So here's what I've been thinking...
Now that the Big Read has had its public kick-off, I've had the priviledge of listening to and talking with more veterans in the context of TTTC. What's been interesting has been the way all these veterans, who saw action in different wars, still relate to the stories in TTTC. These men and women find their stories in the book. In point of fact, they find their stories in each other, too.
The other night, I watched three veterans nod as they listened to Gary tell about the way he came to be a recon corpsman (he enlisted with the Navy and was in the medical/ hospital corps then was attached to the Marines). They knew his story even though it wasn't their's. I see this repeated over and over again. They know the stories, they know the truth in TTTC lodged as it may be in fiction, and regardless embellishments. In fact, accuracy seems irrelevant. They know the truths that lie at the heart of the war story.
Now, this is beginning to make sense. I know other people's stories, too. I have experiences which have almost uncanny similarities to points in the stories of others. Teachers definitely have those stories and truths no matter how they are wrapped up with facts and fictions. We know them.
However, I still struggle, as an outsider, with the truths. Apparently carrying souveniers, such as the thumb or the neclace of ears has a truth to it; such souveniers were and are common. The waterbuffalo story has a truth to it, I am told, though it is more likely to have been a person. Somehow, this seems plausible now. And, if this is so, was it written to be more palatable? Or was it written so that it could be told?
On p.152 TO writes, " By telling stories, you objectify your own experience. You separate it from yourself. You pin down certain truths. You make up others. You start sometimes with an incident that truly happened, like the night in the shit field, and you carry it forward by inventing incidents that did not in fact occur but that nonetheless help to clarify and explain."
He adds, in referring to 'Speaking of Courage', that "(t)he emotional core came directly from Bowerker's letter: the simple need to talk."
And then, on p. 153, he notes, " - I was afraid to speak directly, afraid to remember."
When you read 'In the Field' it seems clear. The fear of remembering. It seems clear that to remember we must invent a way to make it plausible and palatable not even so much for others, but for ourselves. And as I watch, as I listen to the veterans talk about TTTC and tell their own stories... they can get only just so far. At least at that moment.
My questions: How much factual information do we need to understand the truth? How would knowing the 'facts' about TO's service help or hinder one's understanding the book? How does our search for the truth enhance our experience of the text and understanding of the plot?
p.s. Gary will be joining our class for a discussion of the book on Thursday, March 24.
I think TO used just enough factual information to build a framework around and throughout his story. The facts should be true and relevant to educate the reader so they can fully grasp the author’s viewpoint. The author can help the reader to fully experience the story if it is true for both of them. The reader accepts the story because the facts add up and make sense. Reading the facts about TO’s military service helps me to respect him as an author. It validates him in the reader’s eyes. As I read, I am thinking could this really happen? I am actively thinking about what is going on in the story. I believe that searching for truth as we read definitely adds to deeper engagement, enjoyment, and understanding of the text.
ReplyDeleteKary, how might 'the facts' contribute negatively?
ReplyDeletecontinuation- TO states, "It's time to be blunt."and says that "Almost everything else is invented." I'm hoodwinked! Yet, As I read on he says, "I want you to feel what I felt."
ReplyDeleteThe factual information surrounding TTTC has enough truth in it to do what the author and reader intend. That is feel what it was like during the war. TO altered the truth but by doing so he helped the reader get into the story more, to experience it on a deeper level.
I think the facts could have a negative impact by overwhelming the reader with details that the reader may not understand completely.
ReplyDeleteIn order to make a story believable all you need a 'nugget' of truth. I remember my mom telling me, "Within every lie is a nugget of truth." when I was a kid. Facts such as names, dates, and places are really irrelevant to a story. All you really need to get the point across is the personalities, the events themselves and most importantly, the feeling or mood of the story.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I wouldn't want to know TO's 'factual' story. This is not to say that his personal and factual account is not important by any means. As a reader I want to distance myself from the writer enough so that I can form my own images and conclusions from the story. (Unless I am reading non-fiction) It is very similar to music for me. I idolized Tori Amos as an adolescent, when listening to her music I felt a strong connection to Tori based on my own perspective of her music. I had a chance to meet Tori one time and I turned it down. I was afraid that if I met her and my image was crushed then that connection would be broken and the music would cease to have an effect on me emotionally.
