Wednesday, October 31, 2007

The Rhetoric of Hearts and Minds

I just wanted to say something I didn't get to say in class on Tuesday. There was something said about Hearts and Minds being bad Rhetoric because it was just as bad as the other films...just showing one side of the argument. The reason I found this movie to be a good film was because it actually did show both sides in a way. For example: There was the perception of what the American people thought of the Vietnamese. Then the film would show something to counter those statements. It convices us as an audience that the Vietnamese people aren't primitive, or ignorant, or people who don't value life. They are human like you and me. It also showed how ignorant our leaders were...it was actually disappointing to see how that one guy kept stumbling, trying to buy time when Davis asked him about communism. The pilot seemed like the only guy who realized that this perception that we had about the Vietnamese was very wrong...he even broke down crying when he was asked to put himself in that situation. Trip to Hanoi is interesting because it somewhat does the same thing. It goes from the author being ignorant...thinking as the people in Vietnam as primitive...like in Hearts and Minds, to her changing her perception of the people after she knew what they were about...

Re: Trip to Hanoi Questions

In response to questions about Trip to Hanoi, I don't necessarily think that "more real" writing of any more importance than fiction. However, I think a lot of us tend to see the real stuff as more meaningful. Fiction brings us into a world of imagination but nonfiction is what is really real. To me personally, I tend to question the works of fiction because although there may be meaning and such behind it, I know it isn't real and tend to regard it as not as important or significant. I tend to put more emphasis on nonfiction work. That's not to say that I don't enjoy fiction because I think fiction is really strong because it we're able to think of and imagine things that we do not face in reality.

Another question is, is it common that there are non fiction works out there with a tad bit of fiction? Like we've discussed before, sometimes we tend to fill in gaps of our memory by putting in thoughts that we think happen because we don't remember. We hear things and see things so often that we begin to accept it as truth when maybe we don't really know if that's true. Also do we sometimes twist up stories to make it more interesting? Do we really believe that everything labeled non-fiction is the absolute truth with no sugarcoating or additions to make interesting?

Trip to Hanoi

I really liked Trip to Hanoi. I enjoyed the fact that is comes from a journalist/scholar. Sontag's writing style is beautiful. I think this work is much better than the fiction pieces that we have viewed/read thus far. She is very good at explaining the cultural misunderstandings between the Americans and Vietnamese. She really goes into depth on explaining how the Vietnamese viewed the Americans, and how she viewed them. This is a crucial element of Vietnam that we have not yet really seen. Hearts and Minds touches on this lightly, but Trip to Hanoi finishes the job. I've always thought it would be an awesome job to go to a foreign country that the US is actively engaged in war with. Especially as a journalist. Sontag's writing definitely makes me want to do something like that one day.

Trip to Hanoi questions

Ok, so I really loved this but it really made me have some questions. Is Susan Sontag more believable because she writes in journal entries and in the first person? Is this "more real" writing of any more importance than fiction? Is her angle to gain support through the rhetorical use of journal entries or did it just happen that her journal entries seem to be more convincing than a fictional story? Or is the fact that she discusses points of view that aren't spoken of often the reason it sounds so convincing?

Hearts and Minds

This movie was really good at indirectly depicting Americans in a bad way. I noticed that half of the movie didn't actually criticize what we were literally doing. One would obviously understand this aspect of the movie if they also understood the context. Some of the movie seemed to just show what we now know were obviously faults as something people did without knowing what they were doing wrong at the time. In other words, several of the people in the film are depicted as just plain ignorant, particularly General Westmoreland. Sadly, I think that a person as distinguished as him is more or less a representation of the ideal American. He is a representative for all Americans. This ignorant depiction of Westmoreland (or all Americans) is probably a big reason that Hearts and Minds was such a controversial film when it was first released. People didn't like being proven wrong.

Dashboard Confessional:

I welcomed the reading of Trip to Hanoi into my life with open arms. It was great getting a seasoned journalist's perspective on the war. I found her to be a little overly biased in the beginning, but it was interesting watching her perspectives change throughout the essay. She cared so much for the Vietnamese people and yet upon reaching Vietnam, often viewed them as primitives. As the story progressed, she herself began to further acknowledge them as people after witnessing their compassionate natures toward even fallen American troops. She understands that as a foreign culture she naturally has trouble understanding them. She realizes though, that their simplicity, rather than a curse, is what drives their very lives and makes them the respectable and noble individuals which she perceives them to be. She risked her very life for the chance to hopefully gain a better understanding of the people and be able to generate further awareness for their cause. She certainly was narrow minded in her viewpoint of American imperialism, but the greatest thing for me was seeing her perceptions change over time. By the end, she acknowledged herself as an American and admitted to loving her life as one, she just does not agree with American policies. She does not have to be unpatriotic to disagree with the government.

Topic for "Trip to Hanoi" RA



"Language does not merely reflect reality, it creates it." Discuss that statement with regard to Susan Sontag's "Trip to Hanoi".

Hearts and Minds vs Trip to Hanoi

I agree with the two previous posts, Hearts and Minds seemed like an introduction into viewing Vietnam from a different perspective and Trip to Hanoi was that different perspective.
I thought it was interesting how the author used "I" and "we" as well and I think in Hearts and Minds this is equivalent to showing scenes of a football game and a parade; reminding the viewer (or reader) that he is American by showing what a stereotypical American is or does.
The section of the reading in which the author is taken to the grave of an American pilot was touching to me as well because I couldn't believe it was true. We have seen and read so much material about Americans killing Vietnamese for sport and in mass numbers (like in Hearts and Minds- the former soldiers being interviewed systematically killed hundreds without thinking twice), yet the Vietnamese make an effort to protect an American corpse...an American who killed Vietnamese. This seems too nice or perfect? Why would they do this? Americans do not make graves for them/care about their families? I think the author told this story to shock the reader out of thinking Americans are perfect and Vietnamese do not have feelings or emotions.

Monday, October 29, 2007

Trip To Hanoi

I really enjoyed Trip to Hanoi very much, In my opinion it was the equivolence to Hearts and Minds but in book form. I really enjoyed how anti-american the author initially begins but through his down writing comes to a conclusion at the end that he is part of, and loves his country though he does not necessarily agree with what they are doing. I specifically enjoyed how he used rhetoric to separate himself by say America then putting "I" in parenthesis or vice versa, but by the end he was quoting the phrase "I" and "we" as if he felt a part of the country again. This story, however, goes much more in depth than just his separation from America. It really puts into perspective the mentality of the Vietnamese people through the eyes of an American. The author can not truly ever know what the Vietnamese are thinking, yet he makes very crisp conclusions based on his observations and interviews with the natives.

