Reading #7, question 3
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Kierra W.
Feb 14, 2011, 3:07:14 PM2/14/11
to The Things They Carried discussion, spring 2011 (green)
In the chapter The Man I Killed, what is the purpose of O'Brien
creating a background story for the person he killed?
creating a background story for the person he killed?
Lakey
Feb 15, 2011, 5:37:01 PM2/15/11
to The Things They Carried discussion, spring 2011 (green)
That's a really good question Kierra. I believe that he creates a
background to show that he really wasn't a bad guy. When he killed
him, he went into shock after he realized what he had just done. He
saw that the man was a soldier, but on the inside he was another human
being like himself. He created a background for the man because he
couldn't help but see the soldier's real life behind his vietnamese
soldier uniform. O'Brien envisions how the young man, "...loved
mathematics. His eyebrows were thin and arched like a woman's, and at
school the boys sometimes teased him about how pretty he
was..." (O'Brien 121). He gives the young man a story that makes him
seem naive and small. He had to put a story behind this man because
he knew deep down that he had a story and he couldn't not think about
it after what he had just done. Also, he felt sorry for the man he
killed. He imagined how, "...the young man would not have wanted to
be a soldier and in his heart would have feared performing badly in
battle" (O'Brien 121). O'Brien realized that the man didn't want to
go to war to kill off the "good guys," he just did it because he had
to; the same way he had to.
background to show that he really wasn't a bad guy. When he killed
him, he went into shock after he realized what he had just done. He
saw that the man was a soldier, but on the inside he was another human
being like himself. He created a background for the man because he
couldn't help but see the soldier's real life behind his vietnamese
soldier uniform. O'Brien envisions how the young man, "...loved
mathematics. His eyebrows were thin and arched like a woman's, and at
school the boys sometimes teased him about how pretty he
was..." (O'Brien 121). He gives the young man a story that makes him
seem naive and small. He had to put a story behind this man because
he knew deep down that he had a story and he couldn't not think about
it after what he had just done. Also, he felt sorry for the man he
killed. He imagined how, "...the young man would not have wanted to
be a soldier and in his heart would have feared performing badly in
battle" (O'Brien 121). O'Brien realized that the man didn't want to
go to war to kill off the "good guys," he just did it because he had
to; the same way he had to.
Rosemary
Feb 15, 2011, 10:48:52 PM2/15/11
to The Things They Carried discussion, spring 2011 (green)
I like Lakey's last statement about O'Brien and the man having
something in common. I think O'Brien gives the man a background story
because they had so much in common and if he elaborates on those
things he can convince himself that the man shouldn't have been
killed. He didn't want to completely become a killing machine like he
was trained to be and he avoided it by having sympathy for the man. If
he felt remorse he wouldn't see himself as monster. He tells himself
that the man was told fighting "was a man's highest duty...secretly,
though, it also frightened him. He was not a fighter" (119). He "would
not have wanted to be a soldier" and "had no stomach for
violence" (121). These are emotions O'Brien has most likely
experienced and by imagining the man felt the same way he gives
himself a reason to hate that he killed the man. He doesn't want to
listen to Kiowa and just let it go because then he would have lost
himself to the war.
> > creating a background story for the person he killed?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
something in common. I think O'Brien gives the man a background story
because they had so much in common and if he elaborates on those
things he can convince himself that the man shouldn't have been
killed. He didn't want to completely become a killing machine like he
was trained to be and he avoided it by having sympathy for the man. If
he felt remorse he wouldn't see himself as monster. He tells himself
that the man was told fighting "was a man's highest duty...secretly,
though, it also frightened him. He was not a fighter" (119). He "would
not have wanted to be a soldier" and "had no stomach for
violence" (121). These are emotions O'Brien has most likely
experienced and by imagining the man felt the same way he gives
himself a reason to hate that he killed the man. He doesn't want to
listen to Kiowa and just let it go because then he would have lost
himself to the war.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Abigail Seay
Feb 15, 2011, 10:55:39 PM2/15/11
to tttc20...@googlegroups.com
Interesting points, Lakey. I think that the reason that he tells possible background stories about the soldier that he killed is because it makes the death more personal. By thinking that he took the soldier from what was going to be a successful life, it makes the author feel even worse about the death. If he thought that he took the life of a soldier that was going to kill more Americans, he probably wouldn't feel as bad about it. Kiowa tries to comfort him by saying, "The guy was dead the second he stepped on the trail" (O'Brien 122). By this, Kiowa means that it happened to be his turn and the dead man would have been killed by the person that was awake anyway. The killer refuses to think about that idea and continues to think that he took the life of someone that wasn't a threat.