When I read a fictional piece of literature or even one based on truth such as this book I honestly don't search for the 'truth'. I enjoy the piece as written and I build my own images and conclusions as I previously mentioned. If TO were to write a piece of non-fiction based on his experiences I would read that differently than I would this book.
Here is a link that is very appropriate to our discussion. Kurt Vonnegut explains drama...
ReplyDeletehttp://sivers.org/drama
I personally read this book thinking that everything was true. I have never heard war stories and so the ones that I read in this book were horrifying to me. After talking in class about many of these stories possibly being exaggerated or fake, I was shocked. This made me wonder how my thoughts could totally be askew. I feel like TO’s stories would be beneficial to me if they were noted as true or fake. This way I could put a mindset on what is real in the war or not real. This book has opened my eyes to see what many people experience each and every day. Life is not fun; it is merely an obstacle that everyone has to face. I feel that spicing up a story like we have talked about in class, gives it more character and makes it very interesting to read about. TO has done an amazing job at making this book seem real to me whether the stories throughout TTTC are true, fake, or both. After the discussions in class, I find myself thinking what am I reading about, as I travel throughout a story TO has written. It will be interesting to hear TO talk about this book and help me to understand the thoughts of his mind. I feel as I search through these stories and examine the possibilities of factual stories it does help me understand what the plot is all about.
ReplyDeleteI wonder about how people feel when they read a work of fiction and then find out that one of the events was 'true'? I think Heather's 'nugget' is an important element to consider in a work such as this. What is the nugget in a story? Is it accuracy or is it the true feelings or does it need to be both?
ReplyDeleteAs to the negative... there are some things out there that are too much for the psyche, I believe. I watch the events in Japan unfold and were I to really try to put myself in the shoes of some of these people - well I would be down and out.
So what purpose does accuracy serve in storytelling?
And, do you find yourself questioning other texts now? I am really struggling with so called 'history' books... I always have, actually, because they are still written from a perspective based on a selection of information... so who decides what history is? At least I know who has decided in TTTC...and even what his criteria are (to an extent).
Emily, you brought up history books. When I was a kid in school we were taught the nice versions and I remember when I first started college in 96 I started to hear the 'real' stories. I was angry that my whole life teachers had lied to me. For example; we were told that when white people came to America it was a very peaceful process and we all sat down with the 'Indians' and had a lovely turkey dinner. My first dose of reality in college was the story of the Trail of Tears. It is so hard to know what 'history' is true and what is not. There are people that cannot wait for all of the holocaust survivors to pass away because they want to erase that it ever happened. I wonder what else has been erased over time. It reminds me so much of Orwell's, 1984!
ReplyDeleteI think the key word here is understand. It seems to me that there is a difference between the truth and understanding the truth. I don’t think I could handle reading the full truth. I don’t want to know what actually happened. I think TO knew this as he wrote. I think he knows that there are a lot of people who simply “can’t handle the truth”. Does he give up? No, he finds a way to get his story out by helping his readers get some kind of understanding of his experience. Some of what he writes may be exaggerated or completely made up, but we get the opportunity to try to feel what he felt. We get to try to understand what happened while he was in war. Not just the physical events but the emotions and the war’s effect on everyone. If TO can sit around with other vets who can relate to his book; fact or not he did it right.
ReplyDeleteI think to know as many facts about the truth makes it easier to understand the truth. I think to imagine what it is that had happened to them, lets us possibly understand why things happen and why people choose not to share it or try to forget it. For example, about the water buffalo, although Emily mentioned it might have not been a buffalo, I understand the anger of losing someone. I certainly would not go to the extreme as he did, but wars are nasty and they make people regrettably nasty. I don’t blame veterans for not wanting to share the whole truth because who ever they transform into during a war is not someone they are proud of when they come home. In this respect, I think that it may hinder an outsider’s point of view of the book, if they really did murder a human being out of rage or even because they were fighting for their own life.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I’m just a gullible person, but I don’t really search for the truth while reading this book, I just assume these experiences are all based on true events, whether they are stretched or shrunk from the truth. I think all stories are based off of somewhat of the truth perhaps.?
