10/10 Wrap

You'll notice that the prompt for the second major essay is listed to the right for your consultation.

For Monday, read 'How To Tell a True War Story' and be prepared both for a quiz on it and to discuss O'Brien's project generally, particularly in relationship to the Davidson & Lytle chapter we've been working with. Think about the following question, which I'm sure to ask: How is the Davidson & Lytle's opposition of 'myth' and 'authenticity' like O'Brien's 'story-truth' v. 'happening truth'? More importantly, how is it different?

No response for Monday, though the response for Wednesday will require you having watched at least one of the war films for your essay, so be sure to be doing that this weekend. You don't want to be in the position of writing and watching at the same time.

Mythical?

In the excerpt "Where Trouble Comes" Davidson and Lytle speak in much detail about the way historical events are portrayed in movies. They also discuss the many choices made by the directors to make their movies more appealing and entertaining for their viewers. These choices involve making changes to some of the events that took place to make them more action packed. Davidson and Lytle also talk about the different views historians and directors have. Obviously a historian is an expert on history and will do his best to record the actual facts. However, directors are more into making their film into a big hit, disregarding the events that actually took place.

I believe that Davidson and Lytle would consider Tim O' Brien a historian to a certain extent. " I'm forty-three years old, true, and I'm a writer now, and a long time ago I waked through Quang Ngai Province as a foot soldier" (O'Brien 203). That quote best describes the fact Tim O' Brien actually took part in the war, fighting as a foot soldier. In saying that Tim O' Brien talks about many events in his excerpts, many of them are fictional but they are authentic. He actually wrote a whole chapter that was completely fictional, this chapter was called "The Man I Killed." In this chapter he refers to a soldier he killed and started to elaborate on the mans life as if he knew him. He went to the extent of actually give the man a year in which he was born and even his place of birth. When referring to those stories Davidson and Lytle would consider Tim O'Brien's stories to be mythical.

Happening Truth

I believe Davidson & Lytle would look at Tim O’Brien’s “The Man I Killed,” and recognize that this story is authentic by O’Brien’s telling of his “happening truth.”

In Tim O’Brien’s “The Man I Killed,” he describes killing a Vietnamese man who belongs to the NLF. The descriptions are very detailed each time he tells of this man’s death. I can feel his pain not only because of his repeated depictions which focuses on different aspects of the death nor because his platoon buddy, Kiowa who keeps encouraging him to let the event go, but because of need to create his “story truth” that speaks very clearly to his agony.

The two dominate myths (the western and the WWII combat epic) of the American cinema are not portrayed in the story. In this story, O’Brien feels grief for killing his man. He does not believe that “Americans have come to Vietnam to protect innocents and promote democracy…” If he felt that way, he would not need to think about this man’s life and how miserable he looked in death (Davidson & Lytle 409).

Each time he describes the man the reality is balance with a “what if.” He imagines this man may not want to fight but felt the pressure from his family and hamlet to participate in fight these invaders. He imagines that he might have gone to a university to study Mathematics. The ring on this man’s hand and picture in his personal belongs makes O’Brien think he may have been married.

O’Brien makes it clear to the reader, which part of his story is real and which is imagined; both make this authentic.

Mythical or Authentic?

Davidson and Lytle’s article Where Trouble Comes is about how many Vietnam War movies such as Deer Hunter and First Blood are mythical and have many changes in order to depict characters, background, and the war in a positive or “American” view. Since there was such protest against the Vietnam War in America filmmakers created films which did not change the outcomes of the Vietnam War but in First Blood’s case, showing a victory for America by rescuing a dozen prisoners (423). Platoon was the first successful to look at the Vietnam War itself as history and not myths of near invincible heroes and fabrications. Soldiers are not trigger happy gunmen with a mission to prove but instead are scared and will often try to weasel out of hard assignments to avoid being killed. Platoon also depicts emotions soldiers faced while fighting in the Vietnam War, “Sheen is tormented by ants that crawl over him; he faints from the heat and humidity of the hard march; he stares anxiously into a rainy, impenetrable dark, trying to spot the invisible enemy” (424).