Trip to Hanoi

I actually enjoyed reading Trip to Hanoi because, again, like Hearts and Minds, it gave us a different perspective of the Vietnamese people. What really got to me was when the author talks about the american pilot that was shot down by a Vietnamese farmer. They barried the guy and made like this shrine...then they go on to saying that they put him in a good coffin so that when the war was over his family could come and get the body. There was this big misunderstanding of the perception of the Vietnamese people and what was really going on in Vietnam. I think the author tries to convey this throughout this essay. "Thinking about Vietnam in America, it seems natural to dwell on destruction and suffering. But not here. In Vietnam, there is also a peaceful, fiercely industrious present with whic a visitor must be connected; and I'm not. I want their victory. But I don't understand their revolution." It's nice to read material that gives the Vietnamese people identity.

hearts & minds and peer editing

I enjoyed peer editing because it made me realize even more that there are so many topics that you can talk about in Hearts and Minds. The documentary seemed to have all effected us in different ways, each focusing on one specific part of the documentary. It also gave us ideas of writing styles and techniques that we got from reading peers' papers. I think we were all relieved to finally see a different perspective than we've gotten used to with Apocalypse Now, Platoon and Full Metal Jacket.

Trip To Hanoi gave us a perspective of the Vietnamese culture that we have also not seen with the exception of the opening scene of Hearts and Minds, though that was just a small amount. Susan Sontag's writing were effective in that we were able to feel as if we were there with her and understood her frustraion in being able to communicate and connect with the Vietnamese. The way that she compared and contrasted views of the Vietnamese and Americans helped us understand a bit of the Vietnamese culture and perspective and see how these two differ from one another. Not only have we learned of the war itself and its effect, I think learning about the Vietnamese culture is important to better help us understand where they are coming from.

HEARST&MINDS

I really enjoyed focusing on the documentary Hearts and Minds over these last few weeks. Not only was the change in our class format interesting, but I also liked the movie itself. The style and rhetoric of Hearts and Minds was very overwhelming at first and a bit hard to decipher. But after thinking and discussing the movie, I was able to get a much better grasp on Davis's purpose. Davis was very suscessful in swaying his audience by only showing selective clips. I was very moved by his argument at first, but agreed less and less with the message of the documentary as I became more and more aware of Davis's strategy.

It was also interesting to read everyone elses thoughts. Critiquing wasn't only helpful for our big paper... but it also gave me a even broader view of Hearts and Minds. We haven't discussed the documentary as a class yet, so I definitely learned a lot more from the arguments within the papers I critqued. See you all in class tomorrow!

Trip to Hanoi - Fiction/Nonfiction

"Indeed, the problems was that Vietnam had become so much a fact of my consciousness as an American that I was having enormous difficulty getting it outside my head."

I was just looking up Susan Sontag (author of Trip to Hanoi) and an interview of hers caught my eye. Here's what she said:

Susan Sontag: Fiction writers have been made very nervous by a problem of credibility. Many don't feel comfortable about doing it straight, and try to give fiction the character of nonfiction. That a document of the writer's own character and experience seems to have more authority than an invented fiction is perhaps more widespread in this country than elsewhere and reflects the triumph of psychological ways of looking at everything. I have friends who tell me that the only books by writers of fiction that really interest them are their letters and diaries.

I think that's a really interesting rhetoric observation. I noticed that as a reader, I enjoyed reading Trip to Hanoi and was persuaded by it because subconsciously, I knew it was a first person account. It was something that actually happened. It made it seem more personal, and somehow more real. I remember when I read the Diary of Anne Frank, what hit me about it the most was the truth in it.

Why is it like this though? Why is it so important for us to think of something as true/nonfiction for it to have an impact on us? Does fiction not have the ability to touch our hearts or persuade us as well as nonfiction? Is rhetoric then dependent on truth more than imagination?

peer editing

just wanted to say i have enjoyed reading each other's papers and examining how hearts and minds, though different, had a powerful effect on each of us. it seems the movie really struck a chord with everyone and put the Vietnam war into a different perspective. it was also the perfect timing to watch the movie because it seemed we were all getting increasingly eager to be exposed to a perspective different than that of the American government or a U.S. soldier. By looking at each other's papers we are prompted to think of other ways of interpreting a film therefore helping us to generate new ideas about how to study rhetoric.

Trip to Hanoi

I found that I really liked Trip to Hanoi because of the completely different viewpoint that it gives about Vietnam. When I say completely different viewpoint I mean that in the sense that in almost all of the other books we have read and movies that we have watched, we are either right in the middle of the war, or reflecting on past war experiences. But in Trip to Hanoi, the author's main battles do not deal with the horrors of the Vietnam War but rather with breaking down cultural barriers and learning how to accept the Vietnamese culture for what it was. And I agree with the post before me when they said that the journaling was such an effective way to take the reader through the same journey as the author while he discovered how to appreciate the differeences between our cultures.

Trip to Hanoi & the use of journals

In the reading, Trip to Hanoi, I found it most interesting how the journal entries were very clear and honest and showed such a contrast of emotions from the rest of the piece. While reading the journal entries I thought the writer was being ethnocentric, which was annoying to me and it seemed to be annoying to him- almost like he could not help it, and I found it interesting how he continually referred to the Vietnamese as childish and how he felt as if he was being treated like a child. The entries reveal a lot of frustration. This frustration is later explained throughout the piece, by telling us the ways in which he is beginning to understand the Vietnamese. I think this is an important rhetorical skill because when I was reading I felt as if, by reading his personal journal, I knew exactly what he was going through which held my interest through the rest of the piece. I felt like I was there in Hanoi as well, experiencing how this trip has made the author grow; if I thought it was interesting and beneficial to him then this piece should be beneficial to all Americans...if it helped him- it will help us. I like to think I have read something that has made me better.

Response to Severin

The idea of war with Iran has been on the table since the early 1990s. Actually, the idea of war with Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon has been on the tables since 1992. The plan was originally sought by the neoconservatives (Cheney and Wolfowitz). The idea was originally submitted to Bush SR but he said no. It wasn't until Bush JR that Cheney submitted the idea again (about one week after 9/11 to be exact). General Wesely Clark was recently on campus and talked about this issue.
As for Iran, this is an issue that everyone should look into seriously. I have ready many articles that talk about the Israeli's staging some sort of attack against the Iraniansand this will be the point when the Americans step into war against Iran (to protect our friends in Israel, of course)
If we do go to war with Iran, there will most definitely have to be a draft. Our enemy would expand further. I do believe Russia said a week ago that if the US goes to war with Iran, the US goes to war with Russia. World War III? Let's hope not.


It seems to me that the chief master would say something like that because the thought of war with Iran is now very real.

Field Training Exercise:

This past Friday, I journeyed to Fort Hood. It's an expansive region of woods and desert terrain. I met many enlisted men comprised of both the Air Force and Army. It's neat how even after all these years of separation, they still work together on an army base for special operations.

