// War Literature

From the moment I began reading, I felt as if I were sucked into the story and I was in the middle of the battlefield staring at a the body of a dead man. Tom O’Brien describes his victim in great detail repetitively, which truly expresses his guilt. Not only does he continuously repeat the same pattern of words to allow his readers to visualize exactly what he saw, and did, but rather he did this in such a way that gave reason as to why guilt haunted his heart and mind.
Throughout his description of this soldier, he repeatedly acknowledged the youth of the soldier he had killed. Following the first description of the repeating sequence, he began to give reason as to why guilt rests on his shoulders. This continued after every repition which stressed what O’brien took from the youth. From the intelligence and bright future the youth had to the girl of whom could be waiting for his return. With the use of this technique, O’brien also give us, as readers, the opportunity to understand what war actually does to individuals, other than just taking lives; it takes away futures.
With Kiowa constantly annoyng O’brien with the idea of “letting go,” I believe it expressed the idea that no matter how much time passes or events which affect O’brien’s life, he will ignore all distractions, and he will forever focus and remember how his dirty hands took the life of a clean-handed youth. Along with this, I felt as if this expressed irony in that, Kiowa wanted to move on and blame the death of the youth on the youth himself without the knowledge that in the future, he would be the one to lie beneath the mud just as the youth lied there.

First off, I noticed that in the beginning of “The Man I Killed,” the description of the dead man is written in such a way where one feels they need to catch their breath after reading it.. The details are all separated by commas instead of being put into separate sentences. I believe that the reason for this rushed, rambling effect of Brien’s might be to show the hurriedness of the actually killing that took place. It’s sort of like the “Fog of War” metaphor we’ve seen, where decisions are made quickly without time to think.Now that Tim has killed the man, he is taking in all the damage he did it once as is the reader.

What I thought to be a smart move on O’Brien’s part, is to constantly bring up certain descriptions that he put in the beginning of the story, throughout the rest of it. Usually he brings up these descriptions again when he imagines what the dead man’s life was life before he came to the war. It almost feels like he’s trying to give this dead body more life than what he’s known. I think that would just make the fact that he shot him worse, thinking of the life this man had once known and the life he will never know. I would think that giving this anonymous man a story would create an emotion in you that theoretically you aren’t supposed to have in war.

I’m not sure who else thought this, but throughout the story I felt that Kiowa was just annoying.  He just kept coming up to Tim telling him not to worry about killing the man, and then 5 minutes later coming back to tell him to take his time. The whole time I kept thinking, does this man have a guilty conscious about a kill of his own that he feels he has to keep pestering Tim about his? In the end of the story he keeps telling Tim to talk about what happened. I saw the connection between this and the other story we’ve previously read, “How To Tell A True War Story.” In the latter, O’Brien states how it is impossible to tell the truth between what emerges from a war story and what is made up. Kiowa keeps asking Tim to talk in the end about what happened, but we can assume he never does, since throughout the rest of the story he didn’t. However, if he did talk, would Kiowa believe what he says? Would he fully understand what Tim was saying, or would he mistake it for something else, just like the woman in “How To Tell A  True War Story” did when she mistook a love story for a war one?

This short story centers around a medic named Rat Kiley.  I originally selected this story thinking it wasn’t going to be gruesome, that reasoning was based on the title.  Turns out I was mistaken.  The author explains the “nightlife” aspect of vietnam which is downright terrifying.  Moving in a completely dark forest with a sky with no stars, just complete darkness.  The sky definitely symbolizes the war no elements of light or hope, just complete darkness or death.

The experiences that the medic encounters has taken a toll on his mental state.  First he has a fear of the bugs in the forest which is understandable given the darkness of the forest and the bugs humming can make anyone rattled in that situation.   He begins to have trouble sleeping and begins to have visions of body parts.  He’s losing his grasp of humanity as when he sees another person he is already imagining what they would like dead.  The war has caused this man to lose his mind, this is what happens when you spend your days constantly “plugging holes” as the medic puts it.

Additionally, he is also hurting himself by constantly scratching bug bites until it causes his own body harm.  A really saddening quote was, “this whole war is meat for the bugs”.  This shows that there is no sense of justice or glory, the reality is that the experience is horrifying and pointless.  Ultimately, Rat killed himself and nobody thought the man did anything irrational.  Dealing with war seems unbearable especially in Vietnam.

In “How to Tell a True War Story,” Tim O’Brien writes that in war stories, the “only certainty is overwhelming ambiguity.”  Funnily enough, once you’ve read that, it’s hard not to apply it to every other story in the book.  On the surface, “In the Field” is about the abrupt death of O’Brien’s fellow soldier and friend, Kiowa, in a shit field.  But as the soldiers scour the field for Kiowa’s body, Lieutenant Jimmy Cross and the others ponder the question of fault and blame in their comrade’s death.

