Often people find themselves captivated by the small, fabricated details in a story and that tends to make it difficult to decipher the actual meaning behind the story. In Tim O’Brien’s “How to Tell a True War Story,” this is the case as he demonstrates the influence of storytellers’ tone and the mood they create on people’s understanding of a moral in a story. By the same token, in Malcom Gladwell’s “Power of Context” and Karen Ho’s “Biographies of Hegemony,” the two authors explain the ideology of social determinism and its power over people’s perception of the truth. The power of inducements play a big role in the way people are able to understand reality. The complexity of the truth can often alter the way people perceive things because there are so many different meanings that people interpret from the context of stories and situations. There are certain qualities of context such as inducing words and a plethora of meanings that obscure the true actualities, making truth very complicated.
People often undermine the influence of words on people’s perceptions of the environment. When Gladwell describes the prison experiment in which people assumed the role of prisoners and guards, he mentions how the patients were told who they are and what role they had to undertake. He tells how one of the prisoners began to assume their role to the point where they felt like that was truly who they were. One of the prisoners mentions, “I was 416. I was really my number and 416 was
There are times when things can be characterized by one specific quality. An entity can be black or white with no gray space in between. However, war is a different story. To those involved in a war, it can be far more enigmatic than one may assume. In The Things They Carried by Tim O’Brien, the author’s structural choices convey the subjectivity of truth during the war.
O’Brien’s unification of fact and fiction is to illustrate the idea in which the real accuracy of a war story is less significant than storytelling. The subjective truth about what the war meant and what it did to change the soldiers is more meaningful than the technical details of the
In the Zimbardo’s The Stanford Prison Experiment; however, the ‘guards’ and ‘prisoners’ were placed in the same facility and were face to face on a daily basis unlike the Milgram experiment. The ‘guards’ would tell the ‘prisoners’ jokingly to do something, however the ‘prisoners’ would do what they were commanded to do to try to hang on to their identity. (Zimbardo 393) By the end of the experiment most ‘prisoners’ showed increased stress levels in the ‘prisoners’ within days, some ‘prisoners’ could not handle the stress induced and had to be released early. The ‘guards’ were equally changed do to the scenario they were put in. One journal of the ‘guards’ showed how a passive person became a person shoving food down another person’s mouth and locking them up in solitary confinement (Zimbardo 389-399).
Almost like in a manual for story writing, O’Brien starts out every part of this short story by giving away a supposedly important feature of a “true war story” and then giving a matching example to help the reader visualize his lesson.
There are many ways to interpret a book, one can read it as a character’s adventure, a conflict of ideas or emotions, or a story. For myself, I read the books, Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison and Billy Budd, Sailor by Herman Melville, in an ironic sense; and while doing this, I noticed that both books showed an intuitive sense of sociology. Furthermore, what mattered most by reading the books ironically is that it is easy to see the outcome of a situation which is pleasing to be conscious of. It is easy to see the outcome of a situation because when one is paying attention to a character, one’s attention is toward a character, except when one’s attention is on an entire situation, one’s attention is on the flow of events and then the
In the experiment, people were picked randomly and one as a teacher and one as the student. They were told to take a quiz and give electric shocks of increasing intensity as punishment if the student can’t answer. During the experiment, many people were concerned as someone can be heard shouting but only a few people who decided to stop and stick to their morals. But the others kept on going because they were just following orders from a superior (Milgram 77). "The Stanford Prison Experiment” by Philip Zimbardo, is about an experiment that was made to understand the roles people play in prison situations. For the experiment, Zimbardo converted a basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison. The participants were told to act as prisoners and guards. It was planned to be a two-week experiment but was forced to shut down in 6 days, all because of people quickly getting into their roles and started acting like the real prisoners and guards (Zimbardo 104). To compare both experiments, although they differed vastly in design and methodology, the point of both experiments was to observe how far an individual would go in inflicting increasing pain on a victim. Also how people obey under authoritative circumstances, when given power or different roles, however the writers differ in the seriousness of the fight for individuality and the use of reality.
In this essay, I will discuss how Tim O’Brien’s works “The Things They Carried” and “If I Die in a Combat Zone” reveal the individual human stories that are lost in war. In “The Things They Carried” O’Brien reveals the war stories of Alpha Company and shows how human each soldier is. In “If I Die in a Combat Zone” O’Brien tells his story with clarity, little of the dreamlike quality of “Things They Carried” is in this earlier work, which uses more blunt language that doesn’t hold back. In “If I Die” O’Brien reveals his own personal journey through war and what he experienced. O’Brien’s works prove a point that men, humans fight wars, not ideas. Phil Klay’s novel “Redeployment” is another novel that attempts to humanize soldiers in war. “Redeployment” is an anthology series, each chapter attempts to let us in the head of a new character – set in Afghanistan or in the United States – that is struggling with the current troubles of war. With the help of Phil Klay’s novel I will show how O’Brien’s works illustrate and highlight each story that make a war.
