The Slim, Dead, Almost Dainty Young Man

In "The Man I Killed" O'Brien certainly seems to know a lot about the young soldier he just killed with a grenade. He tells us the young man had been born in 1946 in the village of My Khe, where his parents worked as farmers. He tells us that the man did not want to be a soldier and that he enjoyed books and mathematics. He paints a very clear picture of the young man as being delicate, frightened, and almost innocent in a way. O'Brien goes on and on with describing the young man going away to university and wanting to be a teacher, how he enjoys poetry and falls in love with a young girl at school. O'Brien invents all these things about this young soldier--things he could never really know--for a couple of reasons I think.

First, because it shows how O'Brien views the war and what he had to do there, how he didn't see the vietnamese as the enemy; he saw them as real people with their own lives and hopes and dreams. He had just taken away that young man's future, and it was all for nothing. That soldier was not even a threat to him, it was just an instinctual response to throw the grenade and kill him, and in O'Brien's mind it was all such a waste. The American soldiers were there to fight the Vietnamese soldiers, as in America vs. Vietnam, but in reality it was just young boys fighting and killing other young boys that they had no personal vendetta against whatsoever. Neither side wanted to fight and die and kill each other for nothing. They just wanted it to be over. That ties right in to the second reason I think he says so much about the dead man.

I think he feels an overwhelming sense of guilt for what he had done. And I know from my own experience that when a person feels so much guilt they tend to just dwell on the situation in their mind and get completely carried away by the feelings of remorse and shame. I think O'Brien is doing what any of us would do if we had done something to cause such guilt. He's imagining the young man as delicate and scholarly and nonthreatening because it only adds to the guilt he's feeling. If he imagined him as a battle-hardened soldier who enjoyed the war, the death wouldn't be so sad, to us or to O'Brien. He has to imagine him that way in order to feel the guilt, and for us to feel the guilt and the worthlessness of it all. It makes the story very poignant and very true. It's easy to feel exactly what O'Brien is feeling in that moment and even later when he just remembers it. I thought this was a great example of how he tells us a story that absolutely cannot be true--there's no way he could know those things about the boy--and yet it leads to a knowledge and an understanding that is absolutely 100% true. I love the way O'Brien writes, and I thought this chapter was perfect.

For Tuesday

Since Chris got us started with such a good and interesting post, you can respond by commenting on his idea of a story within a story, which is really interesting, or you can respond to one of the questions below:


1. What do “Stockings” and “Church” teach us about personal faith? You can interpret the word “faith” any way you like.

2. “The Man I Killed” is written in a style that differs from the other sections of the book. Describe what is different. Why do you think O’Brien chooses this particular form for this particular chapter?

3. What are some things O’Brien writes about the man he killed that he couldn’t possibly know, and what does the inclusion of these things reveal about O’Brien as a character? Why are they in the story?

4. What lines from “Ambush” strike you as particularly significant? Why are they significant? Try to tie them into the larger thematic context of the book.

5. Why does Henry Dobbins care about the way Azar is dancing? Why is the chapter called “Style”?

6. Pulitzer Prize winner Robert Olen Butler argues that every great story must have a sense of yearning; that is, the characters must clearly yearn for something. As you read “Speaking of Courage,” what kind of yearning do you detect coming from Norman Bowker? What does he really want? 

7. “Notes” is written in a very academic, matter-of-fact style. O'Brien references other books of his, If I Die in a Combat Zone and Going After Cacciato (books that do, in fact, exist), and he quotes letters that he supposedly received from Norman Bowker. These things are meant to give the story authenticity. And yet, there are places in "Notes" where O'Brien undercuts this authenticity. For example, he writes, "You start sometimes with an incident that truly happened [. . .] and you carry it forward by inventing incidents that did not in fact occur but that nonetheless help to clarify and explain" (152). How does the documentary-esque style of the chapter relate to what O’Brien is saying in that chapter? Is there a disconnect? Do they compliment each other? How is the form related to the content?

Read between the lines

Tim is really pushing me to read between the lines. "He (Norman Bowker) did not freeze up or lose the Silver Star for valor. That part of the story is my own" (154). What! I was lied to again? Wow! Now I have to go back and read the whole chapter again! But that does not help me at all. Rereading the chapter does not tell the story because now I know a truth that alters the whole story and does not tell me the truth that Tim wanted to tell me.

