Reading #10 Question #2
5 views
Skip to first unread message
John
Feb 22, 2011, 11:34:36 PM2/22/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
When O'Brien is explaining about happening-truth and story-truth, in
"Good Form", he explains that story-truth is sometimes truer than
happening-truth. Read the examples O'Brien gives and about the two
truths. What are the differences between the two truths? Why do you
think O'Brien says story-truth is more truthful and which type of
truth is truer to you?
"Good Form", he explains that story-truth is sometimes truer than
happening-truth. Read the examples O'Brien gives and about the two
truths. What are the differences between the two truths? Why do you
think O'Brien says story-truth is more truthful and which type of
truth is truer to you?
Maeha Karlow
Feb 23, 2011, 4:32:17 PM2/23/11
to tttc20...@googlegroups.com
John, I have been thinking alot about these truths. Im intrigued by the mystery of O'Brien. I wonder what the happening-truths are; what did he make up anyway? The difference is basic: the happenings are things that really occured, while the stories are fabricated. Neither one is "truer" than the other. The two are just different. Obviously what really happened is true, but when O'Brien writes the story-truths there is some reality to it. O'Brien explains that the "stories make things present" (180). In a way, the story-truths did happen. At the time of the events, while he was at war, everything was a blur because "he was afraid to look" (180). Twenty years later, he wants to tell people what he experienced; the only way for him to do so is to make up a story--a story that is precise in detail, but covers the broad whole truth. The stories are based on facts. "There were many bodies, real bodies with real faces," but O'Brien conveys all of them in one story. So, its all true, just in different ways. (If I the way I worded my response is too confusing, just ask me to clarify anything in particular. I would be happy to explain!)
Nojai
Feb 23, 2011, 9:10:55 PM2/23/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
I like this question and I partially agree with Maeha. I believe that
both truths are the truth but, that the story-truth is made more to
capture feeling. I believe that the happening-truth is what really
happened and the story-truth is what O'Brien writes to get the readers
to "feel what [he] felt" (O'Brien 179). In the happening-truth O'Brien
gives actual facts, statements that could be proven by being
researched, "I was once a soldier...there were many bodies, real
bodies with faces...," not only can that be proven but it is also
common knowledge, it was a war so of course there were bodies (180).
In story-truth O'Brien goes more into detail, "his jaw was in his
throat...his one eye shut, the other eye was a star-shaped hole,"
O'Brien gives the reader an opportunity to visualize what he "saw" to
possibly capture the feeling he felt as he was standing in the
presence of the body (180). I believe that the story-truth is more
truer to me because it's what really occured but with a more
descriptive side. I believe that describing certain scenes and having
the reader get a thought as to how O'Brien felt while actually being
there makes the story more real. "What stories can do..is make things
present," meaning by the stories read by the readers they come to
present because the reader is getting a minor sense of how O'Brien
witnessed certain situations and killings (180).
both truths are the truth but, that the story-truth is made more to
capture feeling. I believe that the happening-truth is what really
happened and the story-truth is what O'Brien writes to get the readers
to "feel what [he] felt" (O'Brien 179). In the happening-truth O'Brien
gives actual facts, statements that could be proven by being
researched, "I was once a soldier...there were many bodies, real
bodies with faces...," not only can that be proven but it is also
common knowledge, it was a war so of course there were bodies (180).
In story-truth O'Brien goes more into detail, "his jaw was in his
throat...his one eye shut, the other eye was a star-shaped hole,"
O'Brien gives the reader an opportunity to visualize what he "saw" to
possibly capture the feeling he felt as he was standing in the
presence of the body (180). I believe that the story-truth is more
truer to me because it's what really occured but with a more
descriptive side. I believe that describing certain scenes and having
the reader get a thought as to how O'Brien felt while actually being
there makes the story more real. "What stories can do..is make things
present," meaning by the stories read by the readers they come to
present because the reader is getting a minor sense of how O'Brien
witnessed certain situations and killings (180).
Trey Smith
Feb 24, 2011, 6:49:27 PM2/24/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
The difference between happening-truth and story-truth is the level of
responsibility O'Brien takes on for the atrocities he witnessed, how
he chooses to remember them, and which makes a better story. Happened-
truth is what actually happened or what O'Brien witnessed. An example
of happening-truth was that, "[O'Brien] was a soldier. There were many
dead bodies.... And now, [he] is left with faceless responsibility and
faceless grief," (O'Brien 180). The corresponding story-truth is that
the "faceless" body was, "a slim, dead, almost dainty young man of
about twenty. His one eye was shut, the other eye was a star-shaped
hole" and O'Brien, "killed him," (O'Brien 180). Happening-truth
illustrates the ambiguity of death in war and the lack of guilt felt
by soldiers, while story-truth uses possible details to make the
event, such as the death in the example, seem more real. The body is
then no longer a faceless, generic corpse, but the remains of a once-
living human being, who was, "about twenty," to which one can relate
(O'Brien 180). The difference is this: the happening-truth leaves one
aware of a death. That's it. But the story-truth allows one to see the
man of about twenty years with the one closed eye and the other,
which, "was a star-shaped hole," (O'Brien 180).
