Character

Choose two characters and compare how they respond to uncertainty, fear, and death.
What conclusions can you draw about men and war through these examples?

Answer:

Lieutenant Jimmy Cross copes with the uncertainty and stress of war by focusing on
his unrequited love for Martha. His distraction from the war becomes a way for him
to escape the fear and responsibility of leading men. After Ted Lavender's death,
Cross is consumed by guilt: “He had loved Martha more than his men, and as a
consequence Lavender was now dead, and this was something he would have to carry
like a stone in his stomach for the rest of the war.” Cross’ response shows how
escape into fantasy can be a dangerous coping mechanism in war, leading to guilt
and shame.

Kiowa, in contrast, processes death in a more grounded, reflective way. When Ted
Lavender dies, Kiowa immediately reflects on it: “Boom, down. Not like the movies
where the dead guy rolls around and does fancy spins and goes ass over teakettle—
not like that, Kiowa said, the poor bastard just flat-fuck fell.” Kiowa’s
straightforward, almost clinical way of describing death shows his attempt to
accept the brutality of war without romanticizing it. Later, he struggles with the
death of another soldier, Norman Bowker, reflecting his deep empathy and sorrow.

Conclusion: Jimmy Cross and Kiowa represent different ways soldiers handle fear and
death. Cross shows the danger of distraction and how emotional detachment can lead
to guilt, while Kiowa demonstrates the need for reflection and facing death head-
on. Together, their experiences highlight the internal struggles soldiers face,
underscoring how men in war are torn between emotional avoidance and confronting
their grim realities.

O’Brien’s definition of courage and which characters meet it:

a. Ultimately, what is O’Brien’s definition of courage?

Answer: O'Brien redefines courage in moral and emotional terms. Instead of the
traditional idea of heroism, he explores courage as the act of confronting one's
fears and personal shame. In "On the Rainy River," he struggles with the decision
to flee to Canada to avoid the draft or to fight in a war he opposes. The shame he
feels, not the threat of violence, compels him to go to war: “I would go to the war
—I would kill and maybe die—because I was embarrassed not to.” Here, O'Brien frames
courage not as bold or fearless action, but as the difficult act of doing what one
dreads to avoid internal shame.

b. Which characters are truly courageous under his definition?

Answer: Tim O'Brien himself shows courage under his definition by going to Vietnam,
not because he agrees with the war, but because he cannot bear the shame of
deserting: “I couldn’t make myself be brave. It had nothing to do with morality.
Embarrassment, that’s all it was.”

Another example is Elroy Berdahl, who offers Tim the silent support he needs during
his moral crisis. Elroy is courageous in his own quiet way by not forcing Tim’s
decision, allowing him to wrestle with his dilemma. His offer to pay Tim for work
done at the lodge—knowing full well that Tim might run—demonstrates a deeper
courage in accepting others’ autonomy.

Norman Bowker is another character who, although ultimately overwhelmed by his

Storytelling
O’Brien’s strengths as a storyteller:

Answer: O’Brien’s greatest strength is his ability to blend fact and fiction in a
way that feels more truthful than reality. His stories are filled with ambiguity,
which mirrors the chaos and confusion of war itself. He often writes about how
storytelling is essential to processing trauma. For instance, in "How to Tell a
True War Story," O'Brien says: “In any war story, but especially a true one, it’s
difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen.” This blurring of
lines between reality and perception reflects the inner experience of soldiers,
showing how memory and truth are fluid in the context of trauma.

His technique of writing stories within stories also reinforces the idea that truth
in war is layered and subjective. By focusing on the emotional core of events,
rather than their factual accuracy, he adds a deeper resonance to his storytelling.

O’Brien’s wordplay and use of language:

Answer: O’Brien’s language is deceptively simple, yet rich with layers of meaning.
He frequently uses repetition and circular narratives to emphasize the cyclical
nature of trauma and memory. For example, in "The Things They Carried," he writes
about the physical and emotional burdens the soldiers carry, repeatedly listing
them: “They carried the sky. The whole atmosphere, they carried it, the humidity,
the monsoons, the stink of fungus and decay, all of it, they carried gravity.” This
repetition drives home the weight of both literal and metaphorical burdens.

Another example is his paradoxical statements about war stories. In "How to Tell a
True War Story," he says: “A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct,
nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men
from doing the things men have always done. If a story seems moral, do not believe
it.” O'Brien uses these contradictions to highlight the complexity of war, where
moral clarity is impossible.

What can we conclude about O'Brien’s views on storytelling and its purpose?

Answer: O’Brien sees storytelling as a means of survival and a way to give meaning
to senseless experiences. Stories allow soldiers to make sense of the chaos around
them. As he says in "Spin": “Stories are for joining the past to the future.
Stories are for those late hours in the night when you can't remember how you got
from where you were to where you are.” For O'Brien, storytelling is less about
factual accuracy and more about preserving the emotional truth of what happened.
This serves both as a coping mechanism and a way to honor the dead by keeping their
memories alive.

Images of beauty and horror juxtaposed (e.g., Curt Lemon’s death):

Answer: In The Things They Carried, O’Brien frequently juxtaposes beauty and horror
to show how war distorts reality. Curt Lemon’s death in "How to Tell a True War
Story" is one of the most striking examples. O'Brien describes how Lemon steps into
the sunlight right before he steps on a mine: “When he died it was almost
beautiful, the way the sunlight came around him and lifted him up and sucked him
high into a tree full of moss and vines and white blossoms.” The beauty of the
moment clashes violently with the grotesque nature of his death, symbolizing how
war blends the horrific with the serene, creating a surreal experience for the
soldiers.
Another example is the young Vietnamese girl who dances after her village is burned
down. Her graceful movements contrast with the devastation around her, highlighting
the dissonance between life and destruction. These juxtapositions suggest that
beauty and horror are intertwined in war, forcing soldiers to find moments of grace
amid chaos.

Post-modern elements in the book:

Answer: The Things They Carried employs several post-modern elements, such as
metafiction, unreliable narration, and fragmentation. These techniques help O’Brien
to challenge the conventional ways we understand war stories. He constantly draws
attention to the fact that what we are reading may not be "true" in a literal
sense. In "Good Form," he admits: “I want you to feel what I felt. I want you to
know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth.” This blurring of
fact and fiction is a hallmark of post-modern literature, and it is essential to
the book’s goals of conveying the emotional reality of war.

The fragmented narrative structure—jumping between past and present, fact and
fiction—also reflects the disjointed nature of memory and trauma. The post-modern
elements are necessary because they mirror the disorientation soldiers experience
and challenge the reader to question the nature of truth.