Tim is telling two stories within the story he tells in the chapter titled "Speaking of Courage". He is telling the story of how Norman Bowker struggled to adjust after coming home from the war and at the same time he tells us of the struggle he has with feelings of remorse at losing a friend and how he feels he could have saved him but failed.

Two stories at the same time told by one person as if it was one story. Why did he write it this way? What was he trying to say? I think there is another story within these two stories. The story is that all the war stories can be understood by any one soldier. So in a sense both separate stories can be told by any one soldier because they all understand the story. They all relate to adjusting to coming home, some more than others, and they all have regrets that they have to live with for the rest of their lives.

On a side note, I found myself wondering if Norman's father was riding with him even though Norman said he wasn't. I think because I expect to be lied to at times I look for lies within the stories and the meaning behind those lies. For example I felt that Norman's father was in the car even though Norman said he was not because Tim (the writer or narrarater) wanted us to see that Norman felt alone even if his father was in the car. Later on I dismised this because of some later statements made that Norman had a habit of driving around alone for long periods of time.

Essay Prompts

Hi all,

I'm still working on the essay prompts. I'll get those, as well as the prompts for Tuesday's reading, up sometime this weekend. I just didn't want you to visit the blog and wonder what was going on.

More soon...

The Things They Carried - Second Set of Prompts (1/25)

For Thursday, please respond to one of the following two prompts:

1.      Choose three statements about stories and/or storytelling from “How to Tell a True War Story” and then point to specific examples from the book (you may take the examples from any of the chapters we have read so far) where O’Brien illustrates these principles in his own storytelling.

2.     As you will have noticed, some of the sections in this book are longer than others. Just like a long paragraph on a page or an abnormally long line in a poem draw attention to themselves, so do the longer chapters of this book. From a practical point of view, we spend more time in these sections, so there is more emotional interaction. “Sweetheart of the Song Tra Bong” is the longest section in the book. How does it compare to the other sections? What is its unique contribution to the book? Is Mary Anne’s experience a metaphor of some kind? A juxtaposition of incongruent worlds? A comment on gender? I’m not looking for a specific response. Just tell me what the story means to you and the reasons you think O’Brien includes it/devotes so many pages to it. Be specific and use examples.

See you on Thursday.

O'Briens Writing Style.

Tim O’Brien doesn’t specify whether these named sections are chapters or just short stories. He simply put the names of the sections under “Contents”. His first section is named, The Things They Carried. During this whole section, he writes about everything that the men in his unit had to carry and how much it weighed. He also talks about the non-materialistic things that the men had to carry. All of these thoughts that formed the story were some-what organized but more or less, follow the flow of basic memory and thought process.
In the second section Love, the main character flashes forward to a later point in his life. He never talks about love in his personal life the only love he really talks about in the section is his lieutenant Jimmy Norcross’ love for Martha whom will never love him back. I think he goes from his first section to this one because in The Things They Carried section, the main character talks a lot about the love for Martha, pictures of Martha, and confusion about her that Jimmy Norcross carried throughout their mission. These facts tie into my explanation that Tim O’Brien writes like he thinks.
I believe that love was in the back of his mind during the first section. I also think that the love for Ted Lavender was a main point. Even though none of the men openly said “I loved Ted ”, I believe that they really did love him, or at least Tim and Jimmy did. I think they loved him because Jimmy could never forgive himself for letting Ted die or for letting him get shot, and Tim couldn‘t stop writing about how he was before he was shot and when he was killed in the first section.
The next section Spin, I interpret has to do with his thoughts and how they sometimes make his head spin. I could almost feel myself as the reader spinning from one memory to another. He also breaks into a short story which is almost unexpected. The third section, On the Rainy River, he writes a story that he has claimed to have never told anyone about before. He paints a clear picture of his inner conflicts with deciding to run or stay and go to the war, and outer conflicts with his life and receiving the draft notice. I guess because he went off in a “spin” of old memories, he probably felt compelled to tell the reader how it all came together in the first place; how his life was before he went to war. He stays with an old man on the banks of the Rainy River which divides him from his very escape: Canada. During the stay, they do not talk much about any of Tims problems or worries; however, the old man somehow knows just what is going on with Tim, without him having to say a word.
I believe because Tim formed some kind-of friendship with the old man he feels the need to tell a story about how men who were once enemies become friends. Two men in his troop, Dave Jensen and Lee Strunk, get into a fight because someone stole Dave’s jackknife. Dave Jensen ends up beating Lee to a pulp and breaking his nose badly. After Lee comes back Dave is paranoid that Lee will get back at him so he ends up breaking his own nose to make himself even to Lee and to say “I’m Sorry” in a sense and propose friendship. They end up getting very close and signing an agreement that states if one or the other gets severely hurt one or the other will end it for them so that they don’t have to endure a “wheelchair injury”. In the section Friends, Lee gets his leg from the knee down blown off and is scared to death that Dave will kill him because of their agreement. Dave tries to comfort him and let him know he won’t kill him until the chopper gets there.
All of these stories seem to follow his own unique memory sequence and thought process. It all makes some kind of sense to write in that order so I think he writes his thoughts one after another and I believe each section has more or less of a preview to the ideas or the stories that might be told in the next.