One thing that a chief master sergeant said however frightened me. He said, "When we go to war with Iran or Syria, our special ops teams will come in very handy!" I hated this. What really sickened me was the idea that not only is he preparing his men for war, but he is eagerly anticipating it. I think this represents a certain type of man that joins the military more for a longing for battle and to release pent-up aggression than as an opportunity for leadership, personal betterment, and the chance to defend his country. A man such as this should never be granted a position of power. The men smiled, laughed, and cheered him on all the way though after the things he would say. I just think the situation in Iraq is already more than this country can handle without planning to destroy the political structure of two additional countries.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

The Pianist and Schindler's list

I love reading Jim Shepard's colloquial style! It is so different from most. He draws his readers in using a wide range of topics then the more he writes the deeper he gets into his true point of the article and when he does he hits his readers hard with colloquial style, use of sarcasm, and metaphors. It was fantastic!
Throughout Hearts and Minds Peter Davis constantly includes scenes that portray America as idiots. Why are we fighting the war? Who knows... The soldiers and majority of the American people had no idea yet we were killing and losing as many soldiers as we have in any other war. I think Peter Davis makes sure to present this as a larger point to inform viewers as to how passive we can be as a nation. Ironically the only Americans who seemed to figure out that we were the bad guy and did not belong in Vietnam, or were opting to move to Canada to avoid becoming a pointless killer, were the ones that were looked at as outcasts from America by dehumanizing our country rather than the Vietnamese. Though I had immense respect for them while watching the documentary, majority of American outcasted these people when this movie came out. I suspect that had a big part to do with what made it controversial along with presenting a more sympathetic outlook on the Vietnamese through carefully placed scenes that appeal to pathos. This is not to say that now we should all believe America was completely wrong and the Vietnamese were right, but it does make you think more critically after seeing both sides. I find it most difficult, and a big problem I am having, is to look at any form of Vietnamese text without forming some bias based on pathos. No one form of text has equally presented both sides of the story equally, yet I am beginning to see that piece of media may be impossible to make. For this classes purposes though I feel that Hearts and Minds was the most real and impacting as it is going to get for me and feel deeply sympathetic to both side. Both sides for their losses and more for America as apparently we are a bunch of rich dumbasses.

Re: Prostitution of Vietnam



I think what made the brothel scene repulsive was the scene that immediately followed. Right after one of the dudes says something to the effect of "If my girl at home could see this...", there's a quick cut to a Zippo being held by a U.S. soldier lighting a village hut on fire while his soldier buddies have them herded outside their homes. It's like Davis is saying not only is this brothel business demoralizing, but everything entailed by the Vietnam War is. The unnecessary herding of Vietnamese villagers through the use of force reduces them, making them as though they are less less than human. Forget that the huts are their homes, their personal sanctuaries, and everything in them is all they have. And as we watch their homes burn we cling to the words of the American solider that echo on, "If my chick at home could us now." Davis uses this scene to emphasize not only do the soldiers not know why they are fighting, but everyone back home has no clue what's going on in Vietnam. Davis seems to say if only everyone back at home could see what was going on over here, people would be pissed. What makes this scene so gross is that it reveals to us what is expended when "my chick" or an entire nation back home is unaware, be it personal ignorance, a government that hides it's actions, or both. What makes this scene disgusting is that it is all at the cost of burning villages, the demoralization of Vietnamese citizens, the sanity of young American soldiers and the death of so many people, Vietnamese and American alike.

Prostitution of Vietnam

That scene just did it for me. It was repulsive, disgusting and shocking all at the same time. These were the soldiers who were supposed to be in Vietnam to protect the Vietnamese. Except their actions don't seem to reflect that at all. It seems like they really couldn't care less about the Vietnamese, be it their men or their women, be it soldiers or villagers. Many of the soldiers didn't even seem to know WHY they fighting this crazy war.They just were.

I'm really glad Hearts and Minds allowed us to see the Vietnamese side of the story. It's something that seemed to be sorely missing from the other texts we've studied and it almost seemed as if the Vietnamese perspective wasn't even considered important in the VIETNAM War.

Hearts and Minds covers so many different aspects of the war. it doesn't just focus on the violence. It explores the impact on the Vietnamese, the impact on the American soldiers, the different viewpoints of the American soldiers, the political aspect, the business and industrial aspect...you name it, Davis covered it. He literally narrated the story of the Vietnam War in its entirety without going overboard on any one message. It was as if he was trying to ask the viewers (presumably Americans) a question instead of GIVING them an answer. Fantastic movie!

parade in Hearts & Minds

It was refreshing to watch Hearts and Minds after watching movies like Platoon and Apocalypse Now, it was graphic but in a different sense....
The final scene in the documentary was very interesting to me. A parade is a time when Americans can honor veterans and veterans can feel pride in what they have done. Showing this after a documentary designed to portray soldiers as ordinary, or even less than ordinary is important rhetorically. The soldiers throughout the documentary are shown as dehumanizing murderers who kill systematically, shown through the brothel scene, interviews and footage from Vietnam.
The irony of the final scene is Davis' last punch to the viewer's gut; almost mocking the American public and I think it is perfect as the last scene.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007




The rest of the article on The Pianist and Schindler's List is excellent. Please finish reading it critically, asking yourselves what he's saying and why he's saying those things. How does he develop his argument? Notice the little things like tone, style, transitions and thesis statements. How does he conclude? Then, after having finished it, read your peer's paper and see what kind of suggestions you can make that would make their paper as good as Sheppard's. Put Sheppard in his place. Show him how it's really done.

Hearts and Minds

I really enjoyed this documentary, because I think that it did a good job of being well rounded. In other words, it portrayed the attitudes of both sides of the issue. Although I have to admit it did seem to be leaning towards portraying war as terrible, which is what the general message was for me.

Did anyone else think of The Things They Carried when Coker expressed his attitudes about people that dodged the draft? Contrary to O'Brien's attitudes, Coker said that people that ran were wrong, and that they were cowards. O'Brien thought that those that didn't run were cowards for not standing up for what they believe in. I thought that this was an interesting little thing to think about. Everyone is going to have their own attitudes about the war, even with a more or less one sided issue as the Vietnam War. Maybe it was just because this documentary was filmed in the early 70s, I don't know. There's no denying the fact that some people did/do think that the Vietnam War was worth it.

Hearts and minds

Ok so although I had to watch the movie two times, I did enjoy Hearts and Minds just because of its different outlook on the war. This is one of the few movies that I've watched that didn't portray the soldiers as heros out there protecting America with faceless Vietnamese hiding in the woods. The way that you can see how what was actually happening in the war and what was being told to the public by the American government was startling. I think the scenes that effected me the most were the ones in which a Vietnamese man is talking about how his innocent children were killed by boms and then in the next scene you see General Westmoreland saying that the Vietnamese don't value human life. It was scenes like these and others that were so blatantly false that led me to believe that the war was just so falsely conveyed to the American public.