Jason Guy
Feb 16, 2011, 7:17:40 PM2/16/11
to The Things They Carried discussion, spring 2011 (green)
I agree with Lakey's statement, that O'Brien created a background
story to portray the person he killed as not being bad. O'Brien
wanted to show that, even though the man he killed had a gun and was
an enemy, he still was just a human being like O'Brien himself, only
raised in different beliefs. To add on to Lakey's idea, I also
believe O'Brien created a background story for the man he killed,
because he wanted to show the reader how hard it was to tell the
difference between the enemy Vietcong and the peaceful Vietnamese.
Almost everyone there, good or bad, wore similar clothing, “He wore
black clothing and rubber sandals” (O’Brien 126). The only real
difference between the two was whether or not they shoot back, which
is what made it so hard for O'Brien to accept the fact that he killed
the frightened young man who had not shoot back. Since the man had
not returned fire, O'Brien, in his head believed the man to be good.
Readers who had not participated in the war would not understand his
reasoning and therefore O'Brien is forced to create a background story
making the man look innocent, that way the readers could share
O’Brien’s feelings on the matter.
story to portray the person he killed as not being bad. O'Brien
wanted to show that, even though the man he killed had a gun and was
an enemy, he still was just a human being like O'Brien himself, only
raised in different beliefs. To add on to Lakey's idea, I also
believe O'Brien created a background story for the man he killed,
because he wanted to show the reader how hard it was to tell the
difference between the enemy Vietcong and the peaceful Vietnamese.
Almost everyone there, good or bad, wore similar clothing, “He wore
black clothing and rubber sandals” (O’Brien 126). The only real
difference between the two was whether or not they shoot back, which
is what made it so hard for O'Brien to accept the fact that he killed
the frightened young man who had not shoot back. Since the man had
not returned fire, O'Brien, in his head believed the man to be good.
Readers who had not participated in the war would not understand his
reasoning and therefore O'Brien is forced to create a background story
making the man look innocent, that way the readers could share
O’Brien’s feelings on the matter.
Ashton Trice
Feb 16, 2011, 7:31:57 PM2/16/11
to The Things They Carried discussion, spring 2011 (green)
I agree with Lakey and Rosemary.
To elaborate on their view point on guilt, I think O’Brien mentions
the background for the person he killed because he wants to emphasize
on the person the soldier was and who he could have become if he
wasn’t killed. O’Brien says, “the man I killed would have been
determined to continue his education in mathematics” (O’Brien 122). If
the man wasn’t killed by the grenade, he could have lived a happy life
as a mathematician. O’Brien knows the significance of life and feels
guilty about taking it away from someone, even though he didn’t
personally know the solider at all. He is consumed with remorse for
his action and wanted to have a background on the man he killed so he
could convince himself that he shouldn’t have been murdered. If the
man turned out to be a nefarious guy, then O’Brien would feel less
guilty for killing him, even though he knows murder is wrong. O’Brien
finds out that the man was an average guy and feels worse for killing
an innocent person. O’Brien’s use of repetition and the background
emphasizes that his action was wrong and the reasons why.
On Feb 15, 10:55 pm, Abigail Seay <as...@brvgs.k12.va.us> wrote:
> Interesting points, Lakey. I think that the reason that he tells possible
> background stories about the soldier that he killed is because it makes the
> death more personal. By thinking that he took the soldier from what was
> going to be a successful life, it makes the author feel even worse about the
> death. If he thought that he took the life of a soldier that was going to
> kill more Americans, he probably wouldn't feel as bad about it. Kiowa tries
> to comfort him by saying, "The guy was dead the second he stepped on the
> trail" (O'Brien 122). By this, Kiowa means that it happened to be his turn
> and the dead man would have been killed by the person that was awake
> anyway. The killer refuses to think about that idea and continues to think
> that he took the life of someone that wasn't a threat.