False Truth

As we all know, from The Truth About Lying, O’Brian’s stories are not all true. He used twenty-two pages of made up actions to convey the emotions he felt when he was drafted. The poor young man entered his own personal war just as bad as the one he was about to unwillingly attend. We know that he never actually went to Canada or the Rainy River, but on page fifty-two we find out why he told us he did. He “slipped out of his skin”. Imagine yourself at age twenty-one with every opportunity in the world for the taking then out of nowhere all those dreams are gone and your future is completely out of your hands. During the time before he went to Vietnam his personal hell drove him to an alternate reality. O’Brian created Canada as a way of escaping the constant reminder that any day he could be sent to another country. Even though the fishing trip did not exist, the pain described on the boat was true. In order for us as a reader to fully understand and feel that pain, O’Brian needed to place us on that boat with him and give us the opportunity to choose what was best, embarrassment or war.

Unrequited Love

I chose to focus my post on Lieutenant Jimmy Cross' infatuation with a college girl, Martha. As the book starts out, we are immediately informed that Martha and Cross are not "an item", because of certain key phrases O'Brien used. ("They were not love letters, but Lieutenant Cross was hoping...") Reading those words made me pity Cross, because his feelings for her are clearly stronger than her feelings for him, if she possesses any at all. He seems like a love sick puppy in the ways he acts, licking the envelope flap in hopes of any of Martha's tongue remnants still remaining. He appreciates her writing abilities, and notices how smoothly her words flow on the page. It's clear that this young woman has left a lasting impression on Jimmy Cross.

Cross then revisits a "date" that he and Martha went on. The way that Martha indifferently looked at Cross when he put his hand on her knee indicated that she had no feelings for him whatsoever. This tells me that Cross is lingering onto Martha's every word in her letters in hopes of having his feelings reciprocated.

If Martha has no feelings for Cross, it seems as if she is almost taunting him by sending him pictures of herself, knowing how he feels about her but not willing to return her love. I suppose all women have that manipulative streak, myself included. In every picture, as described, her gray eyes are simple, indifferent.

Fast forward to page 16 in the book, after Ted Lavender died, supposedly due to Cross' negligence. Feeling guilty and grief-stricken, Cross came to the realization that although Martha was a real person, he subconsciously turned her into an angel who loved him unconditionally; in reality, she was indifferent, uninvolved, and would never love him. He was then determined to focus on the war, and not let a somewhat fictional woman cause the death of another soldier. So to help heal his broken heart, he burned all of Martha's letters and pictures she sent him.

Admittance Of Age-Induced Senility

O'Brien indirectly admits to succumbing to senility via his paragraph on page 36. He asserts that the stories up which he conjures are substitutes for his paucity of memories. He claims that his stories are occasioned by his memories, and that his stories have a longer shelf life than his memories. Imagine one's memory as an original Rembrandt piece. Imagine the stories which are fostered to fill in the missing pieces are Xerox versions of said piece. The original piece (initial memory) is always going to be worth more. The copies (stories) will always be worth less. If he eventually loses his memories, his stories about the events would be as valuable as mine or Martin Scorsese's. Lauding stories as some type of memory substitute would be dishonest. Using them as an aid would be walking a fine line between fiction and non-fiction, one which would endanger the veracity of one's original memories. It could be done, but one would have to take great care.

The Story: One's Perception of Truth and Reality

Before I start my rant I would like to say that I will be using the term "reality" loosely. I am using it in a sense of one's personal view on life and general reality. In no way am I trying to say that actual reality and general existence are malleable. If the concept seems confusing, please ask questions.

I would also like to point out that the definition of "story" is:

"a narrative, either true or fictitious, in prose or verse, designed to interest, amuse, or instruct the hearer or reader; tale."