Monday, October 22, 2007

Hearts and Minds

Hearts and Minds was not only the greatest text we have studied thus far, but it was also one of the greatest movies I have ever scene. This movie impacted me most directly because of its use of rhetoric the director used to persuade me to take a side other than my own country's. By then end of this movie the comparison of interviews made me side with the families of the Vietnamese. On a side note I just wanted to to say I have the upmost respect for the men who contributed to this movie who were able to get all of these interviews and war footage.

Hearts and Minds

I found Hearts and Minds to be a very interesting movie. It definitely is a 'pro-peace' movie in a sense, and uses the soldiers that were actually there to prove this point. Some of the scenes in this movie were quite horrific. I think this is important in Peter Davis' perspective because it allows the viewer to really question the cost of war. I really appreciated the fact that this documentary gave us a view into what it was like from some of the Vietnamese. Instead of being insane, crazy ass soldiers (like portrayed in the other films we have watched thus far), it shows them as being human. They lived day by day defending themselves. The thing that impressed me the most about this film is how it juxtaposes political policy next to reality. In the end it yields that some of their policies were short-sighted, and politicians often do not think well enough into a conflict (which could be said for other foreign conflicts that the US has been involved in).

its been so long....

I loved "Hearts and Minds"! Peter Davis did not make this documentary in an equal display of views however given the fact that the American public is bombarded with the opposing point of view in the news during the time this documentary was made it helped "balance" Americans' knowledge of what was occuring in the Vietnam war. Peter Davis used powerful images and selective interviewing and editing. He shows the Vietnamese speaking common sense and defending themselves and shows the soldiers as either idiots or "wised up" veterans. Lt. Fred Coker is the exception. Peter Davis conveys him as intelligent and articulate. I think this added more credibility to the film because it showed the pro-war side to contrast with the anti-war. Peter Davis is a master at rhetoric. "Hearts and Minds" was beautiful, powerful, disturbing, and thought provoking. He expressed the anti-war sentiment but added Lt. Coker for contrast yet furthered his own point by doing so. It was brilliant!

Cleaning up the cobwebs...

Indeed it has been a long time since we have gathered together, but I think the hiatus has given everyone time to conclude their thoughts over Hearts and Minds.

This movie has to be one of the most moving documentaries I have witnessed. There were many emotional cords struck through out the movie. Seeing firsthand the end results of America's attempt to "win a war" without any narration allowed us as the veiwer an overall greater experience. It really allowed the audience to see how America went from a nation of freedom fighters to that of blood thirsty winners.

Exposure:

Wow! It has been a long time since any of us have seen each other. Even longer for me since I was not able to make the screening. I hope you all had a good time. It looked like a lot of fun. It is ironic that for the Platoon screening I was the only one to show up, and yet for this one everybody could make it but me!

Anyway, Hearts and Minds affected me more than any of the other films we have watched thus far. I watched it rather choppily and not under ideal conditions, but it was the first film we have seen which made me feel like crying. It is really the first film that I have seen in a long long while that has had any emotional effect upon me. It is just a sad sad film that makes us realize the hypocrisy of many American actions and forces the viewer to consider the humanity of people other than ourselves.

I gained a much greater understanding into the process of Vietnamization as well. For the first time, I understood that we were grooming South Vietnam to be more like America. We trained the S. Vietnamese soldiers to behave like our own troops, supplied their weaponry, and even began to bring our corporations into their country. Americanization would have been the better phrase for it.

Overall this was an extremely insightful and touching film that will linger with me for the remainder of this course and beyond. It is the first time I have ever really believed or understood the brutality of war.

For Tuesday


Dear Slothropians,

Please bring 3 copies of your RA to class. Not arriving late would also be in everyone's best interests. See you tomorrow morning, full of hope and charity.


Sunday, October 21, 2007

sorry, that last link didn't work
http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=168
just copy and paste it

Saturday, October 20, 2007

hearts and minds

Hearts and Minds wasn't exactly what I had expected. I was expecting something more bloody and disturbing. I really liked the fact that there was no narrator during the documentary. In the commentary by Peter Davis he said that the lack of a narrator removes the curtain between the person watching the film and the actual film, allowing them to develop their own thoughts.

I felt that this was the first thing we've seen that I actually felt like I connected with. Peter Davis uses a lot of interviews with Vietnamese citizens, something we have not seen in other films. We are able to see a side that wasn't too common in other films. I especially enjoyed the opening scene and the Vietnamese music. We also see a lot of the Vietnamese culture which I thought was pretty cool. I read somewhere online that the man working on the coffins was in more danger than Davis and those interviewing him. The interview took place in the basement of a hospital. If the man had been caught by a Vietnamese official he could have been imprisoned just for speaking to Davis and participating in the interview. I found that really interesting that the man seem to not care about that at all. His interview contributed a lot to the documentary.

There are many scenes that remain stuck in my head including the interview of the two old sister speaking of losing their sister and home. It was even more emotional hearing it in Vietnamese than in English. The scene of the young boy crying over the loss of his father still flashes back in my head. To be so young and lose a parent during a war that you don't understand is something I couldn't even imagine. Victory, LBJ said, "will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live out there." That was something I found myself thinking about after the documentary was over.

I went to Blockbusters and Hollywood Video looking for the documentary to watch again to write my RA but couldn't find it at neither of the locations I went to. I did find the whole movie online so if anyone is interested, here it is:


you don't have to download it and it plays right in your window.

Friday, October 19, 2007

The Boss!

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

movies and more

only four pictures left on that vintage machine and then i'll head straight to CVS; i'm sure it has been a long time since yall have seen some one proudly whip out a disposable camera. my phone camera seriously stinks.

i really enjoyed our movie night. initially i did not want to watch the movie around people because during every film so far i have gotten super emotional and unpleasant to be around. however, it was nice to be in a room filled with fellow classmates and experience a movie together as we simultaneously learn about the Vietnam war together.

the movie was less graphic and gory than i imagined. i expected this to be the most violent of all films for some reason. it seems like the movies that are extremely violent and graphic are the most disturbing initially. they leave you feeling sick and set a superior foundation for a slumber full of nightmares. i feel like hearts and minds, though less visually disturbing, captured the human emotion in such a way that leaves you thinking forever. where as troubling images can fade out of focus, hearing Westmoreland say something along the lines of "they don't value human life the same way we do" stings forever. I just can't get over the scene with the young boy crying relentlessly over the grave of his family member. The way the director juxtaposed images and ideas with such immaculate timing and coordination made each message so powerful. I think this movie deserves the awards it received and it deserves to be praised for its straightforwardness and recognition of the truth.