>
To elaborate on their view point on guilt, I think O’Brien mentions
the background for the person he killed because he wants to emphasize
on the person the soldier was and who he could have become if he
wasn’t killed. O’Brien says, “the man I killed would have been
determined to continue his education in mathematics” (O’Brien 122). If
the man wasn’t killed by the grenade, he could have lived a happy life
as a mathematician. O’Brien knows the significance of life and feels
guilty about taking it away from someone, even though he didn’t
personally know the solider at all. He is consumed with remorse for
his action and wanted to have a background on the man he killed so he
could convince himself that he shouldn’t have been murdered. If the
man turned out to be a nefarious guy, then O’Brien would feel less
guilty for killing him, even though he knows murder is wrong. O’Brien
finds out that the man was an average guy and feels worse for killing
an innocent person. O’Brien’s use of repetition and the background
emphasizes that his action was wrong and the reasons why.
On Feb 15, 10:55 pm, Abigail Seay <as...@brvgs.k12.va.us> wrote:
> Interesting points, Lakey. I think that the reason that he tells possible
> background stories about the soldier that he killed is because it makes the
> death more personal. By thinking that he took the soldier from what was
> going to be a successful life, it makes the author feel even worse about the
> death. If he thought that he took the life of a soldier that was going to
> kill more Americans, he probably wouldn't feel as bad about it. Kiowa tries
> to comfort him by saying, "The guy was dead the second he stepped on the
> trail" (O'Brien 122). By this, Kiowa means that it happened to be his turn
> and the dead man would have been killed by the person that was awake
> anyway. The killer refuses to think about that idea and continues to think
> that he took the life of someone that wasn't a threat.
>
Brianna
Feb 16, 2011, 9:37:00 PM2/16/11
to The Things They Carried discussion, spring 2011 (green)
This is a good question Kierra. O'Brien created a background for the
person he killed to show that the boy was an innocent civilian that
did nothing to die in the war. Kiowa felt bad that he he killed the
boy. He was even talking to the the dead boy as his mangled boy lay on
the ground. "Then he said," Man, I'm sorry." Then later he said, "Why
not talk about it?" Then he said,"Come on, man, talk." (O'Brien 124).
Kiowa knew he was wrong and slightly lost his mind a little by knowing
he killed an innocent.
person he killed to show that the boy was an innocent civilian that
did nothing to die in the war. Kiowa felt bad that he he killed the
boy. He was even talking to the the dead boy as his mangled boy lay on
the ground. "Then he said," Man, I'm sorry." Then later he said, "Why
not talk about it?" Then he said,"Come on, man, talk." (O'Brien 124).
Kiowa knew he was wrong and slightly lost his mind a little by knowing
he killed an innocent.
Austen Stevens
Feb 16, 2011, 10:58:36 PM2/16/11
to The Things They Carried discussion, spring 2011 (green)
Great question Kierra- I agree with the statements made by Lakey and
Rosemary regarding the fact that the man who O'Brien killed was an
innocent civilian, forced into a position where he had to fight,
against his wishes. O'Brien creates a background story for this dead
man, most likely to humanize the act of killing, to prove to himself
that he is not a machine, obsessed with killing, corrupted by war.
Instead, as was mentioned above, he wishes to relate to the dead man,
to find human links with the "enemy" and to sympathize with the fellow
who most likely did not initially wish to go to war, same as O'Brien.
Although the act of throwing the grenade was a thoughtless impulse,
the remorse that followed was entirely human. O'Brien also attempts to
reason that the man had little to no chance of surviving anyway, for
"[h]e knew he would die quickly. He knew that he would see a flash of
light. He knew that he would fall dead and wake up in the stories of
his village and people.(O'Brien 124). in the end, O'Brien tries to
ease his own pain, thinking that he provided the man a favor by
killing him early, for it was inevitable. He sees himself in part as
having provided the man with a merciful end. He even thinks that he
may have allowed the man a happy ending, in which the man would be at
peace to do all of the math problems he desires.
