Reading #10, Question 2

[Ian McKay]

In the chapter "Good Form", how are the story-truth and the happening-
truth different, but both true?

[Ian McKay]

In the chapter "Good Form", how are the story-truth and happening-
truth both different, but also both true?

[Abigail Seay]

Interesting question, Ian.  I think that although the difference between the story-truth and the happening-truth is that they didn't both actually occur, they both realistically could have occurred.  As Mrs. Baran said in class, even if it didn't happen to the author, something similar probably happened to another soldier during the war.  Even if it's not O'Brien's true story, the story-truth may be the true story of someone else, therefore it is still true.  O'Brien says, "I want you to feel what I felt," and sometimes that means writing about something that didn't truly happen to him (O'Brien 171).  The book wouldn't be nearly as deep and emotional as it is if O'Brien only told his own accounts from the war.

[Moria]

You make a great point Abbey.

When we discover that not all of O'Brien's stories are those that
happened to him, we know that they happened to someone at some point
throughout the war. While some of the things he writes about never
happened to him, they are still the story-truth. Because this
experience did happen and it was very real to him, it is true.
However, he never actually killed the man, so it is not happening-
truth. As O'Brien says, "I remember feeling the burden of
responsibility and grief. I blamed myself. And rightly so, because I
was present" (O'Brien 171). Even though the death of this man is not
happening-truth, it is still story-truth because it was very real to
him.

[Ralph Recto]

I completely agree with you Abbey. Happening-truth is purer than story-
truth, yet in a sense it does not capture the entirety of the war as
much as the former does. If O'Brien's novel was about his own personal
experiences in war, we the readers would not have gleaned as much as
we have about Vietnam. While happening-truth relies on one concrete
set of truths, story-truth is not dependent on any particular set at
all. It relies on the collective, visceral narrative (or perhaps
idealization) of the war that every soldier could relate to. Details
mean little if they cannot portray emotions, for I believe that in a
situation like war, emotions drive reality as much as the latter does
the former. As O'Brien notes to his readers, "I [O'Brien] want you to
feel what I felt," for nothing else can tell his reality with as much
clarity and weight (171). When painters paint, beyond a certain level
of technical achievement, they do not try to capture reality in canvas
as much as they try to capture feelings; Van Gogh's Starry Night or
Picasso's Guernica exemplify this. In the same way, I believe
O'Brien's story-truth captures the Vietnam War better than his
happening truth because it does not merely paint a picture of what
happened - it puts the reader in his shoes, trembling and all.

[Brianna]

This is a good question Ian. The story truth is how how people would
have assumed it to be in Vietnam. I agree with Abbey that they didn't
occur but could have occurred. I believe that that the only true part
to the story is, "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 eye was a star-shaped hole." (O'Brien 172). I don't believe
that he killed him and I don't believe that he didn't kill him, the
truth is no one will ever really know, not even O'Brien himself.

On Feb 22, 6:30 pm, Ian McKay <mckayi...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Raymond]

I agree with Abbey, Moria, and Ralph. Just because a story did not
happen to the person it happens to in the story doesn't mean it did
not happen to someone else. Had O'Brien not included other stories and
other accounts of the war, he would not have been able to create the
effect on the audience that the war had on him. "I want you to feel
what I felt. I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes
than happening-truth." (171). The happening-truth does not always help
to get the point across. Without adding other people's accounts to the
story-truth, O'Brien wouldn't be able to accurately describe the
feelings he wishes to spark with the novel.

[Kelly Candeto]

Good Question, Ian. I agree with Abbey when she said that both types
of truths are realistic and probably did happen to a soldier, even if
it wasn't the author. I think that O'Brien uses story-truth to make
the reader realize what it was like and how it felt to be there in
Vietnam. Not that what actually happened wasn't intense or scary, but
perhaps it's just too hard and painful for O'Brien to write directly
about those memories. So, he takes those memories and builds off them
to create new, similar, and realistic stories to tell us about. "What
stories can do, I guess, is make things present. I can look at things
I never looked at. I can attach faces to grief and love and pity and
God. I can be brave. I can make myself feel again" (O'Brien 172).
O'Brien uses the story-truth to make the happening-truth seem more
present in his mind. He uses it to make him feel like, and us to see
him as a good soldier.