I thought the end of the chapter "Notes" was interesting. In this chapter he is explaining writing his story about Norman and Kiowa. How he based the story off of the main event but altered the tiny details in the story, some of them the truths, some of them not. I think personally he does that scene quite well and he gets the main purpose of the story told without giving us ALL of the truth. I would say that we don't need ALL the truth but enough as to where the author can get the point across. I'm not sure if knowing TO's "facts" about his service would help or hinder one's understandings of the book. I could see it both ways. Knowing all the "facts" we would know what he did truthfully go through and be able to sympathize with him but at the same time it might be too much for us to understand and the fact that we can only sympathize and not empathize with him. The search for the truth gives us a better understanding of the book-it gives us a more in depth look into the piece and to analyze it more.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the amount of factual imformation a person needs to understand the truth really depends on the persons previous experience. This topic came up earlier in these posts and now I feel that I am coming back to it. This makes sense though because whether we are reading a book or hearing a story from someone, the amount of experience we have in the topic area will really determine the amount of information we will need in order to understand. If two people have experienced the same thing, somethimes just one single word could bring out the truth for them while others would not have a clue as to what was going on. This is true when thinking about TO's experience, too. People reading his story that had been there and experienced war would need a lot less information to get the truth than someone such as myself who has never been to war.
ReplyDeleteWow, this is a deep question that I feel everyone may have a different answer to because it is a matter of personal opinion. I, however, believe that the truth mean the whole truth. When I want to know the truth about something, I definitely want to know the full, entire truth, and nothing else. Now, understanding the truth is something different. In TTTC, I feel that the truth told to us, being only the readers without any war experience, may come across as gruesome, vulgar, and unreal. In other words, completely plausible information; their experiences told through valid and truthful evidence. TO wrote these stories into a book to be published and read throughout the country and I believe that he was faced with a huge decision of how much truth to actually include. I think that he chose to leave much of the truth out in attempt to make the stories more palatable, or acceptable, to the reader. I think that it varies from story to story, but in general, TO uses what he thinks is the most important piece of factual information in order to still get the point of the story across to the reader. I think that the tidbits of details thrown all around the story are not necessarily true, but are added as a means of replacing the emotions felt by the soldier during the experience. These details help us visualize what the soldiers most likely were going through, since we can’t fully understand it without experiencing war ourselves. Knowing the ‘facts’ about TO’s service can either help or hinder one’s understanding of the entire book. They can help by reassuring the reader of what is true and what isn’t. For example, when I read TTTC, and I constantly asking myself if I think that is really what happened or if it was just told in a palatable manner. That is one of the reasons why I enjoy the book so much because, the majority of the time, the stories leave me hanging, or wanting to know more. However, knowing all the ‘facts’ of these veterans’ stories might hinder the understandings of the book because most of the time the facts probably won’t make any sense to us. I’m sure the facts are too shocking that they don’t always make sense to the individual whom experienced them. Like I mentioned earlier, the searching that I do for the truth when I read TTTC, enhances my experience of the text because my naivety to what is the truth stirs up my emotions and gets me excited about the next story. Searching for the truth also helps my understanding of the plot because I am constantly looking back at what I read in search for a reason or pattern for why something happened. That is why TTTC is such a fascinating book to read because unlike most other books, the whole truth is not there.
ReplyDeleteI like hearing the facts. When I was younger, I remember constantly irritating people by correcting their stories. If one little fact was twisted or bloated, I was sure to fix it. As I have grown up, I have learned to enjoy stories that have a mixture of fact and fiction. I now know that straight facts don’t always tell the story the right way. Facts don’t always accurately portray the feeling presented at that time.
ReplyDeleteIn this particular case with TO’s stories, I feel like he doesn’t need to tell us the stories with all the factual details. To me, the point of his book is to get it out. To get out the feelings and emotions that he carried with him long after his time in war. To portray a feeling you don’t need facts.
