in other stories. In "Just Before the War with the Eskimos," Ginnie is at first a bit disgusted by Franklin, but as they continue to talk, she starts to seem drawn to him. At first, he seems a bit weird, but Ginnie seems to find him fascinating, as he leads a different life than most of the people she probably knows: he wasn't in the army, he instead worked at an airplane factory, and, judging by this story, he spends a lot of time in his pajamas. This is definitely a contrast to Ginnie's life of going to finishing school (or something like that) and playing tennis.
There also may be a hint of discontent in "The Laughing Man." The Comanches are all extremely fascinated by the Laughing Man's life, where he keeps very little of the wealth that he steals and is constantly on the move over the "Paris-China border." I may be reading too far into this, as many little kids just like adventure stories, but it is possible that there is some appeal to these kids in a less wealthy lifestyle. The Chief also may see this as well, as he is the one who makes up the stories and perhaps wants to see himself in some ways as the Laughing Man. All in all, I can't decide if indicates that Salinger is trying to critique these wealthy people with all of this, or maybe he grew up in a family like this and can best relate to these people. What do you all think?
I most prominently saw this in "Uncle Wiggily in Connecticut.'' We can clearly see that Eloise leads a pretty cushy life: she has a maid, she seems to be a stay at home mom. However, she doesn't seem content with her family or situation as she is catching up with Mary Jane. The tone she uses with her daughter is pretty harsh, and she talks very impatiently about Lew, especially when comparing him to Walt:
'"Doesn't Lew have a sense of humor?" Mary Jane said.
"What?" "Doesn't Lew have a senseof humor?"
"Oh, God! Who knows? Yes. I guess so. He laughs at cartoons and stuff." Eloise raised her head, lifted her drink from her chest, and drank from it.
"Well," Mary Jane said. "That isn't everything. I mean that isn't everything."
"What isn't?"
"Oh . . . you know. Laughing and stuff."
"Who says it isn't?" Eloise said. '
Here, we can see that Eloise doesn't seem to care about having an easy life or lots of material things, which she clearly has. What she thinks is important and appealing is a good sense of humor, which indicates that she isn't satisfied with her nice life and high social standing.
Eloise was probably the most obvious example of this discontent with social standing, but there are hints of if in other stories. In "Just Before the War with the Eskimos," Ginnie is at first a bit disgusted by Franklin, but as they continue to talk, she starts to seem drawn to him. At first, he seems a bit weird, but Ginnie seems to find him fascinating, as he leads a different life than most of the people she probably knows: he wasn't in the army, he instead worked at an airplane factory, and, judging by this story, he spends a lot of time in his pajamas. This is definitely a contrast to Ginnie's life of going to finishing school (or something like that) and playing tennis.
There also may be a hint of discontent in "The Laughing Man." The Comanches are all extremely fascinated by the Laughing Man's life, where he keeps very little of the wealth that he steals and is constantly on the move over the "Paris-China border." I may be reading too far into this, as many little kids just like adventure stories, but it is possible that there is some appeal to these kids in a less wealthy lifestyle. The Chief also may see this as well, as he is the one who makes up the stories and perhaps wants to see himself in some ways as the Laughing Man. All in all, I can't decide if indicates that Salinger is trying to critique these wealthy people with all of this, or maybe he grew up in a family like this and can best relate to these people. What do you all think?
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
Life and Death in "Indian Camp"
In "Indian Camp," Nick is exposed to the most significant parts of a person's life: the beginning and the end. However, this doesn't seem like a traditional way for a child to witness either of these things. Nick's reactions seem to be quite different than what they might be if he first witnessed a traditional birth in a hospital or by visiting a nursing home or attending a funeral. Instead, he is present for an impromptu C-section and a man abruptly ending his own life. As a result, I don't think Nick quite sees the joy of a new child in the world or the sorrow of losing someone.
Right off the bat, when Nick and the doctor arrive, Nick hears the woman screaming, which makes him a bit upset, as he wants his mother to make it stop. As his father starts to operate on the woman, Nick refuses to look and turns away, seeing it as disgusting. Though these reactions are perfectly understandable, I think that in most cases of someone having a baby, once the baby is born, people don't think much about all of the pain of the birth. They are more happy that there is a new baby. However, Nick does not witness that joy to counteract all of the pain that he has witnessed. First of all, he does not see the mother as very happy, and the father clearly is not happy, as he kills himself, and no one really draws a lot of attention to the baby. Therefore, I think that Nick has a bit more of a negative view towards birth, as he, as a child, first witnesses only the painful, and not the happy aspects of it.
Nick's view towards death becomes a bit different from what I would think of as ordinary as well. Although it is a terrible image for him to see a dead man who has slit his own throat, he doesn't really see any suffering that the man goes through. He also knows that the man ended his life on his own accord. Leaving the camp, it says that Nick felt "quite sure he would never die." This might mean that in seeing how the man ended his own life, he feels like he would never do that and therefore feels more in control of his own death.
