Jon Krakauer’s Into the Wild and Tim O’Brien’s How to Tell War Story

In “War and Massacre” by Thomas Nagel, Nagel argues that there are limits on what can be done to an enemy even its for the sake of overall good. He believes that such an idea is grounded on the principles of Absolutism, where morality is determined by the action itself (deontology). This is contrary to the view of Utilitarianism, which relies on the premise that Morality is determined by its consequences (Consequentialism). Although could one in fact generate such a moral structure around war? Do the ends justify the means in War? Through identifying with a real-life example, I will look to expand on Nagel’s account where an action taken by a country in war would be prohibited even if it were for the overall good.

The influence of a person’s decisions can lead to different results. If one were to decide to accept a new reality they could choose to explore it, become more familiar with it and become knowledgeable in the world itself and its aspects. Whereas someone who were to reject the new reality could simply go on living in the new world trying to continue on with their original beliefs or go back to where they were before in the comfort of their own world where their reality makes sense to them.

In David Finkel’s The Good Soldiers, Finklel details different versions of the war in Iraq. Over the years, the image of war portrayed through literature has changed. Looking at non-fiction wartime novels of the past, the image of war was completely different. The novels of the past focused much more on the aftermath of war and the survivors of war, rather than the actual war it’s self like in today’s novels. When novels of the past did feature scenes of war, the details used to describe the scenes were not as vivid as they are today. I attribute this change to the change of style in which narrative pieces of non-fiction are written. After Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood was published in 1966, the landscape of the non-fiction narrative completely changed, thus the wartime books published after this also changed. In addition to that, the advancement in technology has also changed the way wartime novels are written. Today, society can go on YouTube and watch videos of the war. There is also more media present on the battlefield than there was in the past. Having access to actual footage of the ongoing war, the public knows what the war looks like. With that in mind, authors can portray the realities of war because they already know the public has some sense of what the battlefield already looks like.

Over 150 years, the Civil War had been the bloodiest war in the American history, also known as “The War Between the States” or “Brother Against Brother”, it was fought between the Union or the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. The war lasted four years from 1861 to 1865. What motivated these men to fight and what is the cause of the Civil War is a subject that many historians tried to find out.

As an author, O’Brien explains feelings of one of his readers in this way “She’ll explain that as a rule she hates war stories; she can’t understand why people want to wallow in all the blood and gore” (449). This reader views a war story as inhumane, and it conveys the cruelty of blood and death. This is an easy conclusion, but it is also trivial. Most obvious part of a war story is numbers and facts regarding the casualties, and it will absorb the whole attention of a person. It will create a thought that war stories are always savage. If that person never attempts to see the inconspicuous part of the war story, it never comes to brink. Then the false conclusion of the war story persists forever. This false conclusion is created due to the ambiguity that existed in perceiving an experience. The reason for this ambiguity is superficial thoughts about that experience. To discover more about McCandless, Krakauer not only travels to wilderness and questions himself but also gathers information about McCandless from people who knew him. Krakauer shares the view of an Alaskan correspondent, which says “The scope of his self-styled adventure was so small as to ring pathetic … Only one word for the guy: incompetent” (358). This correspondent describes McCandless journey as ‘pathetic’ and McCandless as ‘incompetent’ person. Words of this correspondent criticize the act of McCandless without any substantial information. This shows that

Now, before the third and final point is brought into light, it must be discussed that Krakauer could possibly be biased in his argument. He compares McCandless to a group of monks called the papar, “Reading of these monks (the papar) [ . . . ] one can’t help thinking of Everett Ruess and Chris McCandless” (97). Krakauer might do this because he could, in fact, be biased based on the fact that he had a similar experience to McCandless and relate closely to him, “But I believe we were similarly affected by the skewed relationships we had with our fathers. And I suspect we had similar intensity, a similar heedlessness, a similar agitation of the soul” (155). Now some may argue this would make him a biased author, but it doesn’t. Krakauer experienced something completely different than McCandless and handled it differently. Take the outcome of both of their adventures for example. McCandless walked into the wilderness and never came out, while Krakauer climbed a mountain and lived to tell the tale. Krakauer realized that his father was just a human being, and that Krakauer was also a thorn in his father’s side as much as his father was a thorn in his. While McCandless never had the chance to grow up -- even at twenty-four -- and realize that his father was simply human. Krakauer portrays McCandless as some

“War is Hell!” These three words have stood the test of time and numerous wars. These words uttered by General William Sherman, a unionist Civil War Veteran, perfectly describe the hardships faced by all soldiers, from the American Revolutionist to the modern day soldier in Afghanistan. Tim O’Brien served in the Vietnam Conflict from 1968 to 1970, (O’Brien 1131) during some of the most intense fighting known as the Tet Offensive (Durkin). During the conflict 58,202 Americans were killed in action (Durkin) and hundreds of thousands, more were left with not only the physical scars of war but the emotional ones too. In the short story “The Things They Carried,” Tim O’Brien uses symbolism and conflict to show that soldiers often carry more weight than what is on their backs.

War is an experience that is difficult to understand and describe. Imagine coming back from war and not having the love, comfort, or support from your loved ones to help you move on with your life. How would one feel in that situation? According to the way Tim O’Brien told the stories of the soldiers in The Things They Carried, they either knew how to cope or didn’t.

The Things They Carried is a book written by Tim O’Brien. It features many different stories from many different people who fought or participated in the Vietnam War. There are two particular stories, “How to Tell a True War Story” and “Sweetheart of the Song Tra Bong,” that stand out because they use surrealism. Surrealism is the word to describe what most people may perceive as “unreal”. These stories use surrealism by creating elements in the story that almost sound impossible, but the author insists that they are true. Throughout the story, we are constantly asking what is real and not real. But, if we use examples from the book, it may be easier to define what is real and unreal.

In conjunction with these sources, Krakauer later uses his own anecdote, as he writes in chapters fourteen and fifteen; however, in contrast to the men described in chapters eight and nine, Krakauer survived to relay his tale. Nonetheless, his experience provides an invaluable insight into the motives and thinking of someone like Christopher McCandless.

When narrating his story, Nick Carraway in The Great Gatsby feels “within and without” by what is happening with him (Fitzgerald 40). It may be not a common feeling to the majority, but not a unique feeling among writers either. Tim O’Brien in his short story How to Tell a True War Story also encountered it. This ambiguous feeling is portrayed near the end of his story, “Often in a true war story there is not even a point, or else the point doesn’t hit you until twenty years later, in your sleep, and you wake up and shake your wife and start telling the story to her, except when you get to the end, you forgotten the point again” (78). Tim O’Brien was both an insider- a soldier and an outsider- a listener and a stories-collector. That position gave him an exclusive perspective of telling “a true war story” (78). A true war story is never simple and straightforward, but always complex and contracted. It is covered by multi-layered meanings that require a long time to unwrap.

Krakauer's rather informal yet factual tone enables him to relay the important details of McCandless's adventure while keeping the readers engaged in the story. Krakauer frequently inserts his own thoughts into the story, but his

John Keegan describes his book, The Face of Battle, as "a personal attempt to catch a glimpse of the face of battle." This personal aspect that Keegan mentions is essential to his book and is excellently articulated, driving home his point. Keegan, who taught at Royal Military Academy Sandhurst for over 25 years, begins by acknowledging his uneasiness with the fact that even though he taught British cadets military history, "I have not been in a battle; not near one, nor heard one from afar, nor seen the aftermath . . . And I grow increasingly convinced that I have very little idea of what a battle can be like." Keegan is clear to state his proposition that almost all military history has functioned simply as a “battle piece” description in which one can see all the larger moving aspects followed by the outcome. However, this sort of recounting fails to acknowledge the personal side of war, the experience of battle. What really ensues when a cavalry unit meets an infantry unit? What are the vital features in determining whether soldiers stand and fight or turn and run?

“How to Tell a True War Story” examines the difficult relationship between the war experience and the soldiers’ telling their stories about the war and their experience. O’Brien says sometimes a true war story cannot be believed because some of the most unbearable parts are true, while some of the normal parts are not. Sometimes, he says, a true war story is impossible to tell. O’Brien also speaks of the beauty of the war, “The truths are contradictory. It can be argued, for instance, that war is grotesque. But in truth war is also beauty (O’Brien 347).” Although the war was gruesome he saw some beauty in the war. When the war is over, he uses his ability to tell stories to deal with his guilt and confusion over the atrocities he witnessed

I saw and bought a lot of books but my favorite is “Bush Wars” .It is an amazing book it enlightened readers the role of George. W .Bush. administration against terrorism and and the cabinet political interest in the Middle East .The authors name is “Terry Anderson”. He explained the whole secret behind the administration evading Iraq which unknown to many American citizens .Terry also revealed that before the bombing of world trade center the president and is cabinet failed to responds to warning from agents like CIA,FBI about possible attacks bound to happen in the United States. My interest