HW for Thur, 05.26.16 - "On the Rainy River"

5/27/2016

For Thursday, your assignment is to read the next story in The Things They Carried - "On the Rainy River." In a comment to this post, respond to the following question:

The author of this entire book is Tim O'Brien. He was born and raised in Minnesota, went to Macalester College, was drafted in 1968, served in Vietnam, and returned to go to graduate school at Harvard. The narrator of this story goes by that name, and those other details I've just supplied seem to be true of that narrator. Yet, this book is a "work of fiction." (Some say 'novel,' others 'story collection.' That's a discussion for a different day.) It's not necessarily your job here to tell the facts from what's not factual, but what effect does it have on you that this is not called a memoir or autobiography? What about this story seems true to you? What about those first few lines in which he asserts that he's never told this story before because it would be too embarrassing, says too much about himself -- what do you make of that? I'm not looking for you to speculate upon what actually happened or what was in the author's heart. I want to know how that makes you (yes, 'you,' the individual, not 'one') react to what you've read and why. Please be specific and refer to specific lines/details in the story.

5 Comments

Evan Zeng

5/30/2016 10:48:29 pm

At first, I had conflicting emotions. The speaker either is not telling the truth, or he is telling something attached with an emotion that is so true that he was compelled to keep the story a secret. I believed in the former at first, but later, I could see why the second may be true. I actually believed in the raw emotion of the situation simply because he told his entire story through repetition (a sense of shame. Hot stupid shame. 52) and simple language, as if there is no way to feel his emotions other than to experience through blasting how raw the feelings were. The simple repetitive language draw me into believing the story.

Bhavik Nagda

6/1/2016 09:28:53 am

O'Brien's depiction made me for compassionate and sympathetic towards him. By first revealing (even if it isn't true) that this is the first time he's told the story, I felt as though I was getting to hear the real O'Brien, secrets and all. O'Brien also reflects upon his most vulnerable moments plainly, and doesn't seem to hold anything back, whether it be regrets or emotions or thoughts in general. For example, O'Brien finally admits "I couldn't endue the mockery, or the disgrace, or the patriotic ridicule,,,, I would go to the war-I would kill and maybe die- because I was embarrassed not to." By positioning himself in this cowardly state, O'Brien doesn't suggest that he is cowardly at heart but rather he expresses the wartime feeling and pressures building up inside him. We the readers essentially hear about a vulnerable moment, and look at it through the lens of war.

Jaehun Lee

6/12/2016 03:53:42 pm

I don't think I was very focused on whether or not the story was factually true, especially after learning it was a work of fiction. I was mostly focused on the emotional effect the author gave to the reader, and in that sense I think the emotions the character O'Brien feels are true. The first few lines about him never telling the story before made me feel sympathetic towards him. If someone hasn't told this story before because they were too embarrassed to share it, I would feel less likely to judge him negatively even if they did something that was shameful or cowardly. I also agree with something Bhavik says in his response. O'Brien positioning himself in a cowardly state changes the way we perceive the story because it makes the story a story about vulnerability, not a story of cowardice or shameful actions.

Isaac Ehrlich

6/13/2016 10:03:03 am

I think at first, I was confused as to why O'Brien decided to tell the stories as fiction rather than as a memoir or autobiography. As I kept reading the stories however, especially "How to Tell a True War Story," I began to see that by labeling his book as fiction, it allows the reader to focus more on the message, rather than every detail. In the beginning, I was very curious as to what was factual and what was fiction, but by the end, I realize that because it is fiction, the details don't matter. In O'Brien's stories, the message is much more important than the truth. By labeling his writing on fiction, I think O'Brien gave himself some fluidity and flexibility in writing his stories, knowing he wasn't bound and forced to recollect exactly what happened to him, but rather be able to focus on the lessons of the stories

Ayush Upneja link

6/13/2016 11:57:52 am

Like others, I was confused at first, but then I realized that when you read nonfiction and fiction, you have very different perspectives. When you read nonfiction, you tend to think a lot more about what is happening rather than try to get something out of the work, get to the main theme. When you read fiction, you know it is concocted for a purpose, so you actively search for that purpose, which is why I decided to shift my perspective accordingly.

HW for Thur, 05.26.16 - "On the Rainy River"

Leave a Reply.

Archives

Categories