In Tim O’Brien’s The Man I Killed, after killing a Vietnamese soldier, an American soldier named Kiowa feels strong emotions of guilt and denial. Kiowa tells the Vietnamese soldier to “Stop staring” and “Man, I’m sorry” (144) while lying dead full of holes and bleeding. Kiowa tries to rationalize his actions by stating that it is war and he had to do something. Davidson and Lytle would look at this O’Brien story and say that is indeed authentic. Kiowa feels deep regrets for what he did and asks for forgiveness to his “enemies.”

Written by Davidson and Lytle, Where Trouble Comes, it is depicted in their article as a mythical intrepertation. This is described with a scene in Deer Hunter, which it is exaggerated into a different perspective. It is also blown out of porportion making it seem worse than what the truth and reality really is. This idea is quoted as, " in their evil hands, their holiest myth of the west - the ritual of the one shot kill was pervered into an evil game of torture." (419) With a simple kill presented in the movie it is also drastically overstated. Movies doesn't necessarily bring what's war about. It shows how films can be portrayed and what the realistic life at war can be very differently seen. Therefore illustrates that as one may show one thing it can be viewed as well as another set of outcome.
In comparison, in Good Form by O' Brien, he states that "I remember his face, which was not a pretty face, because his jaw was in his throat, and I remember feeling the burden of responsibilty and grief." (203) This statement shows that O' Brien witnessed the tragic incident of a man's death. In addition, he explains in every detail about the man's body describing its facial position as well as body position. he also allows the viewers to have a clear and vivid feel upon his guilt upon his description about the man's dead corpse he saw. He paints the picture bringing the audience with him there.

Story-truth or Happening Truth? Mythical or Authentic?

In Davidson and Lytle’s article ‘Where Trouble Comes’, Michael Cimino discusses the dramatizations in his movie The Dear Hunter, “I wanted people to feel what it was like to be there, to be in jeopardy every moment” (418). Dramatic scenes, such as the Russian roulette scene, involve the risk of losing life. In movies and in writing, characters and situations are often made up or exaggerated in order to connect with the audience. The danger of losing life can easily help speak to an audience because it is something everybody is concerned about. The Russian roulette scene is similar to the story ‘The Man I killed’ by Tim O‘Brien. In it, he describes a dead soldier killed in battle. The connection here would be the importance of life and the danger of losing it in both stories. He uses detailed descriptions in order to help communicate images and emotions to the reader. However, we learn that most of what O’Brien tells the reader is fiction. That what he was really doing was trying to make the reader feel what he felt during the war. In ‘Good Form’ by Tim O’Brien, it has been said, “I want you to feel what I felt. I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening truth.” Both Michael Cimino and Tim O’Brien admit to having stretched the truth, if not having made up their own truth, in order to help relate to the audience or reader.

Davidson and Lytle’s article “Where Trouble Comes” does not try to depict one point of view in order to satisfy the needs of the reader, instead they are analyzing the views of many film makers who are trying to represent the Vietnam War. Davidson and Lytle try to distinguish what is real fact, in Tim O’Brien’s words- “happening truth”, or what is made up to help attract an audience. Also known as ‘authentic’ or ‘mythical’. To better understand such a concept Davidson and Lytle have said “..myth deals with expectations rather than reality” (417). With that being said, it is believed that Davidson and Lytle would probably look at O’Brien’s stories and consider them to be mythical because O’Brien has even said that he writes to get an emotion from the reader, so they can feel how he felt, rather than use factual events. If O’Brien’s stories were authentic, they would include real events that have happened in the war and to himself, rather than the sad and dramatic one he tries to portray.

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.

Authentic or Mythical?