Right off the bat, when Nick and the doctor arrive, Nick hears the woman screaming, which makes him a bit upset, as he wants his mother to make it stop. As his father starts to operate on the woman, Nick refuses to look and turns away, seeing it as disgusting. Though these reactions are perfectly understandable, I think that in most cases of someone having a baby, once the baby is born, people don't think much about all of the pain of the birth. They are more happy that there is a new baby. However, Nick does not witness that joy to counteract all of the pain that he has witnessed. First of all, he does not see the mother as very happy, and the father clearly is not happy, as he kills himself, and no one really draws a lot of attention to the baby. Therefore, I think that Nick has a bit more of a negative view towards birth, as he, as a child, first witnesses only the painful, and not the happy aspects of it.
Nick's view towards death becomes a bit different from what I would think of as ordinary as well. Although it is a terrible image for him to see a dead man who has slit his own throat, he doesn't really see any suffering that the man goes through. He also knows that the man ended his life on his own accord. Leaving the camp, it says that Nick felt "quite sure he would never die." This might mean that in seeing how the man ended his own life, he feels like he would never do that and therefore feels more in control of his own death.
Monday, August 31, 2015
Fact, Fiction, and Morals
The issue of fiction versus nonfiction in The Things They Carried really bewildered me as I read the first few short stories. I spent a lot of the time worrying about what was real and what was "fake," trying to sort all of the details into these two categories. I especially got frustrated with the parts where O'Brien would say something like "this is true," or in reading the epigraph that says that these experiences are true.
After reading "How to Tell a True War Story," though, the blurry line between fiction and nonfiction in this situation began to make sense. I feel like the goal of these short stories is not to tell what happened or convey a message; it is to put the reader into the soldiers' shoes. If someone wanted a series of events about the Vietnam war, they could look in a history textbook, but it is easy to dismiss these facts as just things that happened. O'Brien wants us to see the war through the eyes of a soldier, though, so he has to stretch the truth or add some details or even make up events that never really happened so that we can get closer to knowing what their experience was.
It also made a lot more sense to me as to why the stories aren't supposed to have morals. If the goal of the stories are for us to spend a day in the life of a soldier in Vietnam, there is no real lesson to be learned. We can't learn from their mistakes or their actions because we don't know if any of them actually happened. This does not mean that there is no point in reading the stories, though. We can get a pretty good sense of what these soldiers felt and went through, and I think that that in itself conveys a pretty good lesson: it is important to try to put yourself in someone else's shoes and walk around in them. By doing this, it helps to become a more understanding person, and it might do some good for other people.
In this case, I think that by reading this book, we are sort of helping veterans of Vietnam: we are making these stories heard and providing an audience to understand what they went through, which is the trouble that Norman Bowker went through in Speaking of Courage. Similarly, in Fire and Forget, writing the war stories may have been a sort of therapeutic way for the authors to work through some of their trauma in Iraq and Afghanistan. By reading these stories, we are hearing something that the authors need to be heard. I don't mean to give us too much credit, though. I think that it is important for us to read these stories to realize how much we take for granted and acknowledge the terrible realities of war.
After reading "How to Tell a True War Story," though, the blurry line between fiction and nonfiction in this situation began to make sense. I feel like the goal of these short stories is not to tell what happened or convey a message; it is to put the reader into the soldiers' shoes. If someone wanted a series of events about the Vietnam war, they could look in a history textbook, but it is easy to dismiss these facts as just things that happened. O'Brien wants us to see the war through the eyes of a soldier, though, so he has to stretch the truth or add some details or even make up events that never really happened so that we can get closer to knowing what their experience was.
It also made a lot more sense to me as to why the stories aren't supposed to have morals. If the goal of the stories are for us to spend a day in the life of a soldier in Vietnam, there is no real lesson to be learned. We can't learn from their mistakes or their actions because we don't know if any of them actually happened. This does not mean that there is no point in reading the stories, though. We can get a pretty good sense of what these soldiers felt and went through, and I think that that in itself conveys a pretty good lesson: it is important to try to put yourself in someone else's shoes and walk around in them. By doing this, it helps to become a more understanding person, and it might do some good for other people.
In this case, I think that by reading this book, we are sort of helping veterans of Vietnam: we are making these stories heard and providing an audience to understand what they went through, which is the trouble that Norman Bowker went through in Speaking of Courage. Similarly, in Fire and Forget, writing the war stories may have been a sort of therapeutic way for the authors to work through some of their trauma in Iraq and Afghanistan. By reading these stories, we are hearing something that the authors need to be heard. I don't mean to give us too much credit, though. I think that it is important for us to read these stories to realize how much we take for granted and acknowledge the terrible realities of war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)