I don’t think I want to know the facts. TO told us these stories the way he wanted to. Whether he changed some facts to be more gruesome or to shield the reader from the hard truth, it doesn’t really matter me to.
Maybe he is unwilling to actually write down/say what actually happened. This could be part of a process for him of dealing with what he experienced.
As I've enjoyed reading all of your responses, I couldn't help but feel the need to comment on Heather's "nugget" analogy as well as Emily's history book inquiry.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I agree completely with your analogy about there being a "nugget" of truth in every story, even if the story is a completely falsified description of what took place, there is still going to be a "nugget" of truth that can be derived from the general insinuation of the story itself. This, to me, is an integral and important part of ANY story. It is the lesson, moral, or ethical position that the story takes in which we should be cautious. Like Heather said, some points in the story are trivial or irrelevant to the overall message that could be taken away from the story. It is our job as the reader to understand and derive the "nuggets" of truth from any and all stories. Granted, this can be a very daunting task when faced with the stories that TO writes about, but nonetheless they all contain that "nugget" that we search for.
When Emily mentioned the snippet about history books and the perspective in which they were written, it made me think of the idea that "history is made by those who write it". We get a biased perspective, whether the material was written objectively or not. It is biased because it is usually written by one person's perspective rather than many persons' collective perspectives. Like you, Emily, I struggle with history book content and constantly question whether the information I find is completely accurate.
It begs the question, what do the Vietnamese have to say about the entire war experience?
I have thought about some of the posed questions for a couple weeks and prior to that I heard a chapter from TTTC read on an NPR program called The Book Shelf. As I was driving down the freeway, I heard TO’s words spoken aloud from the chapter titled Field Trip, and it was a that moment that I came to my own conclusion about what makes “truth.”
ReplyDeleteForming the truth and making sense of it doesn’t just seem to come from factual events. Isn’t part of truth the feelings we experience and how our life is affected or changed by the factual events? In this case, it’s doesn’t seem the factual events are as important as knowing how they molded TO’s senses, thoughts, feelings, and life. I think if the reader were to have been given the facts about TO’s service, especially if the reader didn’t serve in the war, he or she may not have grasped the burdens that so many soldiers took from the war. Like for instance, first TO tells us he did kill the man with the star-shaped hole in his eye, but then he tells us he didn’t kill him. Whether he killed him or not, it seems TO walked away from the war feeling that so many people where killed that it didn’t matter if the death of this young man was his fault or not. As readers, we are better able to understand the plot if we’re given a context in which it happened. We have to be able to follow the “story” and connect to it in some way. It would be impossible for all readers to connect to it if it solely contained factual events. All the literary elements that make a story have to be present to create an experience for the reader that puts them in the shoes of the characters.
Emily mentions the facts contributing negatively in her reply to another bog. She spoke of how I feel when reading this story. I am thankful for the security and freedom provided for us by those brave souls that go to war, and grateful and in awe of TO sharing his experiences. Without these real accounts of what actually happens, regardless of fabrications, we would have to rely on the media-not the best source, as we know.
ReplyDeleteI m a straightforward person, I can be brutally honest and I welcome the raw truth as well. There is not a lot I shy away from, but war and behind the scenes is a hard truth for me to handle. So, in this reading and throughout our blogging I have been faced with facts I would rather be in the dark about, facts that have a negative affect on me. However, I can appreciate the reality of it and know that even removed, I need to embrace it.
In regards to reading To’s story I want all the factual information I can get to understand the truth. I could go on forever with the mindset of, oh what a tragedy. However, this to me is part of history I need to know on a deeper level. My search for the truth absolutely enhances my experience of the text and of understanding the plot.
I truly don’t think we need to be pointed to the “truth” of a story. A play-by-play of what is true is not necessary. I feel that there is truth woven within the fabric of every story. Stories, fact or fiction, come from something. Even our imaginations come from somewhere, some experience. I think it is more important to have an appreciation or an understanding of what the author is trying to say, where the author is trying to take us. While facts can be helpful and informative for those who lack the background knowledge to comfortably proceed with a story, those facts don’t necessarily have to be “truthful” for the success of a story. For our book, the reality is that we can’t truly know. Unless we were there with TO, the truth is not ours to have; seeking that truth may not bring us any closer. Even veterans, who have a common experience, who have served in the same war, do not know the actual truths of “TO’s” story. They may feel the truth of the story, even recognize it as one of there own, but they really don’t know any more than you or I.
ReplyDeleteI am a factual person and so I enjoy knowing all the facts even when I am reading. I am not sure if I think facts are necessary to make a story more truthful. In TO's story, I think that the facts make the story easier to understand and makes me appreciate more everything that some go through to provide me the security that I often take for granted. But, the how can we know if what we are hearing or reading is the truth. It is one persons version of what happened. Like Emily said about history books. We often take it as gospel as to how everything happened, but I think it merits taking a closer look at the person providing the story as to whether it can be considered a truth. I think knowing that TO was there and involved, not just an outsider looking in, makes his story more truthful and there for more believable.
ReplyDeleteI think that when it comes to factual information that is to be determined by the story. When I think about it, I have no idea how much of the story is factual, yet I believe in it. There could not be a single word of truth to the whole thing, but I believe in it and understand what TO is talking about. I understand that his point is to get the general public, such as myself to “get it” and know what had happened. If a story is well written, I don’t think it matters how many of the lines are truth, as long as the words still speak the truth. It may be my own personal experience as a military wife that tells me there is always more to the story and that I must rely on the saying “no news is good news.” When I relate it to this question, I take into account the fact that there will always be things unspoken, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t know there is more to be spoken about. So, as with the no news thing, just because there is no news to report, doesn’t mean that there actually isn’t any news to report.
ReplyDeleteI think that if people just knew the facts about the war then they would end up getting turned off from the whole thing. We may be able to watch horror movies without blinking or killing people on the Xbox, but the reality if when that becomes life, when that becomes reality we cannot comprehend how someone can do such things. People are ignorant and want to remain in the shadows of the truth. For TO’s story, I think he did a good job relating to the people without getting too gory. We understand that some of this may be embellished, but there is an underlying hint that the stories not being embellished have more to tell.
When a person invests themselves into the story and the characters, then they begin to crave the truth, what really did happen? How does this happen? What really happened? This happens when someone is trying to gain closure on what had happened. Some will never go seeking for the truth because they are not ready for it; while others will dig, and search to know the truth. This may help us enhance the story, but I think the plot remains.
When I read Lynelle’s post I had a strong connection with her opinion. I also do not necessarily search for facts in truth when reading this book. I take my knowledge from the emotion that I feel is conveyed when reading this book. In this book I don’t think it is essential to have 100% facts in these stories to understand the truth and underlying meaning behind the stories. I have never been to war, therefore I value someone’s story who has been there. There is no way I could read a bunch of facts about a war and have nearly the experience that someone who actually lived the events did. I find truth in the stories in TTTC because of the simple fact that they are written by people who lived the events. Their stories are the best chance I have of understanding and being able to relate to the war. If I knew the exact facts of TO’s service I think it would hinder my overall feeling of truth. I want to believe TO’s stories in the sense of the message and feeling they convey. I’m not interested in precise services; I’m interested in his perspective. And if TO’s perspective is not the exact truth, I still feel that I can understand his message. TO provides enough factual information for framework in his stories, and from there the experience can be retold.
ReplyDeleteI have always been someone who enjoys knowing the facts. I do not like embelishments or over the tops stories. I am one to correct someones story with the facts, although I am not as bad as I used to be with this, I still catch my self doing it. The thing that I must realize is sometimes what makes a story interesting is the mixture of embellishments and facts.
ReplyDeleteThe thing about TO's stories is that they work with the embellishments. I honestly think that with war stories the whole truth is too gruesome to know. Not to mention it is hard for those like TO who have experience it to talk about everything without it being a little cloudy. I feel like TO's story had enough facts that I was able to understand what happened and gain his perspective.