Hearts and Minds

Hearts and Minds was an emotional roller coaster…I actually think that the documentary is about the American soldiers against the American government….they really emphasize how unpleased the soldiers really felt…This is different to the other text/clips we have seen because they all have seemed to have focus on the dehumanizing process/brainwashing…and the loss of innocence…well this is the end result…getting screwed over…what really got me was how the aviator was saying that there was no emotion to what he was doing. He was a technical pilot, a professional…just go in, and get the job done…it seems like soldiers were robots…

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Monday Movie Night!

Rhetoric of the Vietnam War! YAY!



The picture is a bit blurry. I guess my camera phone isn't all that fancy. Next time I'll make sure to bring my digital camera.

Its not loading the other picture. I'll have to post that one later.

Hearts and Minds


When writing your RA, stay away from a simple argument like "Hearts and Minds is a documentary that displays the horrors of war." This might be true, but it is not much of an argument or an analysis. Instead, you should consider some of the following: 1. Why were some of the scenes in the movie? For example, why did Peter Davis include the football scenes? The scene in the brothel? 2. What argument is the movie making about rhetoric? 3. What is the movie's own rhetoric, and does is it in tune with its own argument? What structural features help us see this? 4. How does the movie portray Lt. Coker and in what ways is he different from the technical pilot with the beard and curly hair, who sits on his porch and cries at the end of the film? 5. I think it will be easier to start small, i.e. with a particular scene or scenes, and extrapolate a larger argument than to make a large argument about the entire film. 6. Consider carefully the opening scene of the movie.

Evidence

There exists evidence in a disposable camera and a fancy-pants-phone that last night was not a dream. Where it at?


Monday, October 15, 2007

carpool

hey friends,

if anyone wants to carpool or needs a ride tonight let me know. i have a meeting from 6-7:15 but i could pick anyone up after that, there are three extra seats in my car if you're interested. let me know!

taylor

Answer #2

New York Giants are playing Atlanta Falcons on Monday Night Football!!

Answer:

Ya'll are watching a movie at Mr. P.'s.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Monday???

What is going on on Monday at 8 pm???

Map for Monday night's 8pm Festival


View Larger Map

500 South Congress Ave: Congress Square Apartments. Apt 243. There will be a yellow Subaru parked in front of my apartment. Seek and ye shall find. Call 732-423-6634 if you are lost.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Dispatches

I'd have to say that out of all the material that we've looked at so far, besides the very first book that we had to read, Dispatches has been my least favorite. I don't know why exactly it was so hard for me to get into but apparently I'm not the only one who had trouble with it. I was able realize thought that he did really use a particularly beautiful and extremely descriptive style of writing that was in such contrast to the harsh brutalities that he was writing about. But, I think because the language was so flowery and poetic while describing these grotesque things I think that helped to reinforce an idea that we've seen in a lot of the other bodies of work that we've had, which is that there is this sense of beauty in war. With all of its dehumanizing, vicious, realities, there are moments of pure beauty.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Dear Vietnam

Dear America... yeah, it was touching. It was touching. You know and it was horrible how our boys died out there in a harsh environment so confused and helpless! This Vietnamn War, I mean, this confused, aimless war we were fighting. This Vietnam War in Vietnam, I mean, poor Americans!!! Poor us. I mean, We lost so much... ya know?


But no this Vietnam War has nothing to do with the Vietnamese. It's all about our suffering, our boys, our war, OUR Vietnam War


Anyone ready for a change in point of view? I know I am.

Dear America

I really enjoyed watching Dear America. I think that it was very different to what we have been reading so far about the Vietnam War. Everything else has seemed more exaggerated. This film seemed more straight up and at the same time you can see the innocence in these young men. I really liked how the movie made a progression from the beginning of the war, to moving along in the 60’s. It was a very touching film. The story that stuck out to me the most was of the young man who had to go in and identify a body that was all jacked up. He then found out that it was one of his friends. Just being exposed to all these material makes me feel fortunate to just be a live. I just keep thinking of a couple of friends who are in the marines. They are serving in Iraq as we speak. I just hope they can come back home safe. I also like how the film just shows the attitudes these guys have about war and how that changes through time.

Dear America

This movie was so moving! I absolutely loved it. It actually made me ache inside. The actual footage truely conveyed the pain and confusion and compassion of the time. Seeing the faces of the boys at that time who are now grown men hit home. Looking in their young faces I saw my best friends. I saw my friend Zach (a marine), Bobby (in the navy), and Chrissy (in the army). I miss them dearly and watching this movie touched my heart. It helps me connect to those men and women overseas today. The truth in this movie was awe inspiring. I can't express enough how much I loved this movie.

Dear America

I liked the way the movie progressed through time. It started near the beginning of the Vietnam war, and moved along the years. You could start to see how everyone's attitudes changed over time. I thought it was interesting how no one really knew why they were there. I know history says that there was no clear objective throughout the war, but just seeing real letters from the past showing how no one knew what they were there for was a different point of view, or form of rhetoric. It kind of takes the same outline as O'Brien's book They Things They Carried. There's more or less simply a series of attitudes changing through the war, shown through people's letters.

Dear America

Of all of the movies we have seen thus far I really appreciated this one the most. All of the film stock and letters were first hand from Vietnam which gave it a warm and authentic feeling. At the same time I was sent mixed signals from the music that was played. I know it was there to evict a certain form of ethos but I am confused as to what specifically it was going for. I only say this because while i was watching it i felt almost upbeat with the songs playing and cared less, emotionally, for the dying soldiers than I would have if I had just seen them with no sound and made the interpretation for myself. I also really enjoyed all of the voice overs done by professionals. They were not read monotone and each of them were unique. I say this while recalling the monologue that Mr. P did in class when he read the poem two different ways and all of the sudden the meaning of it was completely altered. This is how I felt while listening to letters. At times I felt hopeless and at othertimes, though the letter may have been grim, I felt alive with optimism. I think this supports my reason for being biased to movies as opposed to books. Movies are doine the way one man's vision wants you to view it where as the book can leave you to interpret it in your head which I feel is almost gyping me in a way due to the fact that I may be reading it in a way that the author had no intention of me understanding it to come across in that manner.

Gimme Shelter

So usually... I'm not very excited about watching documentaries, but this one was definitely an exception. I really did enjoy Gimme Shelter. Its amazing how the film makers were able to create a movie that was both informative and dramatic. It was able to capture the culture at the time... the fashion, the hairstyle... and the drugs. But on top of that, they revealed the ugly side of human nature.

They set out to record an awesome concert and got so much more. The late 60's were about love and peace and the goodness in all men, and the bands of that time fully believed in that philosophy. Hence the Rolling Stone's effort to throw a free concert... and the events that unfolded at that concert revealed just the opposite in people. Its crazy that the film makers of Gimme Shelter were able to get the chaos of the concert for the whole nation to see. There film marked the end of that generation. For a film to have that much power... is exceptional.