--
By the way, sorry John. I accidentally reported your post as spam when
I was trying to click reply. I saw the "Re" and clicked.
responsibility O'Brien takes on for the atrocities he witnessed, how
he chooses to remember them, and which makes a better story. Happened-
truth is what actually happened or what O'Brien witnessed. An example
of happening-truth was that, "[O'Brien] was a soldier. There were many
dead bodies.... And now, [he] is left with faceless responsibility and
faceless grief," (O'Brien 180). The corresponding story-truth is that
the "faceless" body was, "a slim, dead, almost dainty young man of
about twenty. His one eye was shut, the other eye was a star-shaped
hole" and O'Brien, "killed him," (O'Brien 180). Happening-truth
illustrates the ambiguity of death in war and the lack of guilt felt
by soldiers, while story-truth uses possible details to make the
event, such as the death in the example, seem more real. The body is
then no longer a faceless, generic corpse, but the remains of a once-
living human being, who was, "about twenty," to which one can relate
(O'Brien 180). The difference is this: the happening-truth leaves one
aware of a death. That's it. But the story-truth allows one to see the
man of about twenty years with the one closed eye and the other,
which, "was a star-shaped hole," (O'Brien 180).
--
By the way, sorry John. I accidentally reported your post as spam when
I was trying to click reply. I saw the "Re" and clicked.
carla downs
Feb 24, 2011, 6:51:12 PM2/24/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
These are some good questions John and everyone has made thoughtful
points. Maeha, I don't know if I misunderstood you or not, but how is
something that actually happened not "truer" than the story-truth?
Although I do agree with you and Nojai that the story-truth is
represented to focus on emotion, instead of just the basic facts.
O'Brien wants the reader to feel what he feels emotionally. A book
isn't intersting if you can't relate to it or feel what the soldiers
feel. I mean when people read history textbooks, they don't feel what
it was like to like back in the 1800s, so they don't find the textbook
that intriguing. The happening-truth is what supposedly happened. I
think he says that the story-truth is truer because he is achieving
his goal as a writer by pleasing the reader. It is what feels true to
him and that is what matters. Honestly, I think there is very little
truth in war. In war there is no clear answer, because "Almost
everything else is invented" (O'Brien 179). When O'Brien says "It's
time to be blunt" he basically admits that this whole book isn't the
truth, but he's writing to make [himself] feel again. To me, the
happening-truth is truer, because it's facts and facts are truth.
points. Maeha, I don't know if I misunderstood you or not, but how is
something that actually happened not "truer" than the story-truth?
Although I do agree with you and Nojai that the story-truth is
represented to focus on emotion, instead of just the basic facts.
O'Brien wants the reader to feel what he feels emotionally. A book
isn't intersting if you can't relate to it or feel what the soldiers
feel. I mean when people read history textbooks, they don't feel what
it was like to like back in the 1800s, so they don't find the textbook
that intriguing. The happening-truth is what supposedly happened. I
think he says that the story-truth is truer because he is achieving
his goal as a writer by pleasing the reader. It is what feels true to
him and that is what matters. Honestly, I think there is very little
truth in war. In war there is no clear answer, because "Almost
everything else is invented" (O'Brien 179). When O'Brien says "It's
time to be blunt" he basically admits that this whole book isn't the
truth, but he's writing to make [himself] feel again. To me, the
happening-truth is truer, because it's facts and facts are truth.
Maeha Karlow
Feb 24, 2011, 7:00:08 PM2/24/11
to tttc20...@googlegroups.com
Well, Carla, the things that actually happened are too vague to be truer than the stories. The stories have precise facts. The reason the stories aren't truer than what happened is because those facts are essentially not facts, just fiction. It is sort of foggy, I know, which makes it hard to explain. (It isn't literally foggy. Ha, it would be funny to think of it as literally being foggy, and that being the reason the answer is so unclear.)