The idea that reality is just what an individual perceives and abides by has always piqued my attention and interest. When a person has inherited a set of truths and ideals, they instinctively set those as boundaries or guidelines in their reality. Throughout the individuals life, they will implement these truths and ideals of theirs in anyway possible. Although truths and ideals are dynamic, it is still true that the person will constrict their "reality" with this concept.

For instance, a priest and a scientist. The priest is of course a devout, religious individual who doesn't believe in the theorems and concepts that the scientists have presented throughout history. Whereas the scientist has atheistic principles and pridefully neglects the ideology of religion. The point is that the two have conflicting ideas about reality, and consider their own to be complete fact that is incontrovertible. Yet, if one believes their own idea to be true, that obviously doesn't denounce the other idea of its truthfulness. Yet, even if this were told to the two, they would shun the idea and constrict themselves to their bounded realities and reasons. This weirdly ties into the "story concept" that Tim O'Brien explains on Pg. 36. My idea is that when "one remembers" something and it "leads to a story" it's a perception of what they have experienced. I honestly don't believe in absolute truth, so when one remembers a past memory it is never detailed to the "full actuality", which is also the general reality. Whatever gaps are apparent in the memory are filled with ideas, or assumptions of what may have occurred. When one writes a story of what has happened to them, then that story succumbs to the inaccuracy of the memory. This therefore makes story a perception of one's own reality. Tim O'Brien goes on to say that, "stories are for joining the past to the future." In other words, when one remembers something and writes about it, they create a new truth. Therefore, a past truth or actuality has become a newly formed truth, in which both truths are interconnected by the story. Furthermore, to summarize and interpret what Tim goes on to say, the stories that are written are almost like a road. They are there to show you the beginning and end of a memory, a truth, an idea. They are there to show you why you thought this, or how you completely shifted from one idea to the other. A story is a map of what you have experienced, want to experience, dread to experience, or wonder to experience. Yet, ultimately, a story is there to remind you of a forgotten memory. It is there to make sure that you have not forgotten your inspirations, accomplishments, mistakes, regrets, ideas, and most importantly, your truths. The story inevitably becomes one's reality, when the the past truths that bounded one's reality have been forgotten.

Deceptive vs. Expressive

Having read that article, The Truth About Lying by Joseph Kertes, in class last Tuesday before you had read the part of The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien that it discussed, did you find that you enjoyed reading that part less? Or did it actually make you like it more?

I actually think I appreciated that chapter of the story even more. Knowing that it was tweaked and molded to fit into the tale the way O'Brien wanted made me feel like the story was crafted more tactfully. I could appreciate the great amount of thought and artistry he put forth to keep his emotion from being subdued or even lost in translation. Personally, the creative freedom taken made it seem more like a work of art and less like a historical recounting of events. Both have purpose, but Art is more crafty. It better illustrates the level of the author's story-telling skill. He knows what needs to be included in a story to captivate his audience and how to leave a lasting impact on them. He knows how to express his emotions in a way that some might consider deceptive, but I found forgivable, and even understandable, in this particular context.

O'Brien's Writing Style--Confusing or Helpful?

One of the first things I noticed when reading the book was the style in which it is written, especially the sentence structure. A lot of the sentences seem to go on and on. For example, the sentence on page 14 that begins "They plodded along slowly, dumbly..." is almost an entire paragraph in and of itself. The very thing it is describing--walking endlessly, trudging mindlessly, on and on--is reinforced by the way that sentence is written. It marches on and on and gives the reader a definite sense of an endless repetition of the same actions, the same words. It is very effective at conveying the desired feeling, I thought, and O'Brien uses that tactic a lot throughout the story.
He uses it as well when describing the things the soldiers were actually carrying. Those were some of my favorite parts, when he says "They carried chess sets, basketballs...diseases...infections. They carried the land itself." The way he lists everything, so many things, in a seemingly never-ending paragraph is a very effective way of conveying the magnitude of how much those boys had to carry, both physically and emotionally. I think that writing style definitely adds to the story; I like that aspect a lot.
O'Brien also writes very haphazardly as far as timeline and plot are considered; he seems to write things as they occur to him instead of in a logical order. But he makes a statement on pg 34 that explains that very well: "What sticks to memory, often, are those odd little fragments that have no beginning and no end." I loved that line because it's so true. People don't remember situations exactly the way they actually occurred. They remember them in bits and pieces, and sometimes the most seemingly insignificant occurrences are the ones people remember for years. I thought that was a good way to explain why O'Brien writes these seemingly insignificant anecdotes in a random way; it helps illustrate the way human memory works and how people tell stories about their experiences later on.