Dispatches

The rhetoric of this book was a little confusing to me. I don’t know why but I somehow couldn’t relate to this book as much as I did with The Things they Carried although the diction was so informal. I mean, this book was written in a way where you felt that Herr was talking to YOU specifically and he was telling you the story. He also used the language he would have used as if he were talking to a buddy. However, I love the fact, that in both these books I can actually feel the emotions of the character whereas the movies somehow end up feeling like documentaries to me. The Things they Carried did that for me and Dispatches did too, to a certain extent.

The Rhetoric of Dispatches - italics?

When I began reading Dispatches I assumed the first italics section just functioned as a preface and thought nothing too special about it and continued reading. When I got to the second italics section I assumed that since our story teller is a journalist the story would be set up as one part what he encountered and one part the journalistic approach (in italics). Then I realized that wasn't right because the second italics part couldn't be in a newspaper/magazine. THEN I come across italics again in this way until almost 200 pages later.
What does this mean? Why does he use this?

Dear America

I really enjoyed this documentary. It was different than the other texts that we have covered because it is all non-fictitious material. The only thing that wasn't real were the voices reading the letters. Having real actors read the letters really adds a nice touch. I really like the transition from the beginning to the end. In the beginning, there is optimism for the war, and towards the end, it turns towards bitterness. I found it really interesting that this documentary was made in 1987. The scenes from Khe Sanh are really useful in the reading of Dispatches. These scenes definitely helped with the visualization of Michael Herr's experiences on the hill tops. Dear America is a very emotionally powerful film. Most of the letters that are read are from soldiers that were KIA, which makes it even more touching. The soundtrack to this movie was top notch. From "Fortunate Son" to "Are You Experienced," the director chose the right music for the right generation. I do feel that it's pretty hard to screw up on a soundtrack for a Vietnam movie. Every movie that we have seen thus far has had a great soundtrack, but Dear America stands above the others.

After Having Watched "Dear America":

I must say that I really enjoyed this documentary. It was great to gain insight as to what really was going on in the war written at the time of it and by those involved. Everything we have either read or seen to date has been fictionalized or "Hollywooded-up" so gaining first-hand knowledge was a welcome reprieve from otherwise commercially distributed products. You got more of a sense of the unique individualness of the men rather than looking at the war in a broad sense with views expressing a particular slant. Everyone involved had a unique take on the war. This film showed us that ideologies were as diverse as some fighting for freedom and an end to communism, while others did not even know why they were there. It was also of interest to see how particular viewpoints of the war changed as time went along. If the letters were displayed chronologically (I believe I remember that they were), then it was of interest to realize that the later documents had a decidedly more grim outlook than those of earlier years. So were the soldiers influenced greatly by the viewpoints being expressed at home or were they honestly sharing the same thoughts? How might the war have turned out had there been more support? No resistance? The only thing I wish is that they could have had real veterans reading the letters. While they may be good actors, having the actual voices of those involved would add an air of credibility to the film that was not otherwise present. Overall, this was a marvelous documentary.

Friends,

I will collect your RA #5 first thing tomorrow morning. If you are not in class on time, I will not accept it when you do show up. The main reason for this is that when people show up late, I have to repeat things, and repeating things is not cool.

Humbly Yours,

Sgt. Piekarski

P.S. We have three texts on the table, so give them thought before tomorrow morning's discussion: Gimme Shelter, Dear America: Letters Home From Vietnam, and Dispatches.

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Dear America

I really enjoyed today's film. It was different from the others that we've seen in the sense that it wasn't exactly a movie. I liked that everything we saw was real and not re-enacted. Everything was calm and not as intense as we have seen in past movies.

I did noticed a lot of similarities between this film and the other ones we've seen. A few of the similar scenes include soldiers getting their head shaved, lighting houses on fires with a match and a scene where we see all the body bags. Another similarity was when someone said they were fighting for people who resented them being there. It was also interesting that Bob Dylan's A Hard Rain's A Gonna Fall and Marvin Gaye's Whats Going On were included.

I think the letters home that were read really show individuality of the soldiers that we don't really see in the other movies. It shows another side of them and what they think as opposed to seeing them hiding in jungles and shooting all the time. The update of how many soldiers were in Vietnam each year showed how involved we were. In the other movies we've seen we just saw the one platoon and never really saw just how much more soldiers there were.

Monday, October 8, 2007

Gimme Shelter

Based on the reading, I really enjoy the rhyme scheme of the quote. I think He uses this in a teasing manner almost in a Dr. Seuss sort of way. And if this comparison can be made, then I would go as far as to say that he is treating the listener like a child almost egging him on to play his game. "Guess my name." He is saying that it doesn't matter how old you gt, he is wiser and experienced more than you can imagine which automatically makes him the puppeteer and you the puppet.

re: to Segovia

No problem. By Thursday darling!!!

Eva

Sunday, October 7, 2007

Thanks Eva

Hey, thanks for the update...do we need to have Dispatches done by Tuesday?

to Segovia

We watched Gimme Shelter for most of the class period and had about 10 minutes to discuss it. So you really didn't miss much discussion. As for assignments, read Dispatches if you haven't already.

Hope this helps :)
Eva

Catching up...

Hey guys...I just wanted to know what went down on class on Thursday. I was not able to make it and I just want to be caught up for Tuesdays class...Thanks!

Friday, October 5, 2007


Why is Gimme Shelter so disturbing? In what ways does its rhetoric function in similar ways as does the rhetoric of The Things They Carried? In what ways is the maker of a rhetorical text like the figure in the Rolling Stones' "Sympathy for the Devil"?

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

True or Not?

I also feel that the way that O' Brien was so ambiguous about the true facts of his stories in the book was a very effective way of getting the emotions and the true values of the stories across to the reader. I mean, does it or should it even really matter if the stories are true or not as long as we get the message? I used to be one to say that, if it isn't true and it didn't happen, then it doesn't matter. But now, after reading it, I think I've changed my mind, or atleast in this case I have a different opinion. I feel like even though the actual hard facts of the stories might have been fabricated, the important parts in the stories, the emotions, the feelings, the lessons, those were true, and so in that sense, so were the stories. That's what I think is important about the book, the truth is in there, just maybe not in the way that you might think.

The THINGS!

Before the discussion, I was unclear about the truth of O'Brien's story. I didn't realize that O'Brien purposely blurred the lines between fact and fiction to create a deeper meaning to his overall story. I think this strategy... is confusing but definitely effective. It threw me off in the beginning, especially since he used his own name in the stories. As I read further, I thought that some of the stories were fabricated, but that the majority were based on actual events.

Tuesday really added some incite over the fictional nature of The Things They Carried. I appreciate the book even more knowing that O'Brien purposely blurs the line between reality and fantasy in order to make a bold point. It is not the people or the events of the story that truly matter, but rather the feelings that the story evokes in the reader.