The lieutenant considers his own misjudgment when it came to setting up camp and his responsibility for his men (which he never wanted), how when he writes his letter of condolence to Kiowa’s father, he will praise his son and be straightforward, “apologize point blank. Just admit to the blunders.”  Mitchell Sanders blames the lieutenant as well: “Some lieutenant…camps us in a toilet….ten billion places we could’ve set up last night, the man picks a latrine.”  The soldier who was with Kiowa is dealing with his own guilt, “still remembering how he had killed Kiowa.” It was he who turned on a flashlight in the dark, giving away their presence and causing the ensuing attack: “The flashlight had done it. Like a target shining in the dark.”

But when Jimmy Cross mentally revises his letter to Kiowa’s father, he decides not to apologize, because casualties are a part of war: “It was one of those freak things and the war was full of freaks and nothing could ever change it anyway.”  He feels the need to blame someone or something because a man’s life is over, but there is a laundry list of people and things to blame: the war, those responsible for the war, the enemy, God, the munitions makers, all the way down to Karl Marx or “an old man in Omaha who forgot to vote…A moment of carelessness…carried consequences that lasted forever.”

And then comes the declaration from Norman Bowker : “Nobody’s fault. Everybody’s.”  After reading about Jimmy Cross blame himself, blame everyone else, the young soldier and his flashlight, the shit field, Karl Marx, whoever, whatever, you start to realize that Norman Bowker is right.  It’s not really anyone’s fault because so many different things factor into the moment of Kiowa’s death that it would be impossible to pinpoint just one person or thing. Immediate or over time, you realize that fault and blame when it comes to war is ambiguous.  And you know it’s real.

I randomly stumbled upon this music video from two Spanish singers (which some of you may or may not recognize). Although this post seems random, once you watch the video you’ll realize it has to do with the effects of war not just on the “hero” but on his family and the long term effects/damages that occur due to the time away from home and the things that occur while at war. This really touches upon the psychological issues that we have seen in some of our stories/movie so far.

It shows how once you go to war you are never truly the same! Since you are not the same, how can it be expected that the life you formed as your old self (pre-war self) will still satisfy/work for the new you (post-war self). This video truly captures this feeling (please bare with it being in Spanish, the concept goes beyond the words).

Tim O’Brien’s “On the Rainy River” takes the reader through an array of emotions. The author shows his fear, embarrassment, confusion, and everything in between. Embarrassment is certainly the most important emotion throughout the story, because for Tim O’Brien, it is the only thing he can pinpoint as a reason to go to war. Sure he is afraid of dying, but he is more afraid of exile, of losing respect, of disobeying the law, and mostly, of the ridicule of his family and himself. He explains that he comes from a very traditional town, and this fuels his fear of shame. O’Brien writes: “All those eyes on me- the town, the whole universe- and I couldn’t risk the embarrassment,” and in doing so, emphasizes the weight he places on his image among his neighbors. His town is his entire universe.

This idea of fearing shame is not one of the ideas we’ve yet to encounter as a reason why men go to war and sacrifice their lives. Freud didn’t consider this reason when explaining his theory of Eros and destruction, and O’Brien has none of the hostile feelings or intentions explained by Clausewitz when considering going to war. He specifically points out that this is not his war to fight because he does not believe in its cause. All he wanted to do was “live the life [he] was born into – a mainstream life…”

Clausewitz also considers courage to be something very different from O’Brien’s idea of courage.  To O’Brien, courage was in running, whereas to Clausewitz, courage is “physical courage, or courage in the presence of danger to the person: and next, moral courage, or courage before responsibility; whether it be before the judgment-seat of external authority, or of the inner power, the conscience.” We see, in Clausewitz’ explanation, that courage can come from overcoming fear of judgment, and to O’Brien, courage is the exact opposite.

What stood out to me in How to Tell a True War Story was one specific paragraph.

“For the common soldier, at least, war has the feel – the spiritual texture- of a great ghostly fog, thick and permanent. There is no clarity. Everything swirls. The old rules are no longer binding, the old truths no longer true. Right spills over into wrong. Order blends into chaos, love into hate, ugliness into beauty, law into anarchy, civility into savagery. The vapors suck you in. You cant tell where you are, or why you’re there. and the only certainty is overwhelming ambiguity.”

Although Tim O’Brien is speaking about his war stories, I feel that this paragraph could have also served as a quote from Jarhead as well. In the movie, the protagonist is constantly on the edge from the mind games that war plays on him.  From the time that Swofford enters the military, this blend of emotions becomes his life. This easily causes love in his mind to fuse with hate, whether it be from tears due to his doubt of his girlfriends monogamy to pointing a gun to one of his “brothers” from war. The idea of beauty is also transformed in war. In Jarhead, beauty could be considered seeing your target die after pulling the trigger from your rifle, something that would be disgusting if not in a state of war.

