I think O'Brien is basically saying there really isn't a full blown-out true war story or at least it takes a few times telling it, to get it right. In his excerpt, he retells the story a few times, trying to remember every detail correctly. In each new story about this guy,Lemon, something changes, but by the end, after he gives us all these tips, it is the truest it can ever be. There always will be a few changes when you tell the story the next time, or the time after that. But he belives there are some hints when some can sound more fake or real. If your war story has these certain aspects such as it has no moral, it's unbelievable, and other such things, you have yourself a true war story.
I believe some of the things he comments on, can be applied to other stories in general. Some stories just seem so unrealistic if people exaggerate, some never seem to end, the real stories seem to make you feel certain emotions, etc. But all in all, I thought his excerpt was an interesting perspective on how to tell if there's truth to a story or not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you missed the point. You weren't "listening", as he would say. The point is more than "hints to decide if a story is true". What he meant was that the details are interchangeable. When you tell a story, it does chang every time, in one way or another. But say you tell this story: "Jacob was killed by a rifle in his house, and his father grieved." Then the next time you tell the story it's "Sarah was killed by a bat that fell on her head, and her sister grieved." The details have changed, but what hasn't changed? The truth. Someone was killed, and there was saddness afterwards. The details are not important, but rather the real story at the core. And even if the core is a work of fiction you made up, for someone in this world, it is most certainly a truth. =)
ReplyDelete