You Tell Metanarratives to Get at the Truth

"You tell lies to get at the truth" (141). So, while referring to the novel, what exactly are the "lies" that establish the "truth"? I'd say it's pretty clear that these lies are the metanarratives that O'Brien uses to convey his emotions and mentality towards the war. So, as I read Neilson's article, I began to see the direct correlation between postmodernism and The Things They Carried.

Tim O'Brien yses the postmodern methods of metanarratives to convey his emotional and psyhcological pain towards Vietnam. O'Brien's obsession with the "ultimate truth" is somewhat ridiculed in this article. I have learned that O'Brien chooses to demonstrate the horror of Vietnam by telling the exoerienced with various different metanarratives. These metanarratives vary in content. Some are vague, and some are absurdly vivid in detail. But the amazing thing is, that with these modified versions, O'Brien does not lose credibility. Instead, these metanarratives serve as more proof to the terror of the war. The more versions, the more the reader's become more engrossed into the horror of the "truthful" stories. With O'Brien's countless versions, the readers grasp the fact that the terror of the war cannot be correctly identified or expressed. With the numerous metanarratives that the author includes, the reader's do not question his credibility, rather they begin to sympathize with him. I guess what could really be seen here is that the reader's begin to accept that with horrifying events, different versions of the experience are portrayed by its victims.

So in effect, because none of us experienced Vietnam first hand, we accept the stories that we are told as truth. Questioning someone's word on a horrifying experience is an uncomfortable area to venture into, therefore we do not and we just accept the stories as truth. If we had been at Vietnam, we would most likely be able to shrug off somebody elses "true war stories". If we look at the text, we can even see this taking place by the characters. In "How to Tell a True War Story", we see Curt Lemon painted as a heroic figure. But in "The Dentist", we see him brought down by the narrator. But here's the thing, if we had listened to either one of these stories first, we would have accepted that version of Curt Lemon as the "truth". On the other hand, Rat and teh narrator are able to dervie their own perceptions of Lemon because they actually experienced encounters with Curt. Why is this? Well it's simple, it's because we weren't there to make our own assessments.

Anyways, although I do agree with Neilson that it is ironic that O'Brien uses vairous metanarratives to portray "truth". I also think that it is the only way to efficiently portray Vietnam.