so of course by now we all hopefully realize that the things they carried is a collection os stories about the vietnam war-what happened before, during and after it- and the stories are told by O'Brian a supposed vietnam veteran. From what Neilson said in his worth while, os fun to read article, he thinks that the book is postmodern.
so why does Neilson think that the things they carried is postmodern? Vietnam, like many other wars does not fit what most would call a war, or the definition of a war...a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or as between parties within a nation, as by land, sea or air. Neilson says that "the war, according to the critics, was defined by uncertainty in motivation, history, strategy, official rhetoric, media representations, identification of friend or foe." You think you understand that, well Neilson probably didn't think anyone would, so he just kept saying the same thing over and over again, just worded differently.
okay, this line caught my attention, and hopefully other people's, " the weakness of the things they carried is that O'Brien's imagination is virtually the only reality. O'Brien does not contexualize his expierences, does not provide us with any deeper meaning of the causes and consequences of war, and does not see beyond his individual expierence to document the vastly greater suffering of the Vietnamese." People didn't ask for the war to happen, US soldiers weren't asked to be thrown into battle, and the Vietnamese people weren't asked to have their homes and country destroyed or the family members to be killed.
Well to end this, I hope whomever reads this had a nice weekend, and had an enjoyabke time reading the article and finishing the book.
read more
so why does Neilson think that the things they carried is postmodern? Vietnam, like many other wars does not fit what most would call a war, or the definition of a war...a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or as between parties within a nation, as by land, sea or air. Neilson says that "the war, according to the critics, was defined by uncertainty in motivation, history, strategy, official rhetoric, media representations, identification of friend or foe." You think you understand that, well Neilson probably didn't think anyone would, so he just kept saying the same thing over and over again, just worded differently.
okay, this line caught my attention, and hopefully other people's, " the weakness of the things they carried is that O'Brien's imagination is virtually the only reality. O'Brien does not contexualize his expierences, does not provide us with any deeper meaning of the causes and consequences of war, and does not see beyond his individual expierence to document the vastly greater suffering of the Vietnamese." People didn't ask for the war to happen, US soldiers weren't asked to be thrown into battle, and the Vietnamese people weren't asked to have their homes and country destroyed or the family members to be killed.
Well to end this, I hope whomever reads this had a nice weekend, and had an enjoyabke time reading the article and finishing the book.