Truth in the Things They Carried

I did noticed when I first bought the book that it was in the fiction section. I wouldn't have thought much about it but throughout the book it was repeatedly stated, oh this is true or this isn't true.. but it really is. It threw me off a bit. Maybe there are some points that are true but details are fabricated. How would you really go about deciding what is true and what isn't?

I don't think making up pieces of stories to exaggerate really puts emphasis on a situation. If the situation is intense enough, shouldn't we already feel what the author wants us to feel? I didn't like that he filled in gaps of his memory with made up stories. If you don't remember a certain part, then so be it. The small made up details can pull you away from the truth of the story. It may exaggerate the story leaving the audience wondering how valid is this story?

As far as politics, we want to follow whoever says what we want to hear but if there is no truth it in what good does it do for us? I think honesty in politics is very important. We don't want to believe something will happen to later find out that everything was a lie. for exampl,e Americans were frustrated to find out that Nixon had been bombing Cambodia when he had told them we were pulling out of the Vietnam War.

Fiction vs Truth

I think O'Brien was telling the truth, not literally or as straight forward as most people would expect. The book is fiction and there is no way to tell which stories were actual events and which were made up. What matters is the book tells the truth about life lessons and emotions. Its like fairy tales. They are made up and in a dream world but the lessons in them are of human nature and truth. A factual novel would have been less interesting and wouldn't express the ideas and evoke the emotions as well as a stretch of the truth did. O'Brien wrote "The Things They Carried" in a way that would touch all its readers in different ways.

What is fiction?

I agree with what most of he people said below in that it’s not really important to know what’s true in a fictional book. After all, that’s not the purpose of fiction. The purpose of any fictional book is to entrance the reader and make him experience the feelings the author wants him to experience. O’ Brien wanted the reader to experience war as realistically as possible; hence he gave the book a realistic spin. As far as I’m concerned, that’s still as fictional as fiction can get. “Reality fiction” is what I would call it =) It’s possible that he took certain incidents that did happen during the war and exaggerated them in order for the reader to understand the emotions/feelings behind it better.

As to the whole Oprah scandal (a little off-topic), I agree that just the fact that the book was fictional doesn’t take away its credibility. However, I think the fact that the author publicly claimed that the book WAS based on reality is rather deceptive. If the author had so much faith in what he was writing and if he wanted to simply get the emotions across, he, as an author, should know that a fictional book can do that as much or even more than a non-fiction one. Lying in a book is called fiction but lying in real life..that’s deception. Just my personal point of view.

The Truth

In response to the post below mine, I don't agree with what Oprah did either.
I read "A Million Little Pieces" by James Frey AFTER the whole thing with Oprah happened and I think it made the book better. I knew it wasn't true & I knew that he had lied about it being true. That is cool, that takes guts I guess.
More truth can be found in a lie, just like O'Brien focuses on. Maybe James Frey's rehab experience was not as graphic or bloody...but maybe it felt like it was? Maybe it hurt just the same, I think it makes someone a better author if they can find another way of showing what they want instead of just using fancy words and details...even if that is a complete lie.

Manipulating the truth...

I actually wanted to go back to what we discussed in class and the issue that was brought up as far as the validity of the book. The example the teacher gave was about this author who wrote a memoir and it the book being endorsed by Oprah. She then found out that the book was not completely true and I guess you can say she bashed the author for what he did or whatever. I think that as a writer, you don’t really have to say the truth. You can write whatever you want and manipulate words to convey a truth. I think that as long as it serves as something positive then it shouldn’t matter. In The Things They Carried, he was giving an example as to why they have to lie sometimes. It might emphasize a point more or just make it seem more credible. In his situation, he wanted us to feel the way he did when he encountered the guy who died, which he didn’t kill. He said he killed him and gave this story that was false, but he did this so we can get a better understanding of the feelings he felt. I guess he felt that , that was the only way of conveying it. I don’t have a problem with that…and I think what Oprah did was wrong! Haha…but that’s off topic…

Truth?

When it comes to fiction novels, truth usually seems to be one of the last things that I think about. The way Tim O'Brien structures his book, leads the reader to decide what is and isn't the truth. He expresses that some of things you may read may be true, and some may not be true. We are then led to believe that some of things read as the truth have not been the true at all. What a mess. I think this strategy works to his advantage more than anything though. Regardless of the fact that his stories contain fictitious elements, I feel that it doesn't take away from the actual deeper meanings presented. Imagine the story about Kiowa's death. If I were there my adrenaline would be so high it would be hard to know what actually did and did not happen. I think the same goes for many of the soldiers of Vietnam. Adding adrenaline and subtracting fatigue and mental stress could only equate a hard to tell story. I don't really want to know what elements of The Things They Carried are fact and which are fiction. I think thing that's most important about the book is the emotional content. O'Brien created this book in a fashion that gives us a glimpse into the soldier's hearts. The stories surrounding them aren't as important as the effect the war actually created on them. This book shows us that effect, and I find this to be much more important than the element of truth.

The Things O'Brien Carries:

I believe The Things They Carried is more of an appeal to the world to know the lives of those involved in the war and reflect their thoughts upon returning to a world that just does not understand them. Much like Rambo, O'Brien champions the cause of the neglected soldier. He longs to expose to the world the tragedies these men went through. He want to expose the motives behind their actions and justify why they return to the U.S. different than they were before.

I also feel that O'Brien had a great need to tell these stories. He may have felt that if all these tales lay dormant within his own mind circling around and around with nobody to talk to or fully understand, then he could end up the same as Bowker. Bowker, therefore, looking upon this novel as a work of fiction, could represent everything O'Brien feared he himself might become.

Truth

Going back to the The Things They Carried, I thought it was an eye opening topic to discuss the validity of the book and how it either makes it breaks it for the reader. While reading it I had no idea that everything he was saying was either real or fake. I read it more open minded in hopes of it ending up non fiction so that I may envy all of the horribly incredible events that this man has endured. After finding out that it is a work of fiction I still feel a sense of gratification just in an entirely different way, in a way that I almost feel I need to re-read the book to get a new appreciation out of it from another perspective. This topic also got me thinking about life, but when doesn't this class force you to think about life outside the box. When I tell a story I tell it as truthfully as possible but then it is true, I never remember every detail to the grain so I fill in my gaps with things that might be more interesting or where I have no recollection. And often times we tell others what they want to hear rather than the truth to avoid a world filled with emotional chaos. I wonder though is this necessary? To relate to others it is always almost automatic to exchange stories that have happened to you, which is what essentially builds trust. So if we as a people cannot help to lie, or stretch the truth, or even create an entire event just to contribute in conversation, how much of life is real? Naturally facts are facts. Two plus two will always be four and there isn't a teacher who could stretch that. But as far as relationships, which is what most jobs or even things as big as being the president are, can they ever really be trusted or do we just say the things people want to hear without always being able to help it. Not only do I no question the validity of this book, I now question the validity of life and the things that have been told to me up until this point.