They died so as not to die of embarrassment.

I have no idea how this post is going to turn out. There are so many things that are going through my head at the moment but if there is one thing I have learned is that it always sorts out when I write. Maybe I could even say that the truth, the way I see it, sorts out.

I have always said that you can only write about what you know. I was excited when I found it on page 33 in the book "The Things They Carried". It is found in the 2nd to the last paragraph. "You take your material where you find it, which is in your life". So far from what I have read in this book I can see that in some way O'Brien has an understanding of what he is writing. He is writing about things that only a war vet can understand. He even feels, touches, and reacts to it as if it is true or because it is true.

Now I want to switch gears to a major truth that Tim O'Brien believes and I think O'Brien is going to carry through the book. "They died so as not to die of embarrassment" (20). I think part of what the character Tim believes is that most if not all the men in this war only fought in this war out of fear of being called a coward.

My favorite part of the book so far is the story of when Tim got his draft papers. We learn that he is against the war and does not understand why people support it because it doesn't seem to have any real purpose. When he gets the draft paper and eventually decides to run away he is faced with the reality of what he is doing. "Intellect had run up against emotion" (49). His belief of the truth was that the war was wrong and when faced with the reality that he will have to be in the war he was tested on what he would do with what he believed to be true. He could be brave and run from the war and run from the humiliation of being called a coward or he could become a coward so not to be called a coward and join the war. So the very thing that seems cowardly is brave because of the way he sees the truth of war. "I was ashamed of my conscience, ashamed to be doing the right thing" (49). I liked the way this story was told because it shows us very clearly the struggle Tim had inside.

Prompt for The Things They Carried (posted on 1/20)

For Tuesday, please respond to one of the following prompts, and please come prepared to discuss all of them:

1. Discuss O'Brien's writing style. How is the way the book is written related to what it says. In other words, how are form and content related? Use specific examples.

2. Discuss O'Brien's use of symbolism. Choose three things that you think function symbolically and discuss what it is that they are symbolic of.

3. Near the top of page 24, after Jimmy Cross burns the letters from Martha, we read this sentence: “He understood.” What does Jimmy Cross understand at this point? Interpret this sentence.

4. Why do you think Kiowa needs to keep telling the story of Lavender’s death?

5. When we get to “Love” on page 26, there is a distinct shift in the point of view of the narrative. Discuss what it is that changes at this point and the effect those changes have on you as a reader.

6. Interpret the paragraph of "Spin" (page 36), the one that begins, "Forty-three years old..."

I'm looking forward to reading your responses. As I mentioned in class today, you don't need to follow these exactly. The prompts are meant to help you, not constrict you. If you have something else you want to write about, that's fine with me.

Is James A Mendacious Rogue?

James has endured turbulent times.  His father, to whom he felt most connected, is worm food.  His mother is worried, fearful, and finds the actions of her son perplexing.  James has a proclivity to spread elaborate falsehoods.  There are myriad explanations for his actions, but the only unequivocally veritable source is the kid himself.  However, giving credence to the words of a known liar isn't a trait humans possess.  That would be going against the laws of our biology.  As the saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."  James may have an "adrenaline rush" which flows through his veins.  Proffering elaborate falsities may, subconsciously, trigger a biological function which makes James feel good, relaxed, etc.  James may simply like telling lies to procure certain reactions and attention.  James may simply be a magnanimous young kid who wants to shield his mother from the pain from which he thought she'd suffer if she knew the truth about the location of her husband's death.  However, James' erroneous assertions about his Tibetan excursions, in particular, squash this theory.  He is a kid who tells random lies.  In some instances, it produces an intended effect, but, ultimately, his lies lead to more problems.  He knows this, yet he continues to tell lies; therefore, some may believe he has a type of imbalance within his brain.  I believe he's a kid who likes the attention his shenanigans elicit and that, in time, he'll see what he's done isn't conducive to friendships, relationships, business, education, et al, and he will reform accordingly.

The meaning of life: to be heard?

