The Things They Carried Ch 1-4 Questions 15bi

Brandon Chacon Period 1 Ch. 1- 4 Questions: The Things They Carried 





“The Things They Carried” 1. “The Things They Carried,” moves from concrete to abstract things. It begins with military necessities (guns, helmets, radios, ammo, and rations) and personal items (comic books, pictures, letters, drugs) and ends with emotions, memories, family, history, tragedy, heartbreak, guilt, love. In this way "carry" is a transitive verb: it requires direct objects, and O'Brien lists them, and their weights, to give the novel military verisimilitude and to give the men psychological baggage. 2. The concept “men killed, and died, because they were too embarrassed not to” directly introduces the theme of shame and guilt by emphasizing the motives of why Lt. Jimmy Cross and his platoon were in Vietnam, as soldiers, and why they continued to fight. The sentence suggests that the platoon did not go to war solely based on their own opinions, but were influenced by some other source that was profound enough to affect their decision. They continued to battle the enemy out of not wanting to be the “coward[ly]” one, hoping to defend their “reputation”. “Love” 1. O’Brien’s narrative strategies reflect the self-suppression that his characters practice, most noticeably changing from the tension of the past, to the serenity of the present. It is unclear whether O’Brien’s conversation with Cross actually happened or whether it is a fiction that renders “The Things They Carried” more realistic. The distinction is not made in this story about the resemblance between O’Brien the author and O’Brien the main character. The difference between actuality and fiction does not mean much to O’Brien; feelings behind the story give the narrative its resolve. 2. Although the request is not explicitly stated, it could be inferred that in the event Jimmy Cross was to star in O’Brien’s novel, that O’Brien would not include a section about Lavender’s death and Jimmy’s self-blame. By requesting this, it reveals that Jimmy, much like the soldiers during the war, would rather abstain from being dishonored. Jimmy wants to keep his shame close to only himself, as to preserve it from the greedy, judging views of others. “Spin” 1. The men enjoy Dobbins and Bowker’s well-ordered, rational games of checkers because all the pieces are easy to see, you can tell what side their on, the board is laid out, and its strategy over uncertainty. It’s also emphasized that the war has neither rules nor winners, and men witness horrific acts juxtaposed with random acts of kindness. 2. O’Brien presents the ideas in this chapter in separate, almost disconnected and fragmented sections in order to develop the characters in a way he was unable to before. Through this, we are able to see the juvenile cruelty of Azar, the logical even-headedness of Kiowa, and the dimness of Norman Bowker. Each character becomes more real with the exposure of a new aspect. One way that “Spin” develops characters is by describing the inner conflicts that define



them throughout The Things They Carried. With each new look at a given occurrence we gain additional perspective on the characters involved. “On the Rainy River” 1. “On the Rainy River” is an the development of the role of shame in war because the theme of embarrassment as a motivating factor. Just as Jimmy Cross feels guilty about Ted Lavender’s death, O’Brien feels guilty about going to Vietnam against his principles. His story describes his ethical dilemma after receiving a draft notice, he has no desire to fight in a war he believes is unjust, but he does not want to be assumed a coward. O’Brien’s individual experience shows that the fear of being shamed before one’s peers is a powerful motivating factor in war. He questions his own motives, and in this story he returns to the origin of his decision in order to examine with us the specifics of cause and effect. 2. O’Brien addresses the reader to reveal that he senses the need to justify and elaborate on his decision to us, his readers, by putting us in the position of ethical judges of his actions. O’Brien’s portrayal is of a naïve, impressionable youth is part of a defense of himself and of his actions. Although his blunt questioning of “What would you do?” forces us to recognize the difficulty of his position, it also asks us to evaluate the rationality of his sequence of action.