I feel that O’Brien does a fantastic job of pulling the reader into his story and is effective in demonstrating his emotions during combat. If you take this quote from O’Brien and accept it as true, then it sheds light into the characters of Jarhead. It explains why its possible for there to be so much destruction in war(chaos), yet still be a strong chain of command in effect(order). It can explain why the producers of Jarhead wanted to make one of the last scenes in the film just a bunch of pointless shooting into nothingness. Its quite possible that this chaos is needed order to remain sane in ways only they could understand. To turn away from the film, but stick to the quote, it can also explain why horrific war crimes have been committed during history. The event that comes to mind is the My Lai event in Vietnam. Hundreds of civilians were killed by US soldiers in ways so terrible that at one point, many were thrown in a ditch and then had the soldiers open fire on them. Like O’Brien says, “The old rules are no longer binding,” but what I am left wondering is at what point does the “blend of emotions” that lead to the violence and chaos of war become morally unacceptable?

This story starts out by saying that he had never told anyone this story before because of his embarrassment. This device draws the readers in and makes us curious of what he has to tell us. Before the story went on, I thought he was going to tell us about the shame that he felt after killing many people during the war. Instead it focused on the shame he felt for not wanting to fight and running away. This short story took an interesting turn and showed us why he finally went to war and the thoughts that ran through his head which led him to this decision even though he was so against it.

O’Brien had other plans after graduating from college. All of his plans shattered once he received a letter in the mail that he was drafted to war which changed his whole life. Before, he even felt queasy at the sight of blood but now he had to struggle to decide whether to fight in a war, which he didn’t know anything about or to run away to Canada and leave his whole life behind while feeling the shame and losing respect from his family and community. He worked at a meatpacking place where he was drenched in pig’s blood everyday until he finally broke down and took off for six days until he decided to go back.

Through this story, we are able to sympathize with him and his struggle to decide whether to fight for his country even if it might mean death or to flee and never be able to face his family or ever go back to his community ever again. In the end he decided that he had to go back and fight in the war because he felt a tremendous amount of guilt. It also makes me wonder if this is even a valid reason to fight in the war because you don’t want people to look down on you?

I found this story quite interesting because his reason for finally going to war is because he feels embarrassed not to. Imagine a 21 year old straight out of college ready to live his life. The only thing stopping him is war and fear. This story is very realistic because many people who gets drafted doesn’t want to go but they feel like it is their obligation and they have to go. I think if people try to run away from it, rarely would anyone go back home and decide that they should actually go to war.

The entire short story “How to Tell A True War Story” can be summed in a single quotation from the text, “The only certainty is overwhelming ambiguity.” This story only emphasizes the loss of connection and sense of misunderstanding between soldiers/veterans, and common civilians. I believe O’Brien’s idea when writing this story, was that war is not what you think it is, or even what HE thinks it is. War cannot just be death, dirty, violent, nor can it just be glorious, beauty, and love. Yet it is all of these things, which creates such a strong ambiguity, and it is with this kind of uncertainty, that makes telling a war story so difficult. How can a soldier tell a war story, when he himself is unsure of what has really happened? Contrastingly, how can an audience really understand the deeper meaning behind a war story, and see past the seemingly cover idea that it is merely a sad story about a war experience? Therefore, how can you really tell a true war story?

My take on this pondering, is that when a tragic war story is told, the audience is listening only with their ears. When a soldier is experiencing the tragic story, he is not “listening” with his ears, but with his heart, and his stomach. Whether the story is true or not will matter to the audience, but to the solider it does not, because when it comes to war, your sense of the definite is lost, and nothing you see, believe, or told is ever absolutely true. Just like the story with Curt Lemon, O’Brien can recall the events to others the way it is: how he was playing catch, stepped on a 105 round, then blew up. He can describe how his body was splattered all over the trees, and how Rat took his pain out on the buffalo. However, O’Brien cannot possibly accurately recall to others what he REALLY saw: how the sunlight made Lemon’s death almost beautiful, how his body seemed to be carried up high into the trees. He can try recalling the story as descriptively as possible to people, like his wife, and the conventional old women who sympathize with him, but they will never understand more than what their ears hear, and they will never really “listen.”

What I find the most interesting about the movie, is the fact that the entire time Swafford never got to fire his gun. That is what gradually drove him crazy while in the Middle East; that he trained and put himself through the most intense physical and mental training in order to fight for war, and never actually got to fight. So I bring up this question: Is it worse to fight and die in war, or is it worse to prepare and train and brainwash yourself for a war but never get to fight? As Freud explained in his letter to Einstein, violence is a part of human nature; kill or be killed. Do you think if Swafford actually got that chance to fire his gun, would he have gone mad? Would his best friend have killed himself afterwords? I think that underlying factor that no one really got to fight in war is one of the major factors in bringing the marines together, but also part of what drove them apart. Also, the fact that because there was no fighting going on, the marines were subject to sit by while there personal lives back in the U.S. slowly fell apart. One man’s wife cheated on him with his neighbor, Swafford lost his girlfriend to another man, and the worst part was that after they got back there were no parades, no cheering, no nothing. So not only did the lack of an actual fight drive the marines mad by not fulfilling their needs to kill the enemy, but it caused support from home to fade as well. It almost makes you want to die for your country, because if you don’t and come back alive your old life is dead anyway.