In "Where Trouble Comes" by Davidson and Lytle the short story describes how producers change the facts in order to make the movies more interesting. The story consists of different movies and describing how everything is dramatized. Davidson and Lytle stated, "The historical "reality" presented by dramatic films is radically different from that of a letter or diary, or even from a secondary account like The Jungle" (403), giving us an understanding that there are different forms of reality. Its not only the factual data included. The short story "Spin" by Tim O' Brien from The Things They Carried is the total opposite. Tim O' Brien was in the actual war and witnessed everything he wrote. The use of "I" is very powerful because it shows the reader Tim O' Brien was present. Davidson and Lytle would say that O'Brien is a mythical writer. "The war wasn't all terror and violence. Sometimes things could almost get sweet" (O'Brien 35), shows that when talking about a war its not all about negative. One of the paragraphs in "Spin" describes how it was a ritual to play cheeckers every afternoon. O' Brien states the positive parts of the war and leaves more of the negative parts.

Keep the realism or over Exaggerated?

Article “when trouble comes” written by Davidson and Lytle have provided examples to show how modern films create mythical representations of war .As one who knows that most of the War films have over exaggerated the true information of history from many aspects. Ineluctable, Many War films are hard to make impersonally. Obviously, the films are not accurate by engrafting personal views and emotion to a “reality recollections”.
The article is based on Vietnam War. Davidson and Lytle mentioned about some war movies are using historical truth .However, while defining the real evidence found in history, director also changed or added information in order to match their personal “ideally” picture. As the authors’ state: “This piece is a dramatic film, not a scholarly monograph. Like novels or plays, films strive for an artistic standard of “truth” that resides less in the particular of historical record than rendering situations and characters in authentic, human ways. (pg 405)
“The Man I Killed” by O’Brian gives a point of view from a solider to the Vietnam War in his early time. As a witness to the war of Vietnam, O’Brian went through all the events that appeared to his sight at that time. Back to his memories, he clearly listed certain incidents he had faced in the past. At this aspect, he is a historian for fact. However, O’Brian has failed to carry the title “historian” according to Davidson and Lytle‘s perspective for what a true historian should be. The principle for a real historian is: 1. always stick with the truth. 2. Judgy a historical event in an impersonal way. O’Brian has made his 1st mistake to against the tenet, “Daddy, tell me the truth,”Kathleen can say, did you ever kill anybody?” and I can say, honestly,”of course not.” Or I can say, honeslty,”yes.”(pg 204) A historian can’t cover the truth with personal feeling which includes: guilty, shameless, embarrassment. They always have to be impartial to recount what was exactly happened during the past.
If the authors Davidson and Lytle would make a critical to the story “The Man I Killed” by O’Brian, they probably would consider it as a mythical representation not Authentic.

Detailed Reality

Davidson and Lytle write about the mythical representations of war in modern films such as The Green Berets and The Deer Hunter while O’Brien gives us his account of the war from his own perspective as a foot soldier. If Davidson and Lytle were to read some of the excerpts from O’Brien’s book, I believe that they would call O’Brien’s work authentic because they understand that this writing comes from personal experience and emotion, rather than money or entertainment. The two authors wrote about the movie Platoon and praised it for showing the true nature of war. They wrote, “Platoon also dramatizes the anguish of fighting in Vietnam. Sheen is tormented by ants that crawl over him; he faints from the heat and humidity of the hard march; he stares anxiously into a rainy, impenetrable dark, trying to spot the enemy” (424). Rather than an epic tale of a seemingly invincible hero, Davidson and Lytle admired the sheer reality of war.
O’Brien writes about just how real war really can be in his short story titled, “The Man I Killed”. He gives us a startling detailed image of a man who he believes he has killed with his own hands. He writes, “His jaw was in his throat, his upper lip and teeth were gone, his one eye shut, his other eye was a star shaped hole” (139). The reader can imagine this picture so clearly because of all of the vivid details. Davidson and Lytle would deem it authentic just by reading the first couple lines of this short story.