Maeha Karlow
Feb 24, 2011, 7:02:58 PM2/24/11
to tttc20...@googlegroups.com
Well, Carla, the things that actually happened are too vague to be truer than the stories. The stories have precise facts. The reason the stories aren't truer than what happened is because those facts are essentially not facts, just fiction. It is sort of foggy, I know, which makes it hard to explain. (It isn't literally foggy. Ha, it would be funny to think of it as literally being foggy, and that being the reason the answer is so unclear.)
On Feb 24, 2011 6:51 PM, "carla downs" <carlad...@gmail.com> wrote:
Carla Downs
Feb 24, 2011, 7:07:07 PM2/24/11
to tttc20...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for your response Maeha, I see what you mean now.
On Feb 24, 2011 7:00 PM, "Maeha Karlow" <karl...@gtest.lcps.k12.va.us> wrote:Well, Carla, the things that actually happened are too vague to be truer than the stories. The stories have precise facts. The reason the stories aren't truer than what happened is because those facts are essentially not facts, just fiction. It is sort of foggy, I know, which makes it hard to explain. (It isn't literally foggy. Ha, it would be funny to think of it as literally being foggy, and that being the reason the answer is so unclear.)
On Feb 24, 2011 6:51 PM, "carla downs" <carlad...@gmail.com> wrote: > These are some good quest...
Madison Stanley
Feb 24, 2011, 9:55:08 PM2/24/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
I must say that I lean towards Carla and Nojai and their arguments
that O'Brien wants to have the readers better connect with his
stories. O'Brien says his false stories are truer, because they are
"truer" to the readers' heart and soul. When he writes his
fabrications, he makes sure the reader can find themselves in Vietnam
with him in a situation that they can themselves experience and find
to be true. The happening truth won't seem true to readers because
readers will not be able to feel themselves in the situation or
imagine what is happened because it doesn't give enough detail. The
happening truth is too boring to read about.
When O'Brien talks about the war, he mentions that he blocked out
the faces of the people who he killed. He made a mental choice to not
remember exactly what happened on the battle field due to his own
reasons, which were most likely linked to a desire for some self
preservation during and after the war. O'Brien mentions how he chose
not to memorize the faces even though he writes about doing with that
particular man he killed on the trail in the novel. "There were many
bodies, real bodies with real face, but I was young then and I was
afraid to look. And now, twenty years later, I'm left with faceless
responsibility and faceless grief," (O'Brien, 180). Because O'Brien
blocked out the faces in his past, when he identifies them for himself
in his writing, his false stories become more true to him because he
is finally able to explain to connect with his readers and feel grief
for the lives he took and the damaged he caused in Vietnam.
that O'Brien wants to have the readers better connect with his
stories. O'Brien says his false stories are truer, because they are
"truer" to the readers' heart and soul. When he writes his
fabrications, he makes sure the reader can find themselves in Vietnam
with him in a situation that they can themselves experience and find
to be true. The happening truth won't seem true to readers because
readers will not be able to feel themselves in the situation or
imagine what is happened because it doesn't give enough detail. The
happening truth is too boring to read about.
When O'Brien talks about the war, he mentions that he blocked out
the faces of the people who he killed. He made a mental choice to not
remember exactly what happened on the battle field due to his own
reasons, which were most likely linked to a desire for some self
preservation during and after the war. O'Brien mentions how he chose
not to memorize the faces even though he writes about doing with that
particular man he killed on the trail in the novel. "There were many
bodies, real bodies with real face, but I was young then and I was
afraid to look. And now, twenty years later, I'm left with faceless
responsibility and faceless grief," (O'Brien, 180). Because O'Brien
blocked out the faces in his past, when he identifies them for himself
in his writing, his false stories become more true to him because he
is finally able to explain to connect with his readers and feel grief
for the lives he took and the damaged he caused in Vietnam.
Katelin
Feb 24, 2011, 10:28:25 PM2/24/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
This is an excellent question John and I agree with Maeha 100%! The
differences between the two are simple: happening truth is what had
actually happened and story truth is what was felt. I do not believe
that one story is more truthful than the other because they are both
true in their own ways. O'Brien says "what stories can do, I guess, is
make things present" (180); I think he thinks this because it's how he
felt about the situation. The happening truth, "there were many
bodies, real bodies with faces, but i was young then and I was afraid
to look" is what had actually happened, but the story truth, "he was a
slim, dead, almost dainty young man of about twenty. He lay in the
center of a red clay trail near the village of My Khe. His jaw was in
his throat. His one eye was shut, the other was a star-shaped hole. I
killed him" was what he felt when it had actually happened. The story
truth helps him speak of what happened in Vietnam and explain the
psychological events that had happened to the soldiers.