Let me start by saying that this story was very gripping. The central idea that kept reappearing as I read was that humans, by nature, desire to have a sense of belonging. I may be bold for saying this, but some consider the meaning of life itself is to be a part of something bigger than themselves; to be recognized. Shallow? Perhaps. But think of it this way: James' lies may not have been told because he felt as if he had something to hide. Instead, perhaps he told lies in order to grab the attention of people around him: his friends, strangers on the bus to Los Angeles, and most importantly, his mother. After his father died, maybe James felt as if his new job was to fill the void formerly filled by his father, being the "man of the house", or being good enough to make his mother feel proud of him. In other words, James' lies may have stemmed from the best of intentions.

Basing my next point from what Chris posted, "liars want to be heard". This, in my opinion, is especially true for children, such as James. All of the small children I've ever been around love to tell stories; the taller the tale, the better. Could it be possible that James simply had a vivid imagination and a knack for storytelling? This is an unlikely theory, but a plausible one nonetheless.

Another point is in agreement with Jaden's post. Simply put, people sometimes lie to protect each other's feelings. The best example in "The Liar" is when James carried his dead father's body up to his bedroom and placed him in his bed. Perhaps this is symbolic for a final "resting" place. Nonetheless, James did not want to tell his mother the truth about where his father died because she found solace in the fact that he died "in bed". Strangely enough, it seems as though the bed justifies the father's death, and the mother would've been more distraught if he had been found in his chair.

On the last page, James boards a bus to stay with his brother, Michael for a few weeks. The last bit of dialogue proves either James' addiction to lying, or his talent for entertaining others with tall tales. When asked by his neighboring passenger of his parents' occupations, he told her a bunch of hoopla about aiding Tibetans with his parents who were missionaries in Tibet. James then proceeds to sing in what he claimed to be Tibetan. Another lie? Yes, but it has potential to be more than that; his Tibetan tale could be symbolic of a new beginning for James, a new chapter in his life. Although his claims weren't factual, he had everyone on that bus gathered round him, clinging onto his every word. In the words of Marshall McLuhan, "Anyone can tell the truth with the facts. It's when you don't have the facts and tell the truth that you're special."

Truth and Ignorance

Initially, I feel that truth is a generality, a distortable concept. When one is given the choice to explain a situation, or victimized of being explained to, then that situation is susceptible of being given different "truths". This is still true when an individual is the only factor in a situation, since they can deduce the situation, usually, for themselves. Any lie, fact, or misinterpreted fact can alter one's life. The "truth" that one puts their faith into becomes their reality, or their boundaries on a certain aspect of reality.

"The Liar" by Tobias Wolff presents this idea elegantly, yet bluntly. James, being the representative executor of the idea, has a natural tendency to create "truth". Other individuals would normally, reluctantly, use previous knowledge to realize or share truth. Obviously James lies repeatedly and without hesitation. Yet, because of this, he "distorts" others' realities and creates a falsity in their lives. For example, James prominently fibs at the end of the text about helping out Tibetan families in San Francisco, and even goes on to say he speaks Tibetan. Everyone, supposedly, believes him wholeheartedly and gives in to blind faith. This "reality" that has been created and distributed to everyone on the bus, is what I feel drives James to "create" more. Not exactly the specific situation, but the idea of controlling others' realities. What I think drives James even more to lie is the reactions of his victims. An instance is when the man sitting in front of James adds on to the lie; he basically says that it seems there were plenty of other places that the Tibetans could go to after coming across the border. Although the man seemed quizzical about the situation, he reluctantly gave into the lie. After this reluctance, the woman next to James asked him to speak Tibetan, again. James asks her what to say, and she tells him to say, "The cow jumped over the moon". And by some divine intervention, everyone listened joyfully to him sing in Tibetan. That example is what I mainly think to be Jame's drive, their acceptance. They believed it first, then they questioned it, and then they accepted it. He does continue his "quest for creating truth" because it gives him a sense of power, but that power cannot be expanded unless the victims accept his "truth".

Conclusively, James lies throughout the text a myriad of times, but they all lead to the same idea of power and control. His created "truths" throughout the story have sculpted his solipsistic mind to what it is now. Whether it be from him saying that his mother was "coughing up blood" in the letter, midway through the text, or the irking feeling I am getting because I can't help but think this entire text may be a lie or a "truth" in itself. James being the narrator, and being a compulsive liar, I feel I cannot fully trust what I have read. I am not saying that it is not true, I am just saying that it is not fact. Yet, the truth is always there, whether or not I want to believe in his "truths" or not is up to myself. This being said, I can say that the truth of this narrative is that James isn't trustworthy, and I feel the author was trying to point that out. Because James lies, because James creates his false truths, and because he is the narrator is what I feel to make James the typical narrator. This idea just leads to an expansive question, "How can you trust the narrator?" Ultimately, I do not believe you can, but that you do anyway. This is what truth is, belief to one's reality.