Does Reality Make Stories or Do Stories Make Reality?

Davidson and Lytle, the authors of “When Trouble Comes,” an in-depth analysis of representation through war films, would look at Good Form, a short story by a war veteran named Tim O’Brian in a very interesting way.
In the article by Davidson and Lytle it states: “John Wayne’s film demonstrated that although myths might distort history, they could not ignore it entirely if they hoped to speak to audiences in lasting and satisfying ways. The tensions between ideal and the real, between “what should have been” and “what was,” made The Green Berets an unconvincing film for many Americans”(410). This quote can be explained that in order to capture audiences, the use of myths to represent cultural ideals and expectations, whether historically accurate or not is very important. These myths are carefully chosen to give the audience a full understanding of what is meant to be represented or demonstrated through that specific story or film.
In O’Brian’s short story he writes: “ I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth”(
203) He later states: “What stories can do, I guess, is make things present”(204) This author is trying to convey the message that he may tell a story in a way that although is not historically accurate, is expressing and even stressing the ideas and feelings behind what could be an authentic occurrence. Particularly in this short story, O’Brien first tells the reader that he was a foot soldier patrolling Quang Ngai Province and establishes that as truth. He then shares a short event where he was present and witnessed an opposing soldier dying, but states that that occurrence never happened. The reason he does this is to be as Davidson and Lytle would say, “mythical,” in order to illustrate to the audience how he was feeling at that time. Next, O’Brian states what he calls the happening-truth, as he truthfully admits to the “faceless responsibility and faceless grief (203)” that he is left with after witnessing the dead bodies as a soldier many years earlier. This preceding statement is what Davidson and Lytle explain as "authentic." The story-truth is what follows as the author exaggerates these feelings of responsibility and grief by saying that he killed that member of the opposing forces, “attaching faces to grief(204)”.
As we can see, producers, authors and the like, use mythical and authentic stories or movies in order to suggest and expression their feelings. The controversy then arises of whether reality makes stories or stories make reality.

Truth or Lie

Davidson and Lytle conclude that " The historical 'reality' presented by dramatic films is radically different from that of a letter or diary, or even from a secondary account like The Jungle". (403) In other words, first hand documents such as letter or diary often give the most accurate information about particular events. Second handed documents such as books and films are most likely to give false information because this kind of information usually include personal emotions and point of view. Tim O'brien's stories about Vietnam War is more likely to be consider as mythical according to Davidson and Lytle's conclusion.

Even though that Tim himself was a soldier in Vietnam War that experienced the truth behind the war, but the story which he writes is not 100% accurate. This is because he put too much his own emotions into the story and sometimes, he even make up his own stories in order to make the it more interesting. Quotes such "I remember his face, which......I was present" ( Tim O'brien 203) and "I want you to feel what I felt.... happening-truth." (Tim O'brien 203) evidenced that the story "The things they carried" is not all about truth but the author's emotion too. According to Tim, that when reader falls into the emotional words in an article, he/she will consider this story as a truth whatever it is really truth or not. Tim thinks that the truth can not be written, truth is what the reader feels about it. When a reader feels the same way as the author does, than it is a truth.