differences between the two are simple: happening truth is what had
actually happened and story truth is what was felt. I do not believe
that one story is more truthful than the other because they are both
true in their own ways. O'Brien says "what stories can do, I guess, is
make things present" (180); I think he thinks this because it's how he
felt about the situation. The happening truth, "there were many
bodies, real bodies with faces, but i was young then and I was afraid
to look" is what had actually happened, but the story truth, "he was a
slim, dead, almost dainty young man of about twenty. He lay in the
center of a red clay trail near the village of My Khe. His jaw was in
his throat. His one eye was shut, the other was a star-shaped hole. I
killed him" was what he felt when it had actually happened. The story
truth helps him speak of what happened in Vietnam and explain the
psychological events that had happened to the soldiers.
Katelin
Feb 24, 2011, 10:30:01 PM2/24/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
I forgot to cite my second quotation I meant to put (180) at the end
of the sentence. Oops!
of the sentence. Oops!
Casey
Feb 24, 2011, 10:38:52 PM2/24/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
I agree with Carla and Nojai that O'Brien says that the story-truths
are more true because they engage the readers emotion, but these
stories are also more true because they relate to O'Brien. O'Brien
believes in these stories some what himself, which makes the reader
able to relate. The difference between the two are that the story-
truths give war stories context for people to understand the situation
and the happening stories are the exact memories. O'Brien was left
"with faceless responsibility and faceless grief" (O'Brien 180), so he
had to give this grief and responsibility a face to deal with it. The
story-truths are more truthful because he wouldn't be able to manage
the happenings of the war without a face to feel guilty for. The story
of the man with star-shaped eye allowed O'Brien to understand what had
happened in Vietnam and he could finally forgive himself.
are more true because they engage the readers emotion, but these
stories are also more true because they relate to O'Brien. O'Brien
believes in these stories some what himself, which makes the reader
able to relate. The difference between the two are that the story-
truths give war stories context for people to understand the situation
and the happening stories are the exact memories. O'Brien was left
"with faceless responsibility and faceless grief" (O'Brien 180), so he
had to give this grief and responsibility a face to deal with it. The
story-truths are more truthful because he wouldn't be able to manage
the happenings of the war without a face to feel guilty for. The story
of the man with star-shaped eye allowed O'Brien to understand what had
happened in Vietnam and he could finally forgive himself.
Rolph Recto
Feb 25, 2011, 12:06:33 AM2/25/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
Casey, I wholeheartedly agree with you, but because of another reason.
While telling "story-truth" is a kind of therapy for O'Brien, as
you've mentioned, it is also how O'Brien truly experienced the
situation. As Maeha said, there is a massive disconnect between what
actually happened and what he felt. Is O'Brien deceiving the reader by
presenting his stories as realistic portrayals of his experiences? No.
Since he explicit stated that his stories are "story-truth," the
reader must understand that the stories are true subjectively -
therefore, it would be futile to argue that the stories are deceptions
because they are written from O'Brien's viewpoint. One can make an
analogy between this subjectivity with Einstein's Theory of
Relativity. According to relativity, an object's perception of time
and space changes as its velocity changes. An object at rest will
experience time faster than an object moving near the speed of light.
To say that one object's perception of time and space is invalid just
because it is true only for that object would be patently false. The
same applies to O'Brien's perception of truth: just because something
didn't happen from someone's point of view doesn't mean that it didn't
happen in his point of view. Thus he gives a reason to why he writes
"story-truth," not "happening-truth": "...It's not a game. It's a
form" (179). His intention in inventing events that never happened is
not to deceive, but rather to articulate his feelings and his point of
view. If he wrote "The Man I Killed" in the mode of "happening-truth,"
the reader would never have understood the guilt that he felt in
seeing the dead man in the road.
While telling "story-truth" is a kind of therapy for O'Brien, as
you've mentioned, it is also how O'Brien truly experienced the
situation. As Maeha said, there is a massive disconnect between what
actually happened and what he felt. Is O'Brien deceiving the reader by
presenting his stories as realistic portrayals of his experiences? No.
Since he explicit stated that his stories are "story-truth," the
reader must understand that the stories are true subjectively -
therefore, it would be futile to argue that the stories are deceptions
because they are written from O'Brien's viewpoint. One can make an
analogy between this subjectivity with Einstein's Theory of
Relativity. According to relativity, an object's perception of time
and space changes as its velocity changes. An object at rest will
experience time faster than an object moving near the speed of light.