On another tangent, I really enjoyed this text, and I loved the philosophical ideas I drew from it. I just hope I can experience something similar or even better in the future.

The Solipsist.

I enjoyed this story. It formed question in my mind about the main character as I read, and made me think about the way peoples minds work.
The question that was formed in my mind while reading was, "Is this boy (James), reaching out for attention, showing his emotional stress through the way he acts out and the stories he tells, or just a crazy person?" I kind-of figured that James was just the "runt of the litter", because he is the youngest and has had problems with "lying" about his mother and her condition and etc. Later on in the story, his mother defines a word that Dr. Murphy, James' Doctor who tried to cure James of lying, had mentioned while visiting, solipist; "A solipist is someone who thinks he creates everything around him." I believe that James is a Solipist and he does believe he creates what is around him.
At the near-end of the story, James and his mother have a talk and he thinks to himself how his mothers imagination is stronger than his own; "She could imagine things coming together, not falling apart." I think that that was a strong realization of James and is true. Because of the things James would make up and lie about, it shows how he felt his world was falling apart.
In the end of the story, James then goes on a trip to Los Angeles. He realizes that he had gotten on the wrong bus, but he is not phased. He makes friends with a large woman over chicken and gets to be somewhat talkative with the other passengers. He then tells a story about himself that is false, but familiar to him. He tells a story about his life that is somewhat similar to the lady who expressed her griefs to his mother after mass, Frances. He says that he works with Tibetan refugees in San Francisco, he was born and raised in Tibet and that his parents were missionaries over there, but they were killed when the communists took over. He also lies and says that he can speak Tibetan and everybody believes him and listen to him sing the cow jumped over the moon in what they think to be an "ancient holy tounge", but in reality is just jibber-jab.
I believe that James is a solipist by choice. He makes up stories on his own. I believe he lets the pain in his heart take over his mind and create his reality. I do not think his parents are'nt important to him or not loved by him, but I think he tells people they were killed because he doesn't want to focus on the reality of his life. He would rather make up an exciting life/past that he wants people to believe shaped him as a person. Or, he just feels like his parents are both dead, of coarse his dad is, but he may feel like he is leaving his mother behind him.
That is my evaluation of The Liar and the main character, James.

Our Obligations to Lie

First off, let me say that I really enjoyed this story. It's writing style and main character, James, kept bringing my favorite book, The Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger to mind for one reason or another.

That being said, I feel like James often felt sort of...obligated, so to speak, to lie. I get this impression, because it's depicted that he is a very reserved sort of individual who keeps to himself, but hints that he realizes that his mother is often troubled by this part of his personality. Which, I think, sort of embedded this strong sense of expectation in him at a young age. He seems to be acutely aware of the fact that others expect certain things from him, and that when he doesn't deliver, he ends up letting someone down in one way or another.

A good example of what I'm talking about is when he lets his mother believe that his father died in his bed. He knew that it helped her to think about his death as having happened that way. It helped her cope with his death, and gave her comfort. So, he felt compelled to stay quiet about the 'truth' and not tell her the reality of what had happened.

Another example is the letter to his friend that is first mentioned at the every beginning of the story. A thousand years ago, when people actually still used snail-mail, you wouldn't just write to someone about the trivial things of life. That would be boring. Receiving a letter is meant to be something exciting. Thus, James didn't feel like he should write to his friend just to tell him that life was going on as per usual. That would only disappoint his friend after getting him all worked up over finding a letter addressed to him in the mail. I think that's why he wrote the letter with a much more gripping, albeit fake, story as opposed to just saying that his life was still just as dull as it was before his friend moved away.

I think this reasoning is backed up a third time by the way the story ends. James notices how the woman pesters everyone about where they're from and where they're going. I think he recognizes this as her way of keeping herself from getting worked up over their bad luck or maybe just to keep herself from growing bored. He probably registers how this is a similar mechanism to that of his father making jokes to ease tense situations. When she turns her attention to him, he feels like he needs to help her out by coming up with something really good. So, he weaves an elaborate story that captures the attention of all of those around him. He pretends to speak Tibetan to the train's passengers, because it lulls them. It calms them down by taking their minds off of the storm and the broken down bus. That's what he felt like he needed to do in that situation.

Although, I do not think this is the only reason for his compulsion to lie, but it seemed like the most reoccurring reason shown in the story to me.