Mythical vs. Authentic

In the reading, “Where trouble comes” by Davidson and Lytle, they discuss the Vietnam War and how exactly film makers played off of the war. They discussed how many movies were geared towards a mythical view of the war, “because myth deals with expectations rather than reality” {417 Davidson, Lytle}. On the other hand some screenwriters took the controversial road and chose to create more of an authentic film. For Cimino, authenticity seems to revolve around dramatic feelings and constructing an emotionally arresting moment rather then a recreation of the wars historical context.” {416 Davidson Lytle}. The problem with these films is that they don’t give the audience a real knowledge of the war, rather “the message was tailored perfectly for those filmgoers who as Coppola said, didn’t want to “feel guilty” and who could now leave the theater singing God bless America, believing that the myths at the center of Michaels world remained intact” {Davidson 419}.
In the stories which O’ Brien writes about he discusses some truthful killings within his peaceful domain. As he states in his article, “Spin,” “The war wasn’t all terror and violence. Sometimes things can almost get sweet” {35}. This is more of a mythical approach. In this passage O’Brien explains that at many times during the war it was quite peaceful and the fellow soldiers would play games with one another. “How’s the war today somebody would say, and Ted Lavender would give a soft spacey smile and say, “mellow man, we got ourselves a nice mellow war today” {36 O’Brien}. This according to Lytle and Davidson would be a mythical view, one that many audiences may be fooled by, however not very true. On the other hand, in the article, “The man I killed” by O’Brien, there is much detail, feeling and compassion. It discusses an American man who killed an innocent man during the Vietnam War. The man could’ve been a million things but the Americans took his life away. Davidson and Lytle would call this more of an authentic story. Historians may be able to relate to it a little more, because it has a little more truth to and reality to it. The Americans killed many innocent civilians and as much as one may like to admit that they didn’t, this story tells it like it is. “Twenty years ago I watched a man die on a trail near the village My Khe. I did not kill him but I was present you see and my presence was guilt enough. I remember his face which was not a pretty face because his jaw was in his throat I remember feeling the burden of responsibility and grief. I blamed myself, and rightly so because I was present” {203}.

nicolefarahnik o brian mythical.authentic

Davidson and Lytle would consider O’Brian’s stories as mythical. According to Where Trouble Comes, by Davidson and Lytle , it is stated that “A myth, to quote one dictionary definition, is “any real or fictional story, reoccurring theme, or character type that appeals to the consciousness of a people by embodying its cultural ideas or by giving expression to deep, commonly felt emotions.” (405) According to this quote, as long as the same feelings or interpretations are perceived, then the story, which could be fiction or nonfiction, would be considered as a myth. Where Trouble Comes shows us that movies and stories do not show the real truth anymore, but rather dramatize everything to make it bigger than what it really is. “I want you to feel what I felt. I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening truth.” by O’Brian, Good Firm. According to O’Brian, truth is when you get the same feeling that the actual person who went through it has gotten. He considers it more important to get the emotional value, rather than the occurring truth.

Mythical or Authentic

If Davidson and Lytle we're to read Tim O'Brien's material, they would consider it to be mythical. In "When Trouble Comes" they define myth as, "any real or fictional story, recurring theme, or character type that appeals to the consciousness of a people by embodying its cultural ideals or giving expressions to deep, commonly felt emotions." What Tim O'Brien writes aren't exactly non-fiction material, but what is true is that he has primary source of the Vietnam War, which is his experience as a veteran of the war.

As a person who fought in the Vietnam War, O'Brien has a better understanding of what really went on in Vietnam, rather than a news reporter who was just reading out military charts. However, his stories would be seen as mythical because O'Brien himself writes, "I want you to feel what I felt. I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth." Writing by this theme, he retells what he felt in Vietnam by giving it a dramatic feel, which would cause Davidson and Lytle to call it, "radically different from that of a letter or diary..."

Jason Eisenberg, Myth or authentic

The main idea in where trouble comes written by Davidson and Lytle is about how Movie companies add fake details and change the story line of an historical event to make money. Davidson and Lytle think it is wrong for movie companies to continue the trend, rather they should give the whole truth

Davidson and Lytle when reading Tim O Brien’s stories would find the stories to by mythical. Davidson and Lytle want movie companies as well as people telling stories about the Vietnam war for example to give the harsh facts even if it may be tough to swallow. They do not want movie companies and historians to depict the war in the wrong way. They don’t want the facts changed for movie companies to benefit off of. In the passage Where Trouble Comes it states “Grant the search for profits often pushes Hollywood to distort the past in hope of making films that audiences need and want to see”. (Davidson, Lytle.405). They are saying that many myths are added to war stories to attract the consumer. O’ Brien in his stories talks about how Lieutenant Jimmy Cross thought days and nights about the women he loved whose name was Martha. “In the late afternoon, after a day's march, he would dig his foxhole, wash his hands under a canteen, unwrap the letters, hold them with the tips of his fingers, and spend the last hour of fight pretending. He would imagine romantic camping trips into the White Mountains in New Hampshire “. Davidson and Lytle would call these accounts by Tim O’ Brien Mythical. They might say O’ Brien stories at times are nice, but too mythical. They would say that in such a brutal war there was no time to sit back and think of women back home. To Davidson and Lytle O' Brien is telling us these stories to soften up the real truth about the war. Davidson and Lytle would accuse O’ Brien of being mythical so in the future people would get a good feeling about the war and not the correct account of the war which Davidson and Lytle are stressing. The story is it self may be authentic. but the way it is told regarding the Vietnam War is Mythical because it brings a false representation of the Vietnam war.

Is O'Brien a True Historian

In O’Brien’s “The Man I Killed” he spoke a lot about what the man looked like and how the bullet holes affected his looks. These sections are historic but when he goes on to talk about what the man he killed used to feel and how he was raised, he has no idea. He is just saying what he thought happened, there is no was to see if that was the truth. He is just speculating. It is a fact that “the man’s head was wrenched sideways” (142). Because others could have seen it, but that the man killed loved mathematics is not a fact.
If O’Brien is supposed to be a historian he needs to stick to more facts and less feelings. I think that Davidson and Lytle would have a problem with calling O’Brien a historian. They would feel that he doesn't stick to the story enough. Also, in the end of “Good Forum” by O’Brien, he states that he would tell his daughter that he didn’t kill anyone when he wrote other stories about killing someone. Historians are supposed to tell the whole truth and let the reader see the facts and grow their own opinions. In their essay “When Trouble Comes”, Davidson and Lytle write that “like novels and plays, films strive for an artistic standard of ‘truth’”, so too O’Brien’s stories are changed by his own feelings and thoughts, they are a form of the truth but they aren’t fully truthful. So I think that Davidson and Lytle would view O’Brien’s stories as entertainment but not history, due to all of the opinions in the text.

The truth?

Davidson and Lytle talk about how directors make certain choices when creating a movie with historical truth in the excerpt read in class titled “Where Trouble Comes”. Some scenes actually happened, some were fabricated to make it interesting. They talk about how historians and filmmakers have different views. For example, historians stick to the truth and what really happened, while filmmakers will change everything disregarding truth-value to make their money. In fact one director, Michael Cimino, had openly admitted to doing so in an interview for this excerpt. He was questioned about a scene referred to as the roulette scene and said he wanted people to feel what it was like to be there. He said these “emotionally wrenching” scenes were used to sustain the viewers interest and make them feel what it was like to be there. The author said in this excerpt “Cimino was reluctant to talk, claiming he had only read about such games in a ‘newspaper report’.” So is this real? The authors consider this scene to be mythical.
Tim O’Brien can be considered a historian. Except this historian actually made the history and wrote his account of it. Davidson and Lytle would definitely consider O’Brien’s war stories as mythical because his reasoning was not to sustain interest but to feel what he felt, or what it was like to be there. We wonder throughout all the stories O’Brien is telling and we’re asking ourselves is he for real? Did these things actually happen? When we get to the chapter “Good Form” he says it was invented. Then he says “…I watched a man die on a trail near the village of My Khe. I did not kill him. But I was present… Even that story was made up.” Earlier in his book he wrote a whole chapter on how he killed this man, the story was authentic though fictional. It was an account of things that happened during this war, even if he himself didn’t witness it, it happened to some G.I, sometime, somewhere during the years America was fighting. It is authentic.