To say that one object's perception of time and space is invalid just
because it is true only for that object would be patently false. The
same applies to O'Brien's perception of truth: just because something
didn't happen from someone's point of view doesn't mean that it didn't
happen in his point of view. Thus he gives a reason to why he writes
"story-truth," not "happening-truth": "...It's not a game. It's a
form" (179). His intention in inventing events that never happened is
not to deceive, but rather to articulate his feelings and his point of
view. If he wrote "The Man I Killed" in the mode of "happening-truth,"
the reader would never have understood the guilt that he felt in
seeing the dead man in the road.
Shelly
Feb 25, 2011, 10:07:37 AM2/25/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
Nojai, I have to disagree with you here. I do agree that both truths
are the truth, but I feel as though the story-truth is a more accurate
account of what happened. It doesn't sugarcoat anything, it just tells
what he saw. He even says that the happening-truth is made up. "
Almost everything else is invented...But listen. Even that story is
made up" (O'Brien 171). I do think that what really happens and what
the soldiers may think happened can become a blur and what really
happened could get a little exaggerated, but I still feel that the
story-truth is more accurate.
are the truth, but I feel as though the story-truth is a more accurate
account of what happened. It doesn't sugarcoat anything, it just tells
what he saw. He even says that the happening-truth is made up. "
Almost everything else is invented...But listen. Even that story is
made up" (O'Brien 171). I do think that what really happens and what
the soldiers may think happened can become a blur and what really
happened could get a little exaggerated, but I still feel that the
story-truth is more accurate.
Zoe Kopin
Feb 25, 2011, 10:42:02 AM2/25/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
I agree with Carla, that the happening truth is an account of
what happened, but the story truth is an account of the emotions that
are felt. I also believe that the story truth is more accurate,
because it is an account of what O'Brien experienced as a soldier.
to the emotions that O'Brien and the other soldiers were
experiencing. I also agree with Carla that "there is little truth in
war." In a war, everything is chaotic and tragedies occur in a split
second. It would be impossible for O'Brien and the other soldiers to
remember every incident of the war, but they will always remember the
way they felt. This is why I believe that the story truth is more
accurate, because the soldiers will never forget the way they were
personally affected by the war.
what happened, but the story truth is an account of the emotions that
are felt. I also believe that the story truth is more accurate,
because it is an account of what O'Brien experienced as a soldier.
O'Brien says "what stories can do, I guess, is make things
present" (O'Brien 180). The story truth allows the reader to relate
to the emotions that O'Brien and the other soldiers were
experiencing. I also agree with Carla that "there is little truth in
war." In a war, everything is chaotic and tragedies occur in a split
second. It would be impossible for O'Brien and the other soldiers to
remember every incident of the war, but they will always remember the
way they felt. This is why I believe that the story truth is more
accurate, because the soldiers will never forget the way they were
personally affected by the war.
Robin B.
Feb 25, 2011, 2:22:36 PM2/25/11
to TTTC Discussion (Gold) spring 2011
As you all make wonderful points, I agree with Carla, Nojai, and
Madison. Whether it is story truth or the real truth, it takes
emotion. I believe that story truth and real truth are very similar
and the small diferences some from the details you add in to the
story. Story truth is definintely more exagerated and may even be more
convincing. Story truth attracts the reader more than the plain old
truth. People want to hear more about something, which comes from the
details in a story. The author gives the real truth life and "makes it
present." A reader may even mix up the story truth and the real truth
and thats why "I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes
than happening-truth" (O'Brien, 179). O' Brien believes story truth is
more true than real truth because it is easier to believe. A person
would rather listen to a story then be hit by the stone-cold real
truth. I have to agree with O'Brien on his idea that story truth is
more real. It is easier for me to imagine the story truth than the
real truth because I am more visual, and story truth is one hundred
percent imagination.
> > > truth is truer to you?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Madison. Whether it is story truth or the real truth, it takes
emotion. I believe that story truth and real truth are very similar
and the small diferences some from the details you add in to the
story. Story truth is definintely more exagerated and may even be more
convincing. Story truth attracts the reader more than the plain old
truth. People want to hear more about something, which comes from the
details in a story. The author gives the real truth life and "makes it
present." A reader may even mix up the story truth and the real truth
and thats why "I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes
than happening-truth" (O'Brien, 179). O' Brien believes story truth is
more true than real truth because it is easier to believe. A person
would rather listen to a story then be hit by the stone-cold real
truth. I have to agree with O'Brien on his idea that story truth is
more real. It is easier for me to imagine the story truth than the
real truth because I am more visual, and story truth is one hundred
percent imagination.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages