The article that Jim Neilson wrote about the “Things They Carried,” gives the readers new idea(s) as they continue to read this novel. In Neilson’s article/ essay it makes us think if the stories about the conditions or trails that the soldiers went through that O’Brien described are they true or just lies to capture the attention of readers…? For example, in the novel, O’Brien, talks about how the truth isn’t always exciting, “"in a true war story, nothing is exactly true" (88). Soo is he telling the truth in these stories or what??? That is the question my friend???
Neilson gives us a lot of insight on what, “The Things They Carried,” is trying to convey to its readers. In my opinion, I believe that the most useful insight I received was O’Brien’s style of writing while he wrote this book. “It is within this framework—the belief that the war escapes understanding and representation and even makes us liars—that O’Brien attempts to tell a true war story.” Everyone who has read or is reading O’Brien’s novel, “Things They Carried,” will believe everything they read or what they hear about it this is because they personally haven’t experienced it or been through it ourselves. Therefore this makes it very easy for O’Brien to draw in his readers attention because they or really no one but the people who have gone through it know the truth. On the other had Neilson says anyone who has gone to the war will see this as “fruitfulness at once, and to all the other readers it is commended as a statement of actual things by who experienced them to the fullest.” We all have our own opinion’s! This can kind of relate to Muas II as well because Art doesn’t understand where his father is coming from because he hasn’t gone through the Holocaust himself and have faced all those horrible conditions. Just like how will never understand how the war must have been like because we haven’t been through it ourselves.
Hopefully you guys enjoyed your three day weekend! Wooohooo J
