Reading #1, Question #5

[Hannah Baran (Louisa HS)]

O'Brien scarcely mentions Ted Lavender before informing us about the
circumstances of his death. He then mentions Lavender's death twice
more in the first three pages. What do you think is his purpose, and
what is the effect?

[Maeha Karlow]

The purpose of O'Brien mentioning Lavender's death repeatedly is to
make sure the reader understands the importance of him dying. There is
obviously a symbol hidden behind this repetition; I believe he is
making a connection to Lieutenant Cross' feelings of guilt for
Lavender's death. O'Brien wants the reader to understand the burdens
of commanding an army. Lt. Cross feels that "Ted Lavender [is] dead
beause he [Lt. Cross] loved her [Martha] so much and couldn't stop
thinking about her" (O'Brien, 7). Effectively, the reader is reminded
consistently of the burdens carried by soldiers. I can only imagine
the emotional conflict of a soldier after witnessing numerous, or even
a single death. The repetition of Lavender's death and Lt. Cross'
emotional toll allows me to take a glimpse of how harsh the life of a
soldier was in the Vietnam war.

I would also like to note the repeated phrase, "Ted Lavender, who was
scared, carried" tranquilizers and 34 rounds for the M-79 grenade
launcher (O'Brien, 6). I recognize the fear instilled in the soldiers
because of this repetition.

On Jan 20, 1:44 pm, "Hannah Baran (Louisa HS)"

[Zoe Kopin]

I agree with Maeha, O'Brien immediately introduces Ted Lavender's
death to show the reader the importance of his death and it's effect
on the people around him. O'Brien makes a point of how quickly the
mood of war can change. "...when Strunk made that high happy moaning
sound, when he went Ahhooooo, right then Ted Lavender was shot in the
head on his way back from peeing" (O'Brien 12). At the time that
Lavender is killed, the other soldiers are having a good time,
laughing and joking with each other. Also, they do not feel that they
are under any threat during this time, and are completely surprised
that Lavender is shot. This shows the cruel realities of war.
Although some soldiers, such as Lieutenant Jimmy Cross, are strongly
affected by this death, others see it simply as another statistic.
This gives the reader the impression that the soldiers have hardened
emotions and are used to seeing this sort of thing daily.



On Jan 22, 2:47 pm, Maeha Karlow <karlo...@gtest.lcps.k12.va.us>
wrote:

> > what is the effect?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Conley]

I agree with Maeha that O'Brien constantly mentioned Lavender's death
to allow the reader to see the importance behind it. The author
repeats it to show that what happens constantly follows them around.
It is continuously brought up in the book the same way it continuously
goes through Lieutenant Cross' head. Cross is keeping the burden of
Lavender's death with him because he felt too focused on Martha
instead of his troops. I also think its brought up to show that the
troops not only carry physical items but also carry emotional burdens
that can weigh them down just as much. As platoon leader, Cross also
carried the responsibility to protect his men; "He carried a strobe
light and the responsibility of his men" (O'Brien 5) The reader is
constantly reminded of the death the same way Cross is reminded since
the men are a burden he has to carry.

On Jan 22, 2:47 pm, Maeha Karlow <karlo...@gtest.lcps.k12.va.us>
wrote:

[Rolph Recto]

Maeha, Zoey and Jacob: you guys provide great points to argue that O'Brien mentions death to stress its importance, but I have to disagree. O'Brien mentions that Ted Lavender is dead so much that it becomes his defining characteristic - O'Brien is able to do this because the narrative makes abrupt 

 I think O'Brien reiterates over and over the fact that Led Lavender is dead because he is saying that death looms over everything in Vietnam, and since it is so prevalent it becomes almost meaningless. Lavender's defining characteristic is

--
Rolph Recto 

Louisa County High School

[Rolph Recto]

Please disregard my previous e-mail. I meant to SAVE it to edit later, not SEND it.

~End of Commercial Break~

Maeha, Zoey and Jacob: you guys provide great points to argue that O'Brien mentions death to stress its importance, but I have to disagree. O'Brien mentions that Ted Lavender is dead so much that it becomes his defining characteristic - Kiowa is the Indian, Jimmy Cross is the lieutenant, Ted Lavender is the dead soldier. In this way, death is not an event, but rather a detail. O'Brien is able to do this because the narrative makes abrupt shifts, from a general overview of the soldiers' experiences to describing a single day in the jungle, and vice versa. Had the story been told strictly at a linear, real-time point of view, the reader would know Ted as he was when he was living, and then be as surprised as the his fellow soldiers when he is shot. But since the narrative jumps around in time, the reader is constantly reminded of Ted's death that it is diluted of its solemn gravity.

This desecration is exactly O'Brien's point - death looms over everything in Vietnam so much that it becomes not an significant event but a mundane fact of life. The way the soldiers treat the corpse of a young VietCong combatant is very telling: "They found [the body] at the bottom of an irrigation ditch, badly burned,flies in his mouth and eyes...[Sanders] used Kiowa's hunting hatchet to removed the thumb...Smiling, he kicked the boy's head, watched the flies scatter" (O'Brien). No person in regular circumstances would desecrate a dead body; but Vietnam is far from regular circumstances. In Vietnam (and, to a larger extent, any war), death is a way of life. 

[Rolph Recto]

Excuse this other commercial break, but I meant to cite the quote as
(O'Brien 13), not just (O'Brien).

On Jan 22, 10:39 pm, Rolph Recto <rro...@brvgs.k12.va.us> wrote:
> Please disregard my previous e-mail. I meant to SAVE it to edit later, not
> SEND it.
>
> ~End of Commercial Break~
>
> Maeha, Zoey and Jacob: you guys provide great points to argue that O'Brien
> mentions death to stress its importance, but I have to disagree. O'Brien
> mentions that Ted Lavender is dead so much that it becomes his defining
> characteristic - Kiowa is the Indian, Jimmy Cross is the lieutenant, Ted

> Lavender is the dead soldier. In this way, death is not an *event*, but

[John]

I agree with Rolph about the fact that death looms over everything in
Vietnam, even though a soldier, like Ted Lavender, is careful 100% of
the time; he could still end up dead. Ted Lavender's death is
mentioned many times to emphasize that no matter how many bullets or
how careful a combatant is it is mostly luck on whether he lives or
dies. The death also emphasizes the point of view of his fellow
comrades, how much his life meant to them and how frustrating it is to
have someone else death always on your own mind. Their frustration
show during the encounter with the dead Vietnamese boy carrying
ammunition. "...almost affectionately, and used Kiowa's hunting
hatchet to remove the thumb" (O'Brien 13). The soldier took out their
frustration out on the local dead or alive Vietnamese (as shown at the
quote) as they never saw the actual enemy in the brush. All of these
events are portrayed when Ted Lavender's death is repeated multiple
times in the first few pages.

[Emily Barnes]

I have to agree with this argument, but in a different way, I guess.
O'Brian continualy mentions Ted Lavender's death so as to make us see
how terrible war really. He constantly goes back to his death and the
reactions of his fellows to show how hardened war makes a person. To
see daeth over and over again makes a very different person out of one
than if you had the chance to have a normal life. As Croos thinks
later, "...mostly it was for Martha, and for himself, because she
belonged to another world, which was not quite real..." (O'Brian 16).
O'Brian focuses on Ted Lavender's death to show civilians just how
painful war can be.