Throughout the book, O’Brien repeatedly states his struggles in telling “a true war story.” One of the obstacle he faces in telling “a true war story” is the readers’ misconception that “truth” must be an event and not an emotion. To begin, O’Brien claims “A true war story is never moral… If at the end of a war story you feel uplifted… then you have been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie… you can tell a true war story by its absolute and uncompromising allegiance to obscenity and evil” (68-69) and “All of us… like to believe that in a moral emergency we will behave like the heroes of our youth” (38). In these two statements, O’Brien has shown us that people want not a
Some other preconditions were to make the experimental setting bear a resemblance as closely to a functional simulation of the psychology of imprisonment as humanly possible. He also wanted to make sure that there was the absence of any earlier indoctrination in how to play the randomly assigned roles; to leave that up to each participant’s prior societal teachings of the meaning of prisons and the behavioral scripts associated with the oppositional roles (Zambardo, 2005). Although he had a significantly large abundance
In contrast, the author uses George as a metaphor for those who would fight, kill, and die in the war; this element is an important part of the author’s persuasive strategy. W.D. Howells wants to appeal to the values and the emotional sensibility of his audience, for this reason, Howells portrays George as passive and unsure of himself. George is fearful of the war and he sees no glory in it. He believes that God is peaceful and the idea that God would advocate for war runs counter to George’s belief in peace. In short, the author uses George’s story to illustrate the consequences of war for the reader. This strategy works to persuade a resistant audience to relate to George, hence, lowering their resistance to the anti-war message of this piece.
1. “In any war story, especially a true one, it’s difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen. What seems to happen becomes its own happening and has to be told the way. “ (71)
Gladwell strategically uses the Zimbardo Prison Experiment, because this shows that with the two previous cases that the possibility of the subject being a criminal was eliminated. This experiment shows that even educated Stanford students in a monitored and controlled atmosphere are at the mercy of the social context around them. In the Zimbardo six days in because of the effect it was having on the prisoners. “I realize now,” one prisoner said after the experiment was over, “that no matter how together I thought I was in my head, my prison behavior was often less under my control than I realized” (296). This study shows that under a controlled atmosphere that educated Stanford students are not greater than the social context around them. Unlike in the first two examples the Stanford experiment was more inclusive and showed that anyone even highly educated non criminals could have their behaviors altered by mere contextual
In Malcolm Gladwell’s “The Power of Context,” includes a series of short anecdotes in which are all defined by environment and how society shapes mankind. While reading these short stories Gladwell put into the novel, the audience can conclude that the rules of society have the power to shape a person or community. When reading “The Power of Context,” the reader must be able to grasp the understanding of how environment can affect an individual. One would say nature is the setting in which a person is brought up, nurture is the care variable one has the power to influence how they behave or how the setting can define who they are. In this style of writing Gladwell uses, shifts in societies behaviors tell stories of how the setting can influence behaviors of the main characters.
The story “The Things They Carried” by Tim O’Brien is an enormously detailed fictional account of a wartime scenario in which jimmy Cross (the story’s main character) grows as a person, and the emotional and physical baggage of wartime are brought to light. The most obvious and prominent feature of O’Brien’s writing is a repetition of detail. O’brien also passively analyzes the effects of wartime on the underdeveloped psyche by giving the reader close up insight into common tribulations of war, but not in a necessarily expositorial sense.. He takes us into the minds of mere kids as they cope with the unbelievable and under-talked-about effects or rationalizing
As long as there has been war, those involved have managed to get their story out. This can be a method of coping with choices made or a way to deal with atrocities that have been witnessed. It can also be a means of telling the story of war for those that may have a keen interest in it. Regardless of the reason, a few themes have been a reoccurrence throughout. In ‘A Long Way Gone,’ ‘Slaughterhouse-Five,’ and ‘Novel without a Name,’ three narrators take the readers through their memories of war and destruction ending in survival and revelation. The common revelation of these stories is one of regret. Each of these books begins with the main character as an innocent, patriotic soldier or civilian and ends in either the loss of innocence and regret of choices only to be compensated with as a dire warning to those that may read it. These books are in fact antiwar stories meant not to detest patriotism or pride for one’s country or way of life, but to detest the conditions that lead to one being so simpleminded to kill another for it. The firebombing of Dresden, the mass execution of innocent civilians in Sierra Leone and a generation of people lost to the gruesome and outlandish way of life of communism and Marxism should be enough to convince anyone. These stories serve as another perspective for the not-so-easily convinced.