Rosemary regarding the fact that the man who O'Brien killed was an
innocent civilian, forced into a position where he had to fight,
against his wishes. O'Brien creates a background story for this dead
man, most likely to humanize the act of killing, to prove to himself
that he is not a machine, obsessed with killing, corrupted by war.
Instead, as was mentioned above, he wishes to relate to the dead man,
to find human links with the "enemy" and to sympathize with the fellow
who most likely did not initially wish to go to war, same as O'Brien.
Although the act of throwing the grenade was a thoughtless impulse,
the remorse that followed was entirely human. O'Brien also attempts to
reason that the man had little to no chance of surviving anyway, for
"[h]e knew he would die quickly. He knew that he would see a flash of
light. He knew that he would fall dead and wake up in the stories of
his village and people.(O'Brien 124). in the end, O'Brien tries to
ease his own pain, thinking that he provided the man a favor by
killing him early, for it was inevitable. He sees himself in part as
having provided the man with a merciful end. He even thinks that he
may have allowed the man a happy ending, in which the man would be at
peace to do all of the math problems he desires.
Virginia
Feb 16, 2011, 11:33:51 PM2/16/11
to The Things They Carried discussion, spring 2011 (green)
Great question, Kierra! You all have made some really good arguments,
too. However, I have to disagree with a point that Lakey made
regarding the idea that O'Brien sets a backdrop in order to express
the similarities between he and the man he killed. In my
interpretation of the reading, I believe O'Brien intended for the
imaginative background to add to the subconscious guilt he already
held. At the moment that it happened, O'Brien hadn't felt the full
extent of guilt to which he encountered upon approaching the body.
Taking in the full details and specifics of the dead man's
characteristics, I think it finally dawned on O'Brien that this man
was more than just a soldier. He even goes as far to say that "he
avoided politics and paid attention to the problems of calculus...He
devoted himself to his studies. He spent his nights alone, wrote
romantic poems in his journal..." (O'Brien 122). It is evident that
O'Brien knew nothing of this man's personal life; however, by
envisioning and constructing a backdrop, it is clear that he intended
for it to add some closure to the hazy and imprecise murder he had
just committed.
Thus, in my opinion, O'Brien "created a life" for the young man he
killed, not to construct similarities between the man and himself, but
to unconsciously add guilt to himself. His portrayal of the young man
follows all guidance that he was innocent, kindhearted, and, in-truth,
good; the complete opposite of how O'Brien viewed himself at the time.
Thus, his formation of a background was his way of dealing with the
limited details of the crime; he felt some sort of closure by
constructing it.
too. However, I have to disagree with a point that Lakey made
regarding the idea that O'Brien sets a backdrop in order to express
the similarities between he and the man he killed. In my
interpretation of the reading, I believe O'Brien intended for the
imaginative background to add to the subconscious guilt he already
held. At the moment that it happened, O'Brien hadn't felt the full
extent of guilt to which he encountered upon approaching the body.
Taking in the full details and specifics of the dead man's
characteristics, I think it finally dawned on O'Brien that this man
was more than just a soldier. He even goes as far to say that "he
avoided politics and paid attention to the problems of calculus...He
devoted himself to his studies. He spent his nights alone, wrote
romantic poems in his journal..." (O'Brien 122). It is evident that
O'Brien knew nothing of this man's personal life; however, by
envisioning and constructing a backdrop, it is clear that he intended
for it to add some closure to the hazy and imprecise murder he had
just committed.
Thus, in my opinion, O'Brien "created a life" for the young man he
killed, not to construct similarities between the man and himself, but
to unconsciously add guilt to himself. His portrayal of the young man
follows all guidance that he was innocent, kindhearted, and, in-truth,
good; the complete opposite of how O'Brien viewed himself at the time.
Thus, his formation of a background was his way of dealing with the
limited details of the crime; he felt some sort of closure by
constructing it.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages