The Things They Carried Discussion Questions: Set 1

[Mrs. C]

Welcome Everyone!

Read the following carefully.

You are about to embark on your first online discussion for this course, so please make sure you review the handout for Online Etiquette that is part of your summer assignment packet before engaging in discourse with your peers.

The first set of discussion questions is below, and I will post sets of five questions every week; there will be a total of fifteen questions for each novel. Do not feel as though you need to respond to every question, but do not focus all your responses on just a few questions; spread them out. Also, feel free to respond more than ten times.

**Make sure you read all student responses to the question you are responding to. You can respond to the question or to a student in particular--maybe you would like to address a point he or she has made. Use the "Reply to This" tag found at the bottom of each question and student response, and make sure you click on the right one for the particular question or student response you would like to reply to.

Make sure each posting is a suitable length, not too long and not too short. Each of your responses should be approximately five sentences long.

Let the discussion begin!

Sincerely, Mrs. Cohen

[Luke C]

O'Brien knows that true war stories are not about the war. They are about the people in it and how they change. A true war story shows the horrors and the changes that people faced and overcame. O'Brien writes his book following that principle. He focuses on the people in it, his fellow soldiers. He does not have stories of huge battles and brave men but of the quiet moments that show the soldiers for what they really are. He focuses on the changes that occurred in people and their morals. The biggest example of this is what happened to Mary Anne. She came as an innocent girl but got lost and addicted to a lifetime of war and violence. O'Brien's idea of a true war story is about the soldiers trying to control and make sense of the war and their actions. The story is not about the war, but about the soldier’s feelings of the war.

[David S]

According to O'Brien one can never tell a true war story. This has to do with 'story-truth", and "happening-truth." It can't be a true story if its a "story-truth", because a "story-truth" is exaggerated and some parts are made up from the O'Brien's imagination or perspective. When he says "the true war stories are never about war", he means that the true war stories he tells don't have to do with war, they usually have to deal with girlfriends or any personal stories from home. When he writes "That's a true story that never happened", he means that you can extract a true moral from it. O'Brien says, "War is hell. As a moral declaration the old truism seems perfectly true, and yet because it abstracts, because it generalizes, I can't believe it with my stomach. Nothing turns inside. It comes down to gut instinct. A true war story, if truly told, makes the stomach believe.", this means if it's a true war story it will truly make the reader deep down believe it. If you can't feel it inside your gut, than it is not true. Like O'Brien says because "War is Hell", generalizes it is not true war story.

[Mark I]

According to O'Brien you can't tell a true war story unless you have experienced one. It requires an immense understanding of, not only battle situations or the violence and gore, but the true emotions provoked by being a part of the senseless destruction, even off the battle field. He says that in action things begin to blur, thus, war stories are written more on what seemed to happen rather than what did. The author describes Curt Lemon being sucked into the sun, however, we know it was a trap. O'Brien also claims that a true war story never has a moral; that there is nothing to get out of it more than a heartfelt "oh". He tells the story of the deep, emotional letter written by Rat Kiley about Curt Lemon, how it got no reply and tore Rat to pieces. This story has no point, it is just a tale of sincere grief catalyzed by warfare. O'Brien also uses the story of the four soldiers and the grenade as an example. How when the one brave soldier saves his teammates it isn't a true war story, even though it may have actually happened. He states the true version of that war story would include the grenade slaying the entire squadron and leaving the brave soldiers efforts in vein. O'Brien admits that probably didn't happen, but he explains that a true war story does not actually have to happen.

[Monique M.]

I liked what Haley said in the beginning of her statement about how a war story is depicted by each individual and not by actual facts. Everybody views their experience slightly different due to missing or not seeing some crucial details, so a "true war story" may be different in the eyes of each individual. In order to fully understand what they went through, you would have to be there. To get a point across the storyteller may change the story in order to make the reader understand the full sense of the situation and to give the reader a vivid picture. When O'Brein says "That's a true war story that never happened," he gives two scenarios of what "could happen" of four men in danger. When a man is willing to give up his life for his fellow soldiers, but they all end up dying this shows a real scenario that didn't happen, but it could have. We'd rather believe that he gave up his life and the other three men lived, but in war he wants the reader to know that the risk could be for nothing.

[Joe S]

A true war story doesn't necessarily have to have happened. Only what the storyteller says seemed to have happened. There are no morals revealed or absolute truths in war. If there are in the story, then you shouldn't believe it. O'Brien writes that a true war story isn't about war. It's about how the person experiencing the war can relate it to their own life. It's about what's true to them. In war, "you lose your sense of the definite." So, how could what someone else experiences be true to someone else? A true war story will show the sickening moral indifference in war that is deeply repulsive and beautiful at the same time. "The truth is ugly." If a war story can show that, then it is true. As to what he means by "That's a true war story that never happened," he is merely saying that it shows some amount of truth in war even if it didn't happen.

[Lucas S.]

I think that O'Brien would define a true war story as one that successfully communicates the thoughts and emotions of the story teller at the time of their experience. In essence, the thoughts and emotions of the teller become the message they are trying to convey to the listener. What he means by "True war stories are never about war" Is that A true war story is not about war in the factual sense. A true war story communicates a message, the exact facts are irrelevant. For example, If I tell someone my dog died, their reaction would almost undoubtedly be sadness in some form. If I tell that same person that my dog died at 8:30 pm last night while wearing a white collar while it was raining; that does not change the overall emotion that the story conveys, even though it is more factual. What O'Brien means by "That's a true story that never happened" is that the story is true to the emotions, or "message" of the teller and that it communicates them to the listener. Regardless to whether the story happened or not, the thoughts and emotions of the teller during the time of the event that created the story are real.

[Greg S]

To O’Brien, a true war story is not based on facts or how a sequence of events plays out in reality. O’Brien describes a true war story as something very different. He describes to us that it is something that is without the pride and glory of classic war stories, such as Hollywood films. To O’Brien, a true war story is much further from these things, and is actually much closer to the reality of how men at war struggle to survive the guilt and psychological pain of the horrid things they have experienced. He feels that with these stories, he can help the spirits of the dead live on as the people they once were. Since O’Brien uses these stories to help himself cope with his own struggles at the complexity of war and death, he often embellishes on stories to how his mind perceived them. He also does so to change the experience of the reader. In essence, he believes that the only real truths in a true war story are the feelings that the reader experiences deep down.

[Sam B.]

3. I was surprised when the first description of his entering the war was an act of his own cowardice. Many times we believe war to be a valorous thing to devote your time to, serving ones country is an honor and many men gladly sign up for war and fight. In O'Brien's case he could not face the realization of leaving his life behind and eventually entered. This shows us that people can enter war as a way to escape the problems in life but I agree that also they can enter it because they also cannot cope with the fear of humiliation should they run away.

[Pierce F]

When 21 year old O'Brien talk of courage as finite quality, I find this to be interesting, but not very true to me. I agree with Cullen because I find courage to be less of a finite quality and more of a renewable quality that I believe comes from inside of us. Though it is interesting to think about "stashing" courage, my belief is that we all have courage inside of us and we display it in our times of greatest need. Throughout our experiences we learn how to draw from our courage in a more effective way which makes us more courageous. The 43 year old O'Brien would find both my view as well as his 21 year old view to be false because he would see courage as necessity that everyone will have to display it at sometime or another. This is why we can't run away from our troubles like O'Brien tried to do.