Reality vs. Fiction

Whose to say, with all the information on the Vietnam War that we have access to today, that any individual can't write a story in the point of view of a war vetran? Not to say O'brien's stories were mythical, but it can be assumed, allowing it to only become a different version of Davidson and Lytles "Where Trouble Comes." In this case it's short stories rather then movies, thats the only difference.
But i personally do feel that O'briens short stories are more athentic simply because the accounts he provides are so much more personal: "I remember Norman Bowker and Henry Dobbins playing checkers every evening before dark...the playing field was laid out in a strict grid, no tunnels or mountains or jungles...the enmy was visible, you could watch the tactics unfolding into larger strategies." In this sentence alone you can sense the emotion in the author, how he desired simplicty but how he it didn't exist.
"Where Trouble Comes" is a more dramatic outlook on the Vietnam War stylized to attract viewers stictly for the purpose of money, not so much to convey an idea. How Davidson and Lytles would approach O'briens work is most probably authentic, in fact his stories would be a rather strong unit in a war movie and yet another contribution to the media.
Unlike O'brien, who uses personal and touching accounts to give a vivid idea of the war, Davidson and Lytles describe a movie entitled Deer Hunter, which at most points even fails to relate much to the vietnam, which confirms how they use myths to seduce the viewer: "Sadistic guards force them to join a sadistic game of russian roulette...nick...survives...Michael...uses the bullets to kill the guards and escapes with Nick and Steven." Russian Roullete definitly has no significance in the war facts, or emotions, which supports the mythical point.