Prompts for "The Liar"

I enjoyed our discussion today on the nature of truth and "truthiness." Let's keep those ideas in mind as we discuss "The Liar." For Thursday, please respond to one of the following prompts. Please give your prompt an interesting title ("Response to Question 1" is not an interesting title) and shoot for a response between 200 and 400 words. The blog is meant to be a discussion, so please feel free to comment on the posts of your classmates as well.


1. Why do you think James lies? What possible reasons are suggested in the story?
2. What is the significance of the bear story? Why do you think Wolff includes it as part of the narrative?
3. How does James's relationship with his deceased father inform the story?
4. Why do you think James carries his father's body up to bed, and why is this an important moment in the story?
5. In class today, some of you made the argument that a kind of "truth" can be communicated even when what is communicated may not be factual. Do you see any examples of this in "The Liar"? If so, be specific about where you see this, and explain what "truth" is being communicated. 6. Interpret the end of the story. What happens to James as he pretends to speak "Tibetan"? What do you think it means when he says, "I sang to them in what was surely an ancient and holy tongue"?


Thanks. I'm looking forward to reading your responses. See you on Thursday.

Define Truth

I really enjoyed our conversation in class today and it inspired me to look up the definition of the word truth. I used 3 different sources and I noticed one common ground that I wanted to mention. The word constancy is one of the keys to truth. Truth has to be based on a foundation that is constant, never changing and unmoving. What I find interesting is that the foundation that truth is placed on can be moved based on individuals. I will use religion as an example. If you are a Christian and base your truth on the bible then you will have a different view of truth then an atheist. The real question I ask is can one foundation be wrong and if so, does it matter which one? Let's say that the atheist is right. Then does this affect a Christian's life or even their after life? What if the Christian is right? How does it affect an atheist? Can they both be right? I don't see how because they are exact opposites. The struggle we have as humans is to know what that truth is.

I am not defining truth for you because I feel it is not for me to define. I just want to say that I do believe it is important to define it for yourself.

I read "The Liar" tonight and while it was a bit long and slow I liked the story. I do believe that the moral of the story is that liars want to be heard. This is why stories are written. A writer is telling a lie in order to have people read what he or she wrote. I don't believe that all writers lie but I do believe that if a writer writes a fiction he or she has to lie in order to tell that story. The story never happened, there is no real facts and most of the time the characters are made up.

I don't care if you lie to me as long as I know it. Have you lied to me?

Welcome

Welcome to Dr. Westover's English 1028 spring semester blog. Although the blog is public (meaning it can be read by anyone in the world), it is primarily intended for ETSU students enrolled in ENGL 1028, Section 2.

The blog exists so that our discussions can be fluid, moving in and out of the classroom, and so that you always have a forum available to you. The blog is always open. Others will benefit from what you have to say, and you will benefit from their reactions. The blog also helps ensure that you think critically about reading assignments before you come to class.

Beyond self-initiated posts, which you may upload as often as you like, you are required to post one response per week to one of my writing prompts. I post two groups of prompts each week, one for each day we meet. I encourage you to respond on both days, but only one response per week is required. You can also receive credit by commenting on someone else's post. Each response should be somewhere between 200 and 400 words in length, and it must be posted before class. In other words,when I post prompts on Tuesday night in preparation for Thursday's class, you will need to respond before Thursday’s class in order to receive credit. When I post prompts on Thursday, you will need to respond before Tuesday. We usually begin class discussions with your responses, so posting on time is crucial.

The cut-off time for posting is 9:00 A.M on the morning of class, and these responses cannot be made up.

I expect your responses to be thoughtful and genuinely insightful. I also expect them to be well-written. Do not assume that because you are writing on a blog you can abandon punctuation, spelling, grammar, and paragraph structure. Don't dash something off at the last minute and expect it to be acceptable.

In order to join the blog, you must first send me your email address. Send it to my GoldMail account (westover@etsu.edu). The body of the email should contain your full name and section number. In return, I will send you an invitation to the blog. Accept that invitation by following the appropriate links and becoming a contributor. If you are uncomfortable using your full name as your contributor name, you may use your last name only (as I have done) or even your initials. Please don't use a moniker.

For blog registration purposes, you may use any email address you wish, but please be aware that all other correspondence with me should be through GoldMail.

Blogging is a required component of this course, and you will need to contribute as early as next week, so please register right away.

Thanks! I'm looking forward to a great semester.