Also on a less serious note: I really enjoyed the comment in class that follows; "We have no say in democracy." As small of a phrase as it is, this sentence is very powerful and I would have to argue is correct to a deeper degree. Yes we can vote, but once the guy we pick is in office he can do whatever he feels is right, and then at the same time use rhetoric to tell the people what he thinks they want to hear. And that in a nutshell is how this stupid country, no stupid world, operates, yet we are obligated to sit back and find our place in it until our lie (not life) is over.

Two More RA#4 Topics

5. With regard to the credibility and persuasiveness of an argument, much depends on the speaker/author/writer's ethos. What is Tim O'Briens ethos in TTC? Does it help his credibility or hinder it? Or both?

6. There are several allusions to movies in TTC. How does its rhetoric compare to the rhetoric of the three films we've seen? What does TTC claim about movies?

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

Recap 10/2


Another terrific, thoughtful discussion this morning. The donuts were delicious and abundant. The integrity of this class makes Honest Abe look like a used-car salesman.

I posted the RA#4 topics below. With regard to Casey's inquiry, you may write about your own topic as long as it is smart, involves analysis and rhetoric, and has The Things They Carried at its core.

On Thursday we will compare The Things They Carried to Gimme Shelter, half of which I'll show in class. If you haven't finished TTC yet, please do so by Thursday.

The Things They Carried

I'm not really sure how I felt about this book due to the fact that it had had a jumbled plot. The writing was amazing yet I found it difficult to follow at times what with all of the characters and out of order plot. This seemed to be the most optimistic piece we have studied thus far pertaining to the Vietnam War yet I still found it sadistic at times. For instance when Tim takes his daughter to Vietnam for her tenth birthday and wades through the mud, this seems to me to be more of a gross reminiscing rather than a learning experience for his daughter.

Monday, October 1, 2007

Partial list of RA #4 Topics





1. Pick a single story, and analyze its rhetoric. In other words, tell us what argument it makes, and how it goes about making that argument. All the stories in this collection are ripe for the picking, but certainly consider "The Things They Carried", "On the Rainy River", "How to Tell a True War Story" and " Speaking of Courage" + "Notes".

2. What is the structure of The Things They Carried? How does it affect the content? (This is your classic "How does form=content?" question.)


3. Rhetoric often gets a bad name when politicians use it to spin the truth for unsavory reasons e.g. merely to get elected, to justify questionable foreign policy, to lobby for a dubious bill. How does O'Brien approach "truth"? What's at stake?

4. Compare the structure/rhetoric of Gimme Shelter with the structure of The Things They Carried.

I'd carry this book anywhere

Finally, a text on war that I enjoyed! I'm in love with O' Brien's writing style; the way eh narrated the stories was amazing! I'd mentioned in a private post before that I'd love to interact with a war veteran and I guess this book comes pretty close to that. I think the first-person narration made the situations in the book seemed a lot more real. Everything that was happening was happening to either him or people he knew.

Another interesting thing that I noticed what that in the chapter "How to Tell a True War Story", all the points O' Brien brought up seemed to remind me of the movies we've watched. "In any war story, it's difficult to separate what happened from what seemed to happen" , "A true war story is never moral" : statements like these made me ponder about the movies we watched and how the rhetoric of those war movies tried to depict situations as realistically as possible; to make it a "true war story"

One more part of the book that I'd like to point out is the baby buffalo sequence. I actually found myself PHYSICALLY cringing while reading that sequence because it was so heart-wrenching. I probably reacted to that scene in a way I didn't react to any scene I watched in any of the movies. I don't even know how to describe it because it was just so inhumane, yet a perfect represenation of human emotion at the same time. It's beginning to sound cliched to say that a scene is used to "depict the horrors of war and show how brutal war can be" but I truly think that that one scene serves that purpose in a way that no other scene did for me.

The Things They Carried

Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried is one of the best books that I have read in a while. The writing style was very unique, and flowed very well. The story that I found the most touching was the "On The Rainy River." I felt that it was the most relevant story to me. If we were to have a draft, I feel that I would be in the same shoes as Tim O'Brien. Going to Canada (or Mexico) would always be one of my first options, but I think at some point something would influence me to end up serving my time. I just hope I have someone like Elroy in my life. I also really enjoyed the story about Mary Anne and the "greenies." That whole story went in a completely different direction than I initially expected. I was so surprised that the war engulfed her in such a short period of time. Every story in this book was extremely good. I found myself not wanting to put the book down at certain points. I'm glad this was assigned.

SO SO GOOD!!!

I am usually not a fan of war novels but I could hardly put this book down! It captivated me! Tim O'Brien brings that sense of truth because he lived through it. I was particularly intrested in the character Lieutenant Jimmy Cross. Cross blamed himself for Lavender's death and had an unrequited love. This really made me feel for him. I think the chapter "Love" added so much depth to his character. I connected with this character because of his internal conflict of following orders or doing what he felt was right. The fact that he was unsure of how to lead the men he took more orders which lead to the deaths of Lavender and Kiowa. His pain and sorrow and self damnation just made me want to give him a hug. I loved this book!!!!!

TIM O'BRIEN!

So... I tried searching for Tim O'Brien on google and on utdirect in order to find out when hes coming to UT. I couldn't find anything about it... but I did come across an interesting quote from O'Brien on a fan website. Since we've discussed the comparison between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War, I thought it was quite appropriate.

[on comparing the Vietnam War to the Iraq War] "The Iraq thing has the feel of a potential quagmire where we just get deeper and deeper and deeper involved, and when that happens it’s harder and harder and harder to get out. There’s also the similarity with the difficulty in finding the enemy. In Vietnam, we couldn’t find the V.C., they were blended in with the population, and we’re having the same problem in Iraq . . ."
-Tim O'Brien as told to Patrick Hunt for the U. of Dayton, Oct. 2003

...pretty interesting. The rest of the article is on this website: http://www.flyernews.com/article.php?section=AE&volume=51&issue=9&artnum=01

The Things They Carried

I am really enjoying reading this book as well. Its so well written and entertaining that it makes it hard for me to put down. I think I like the fact that O'Brien talks about his feelings about being drafted into the war and his conflicting feelings about not having the courage to run. I just thought that was an interesting point of view because we normally don't associate dodging the draft with courage. And I also liked how he talked about the feelings a soldier would have about being called to fight in a war that they didn't believe in. The questions he asks about the Vietnam War in the book also remind me a lot of the war we're fighting today. America is pretty much split over it and there are really a lot of questions of what exactly are we fighting for, why did we get in it in the first place, and whatever the reason that we are in this war, is it worth all the lives lost? Although I'm not quite finished, I don't think that it'll take me much longer, and I'm really interested in seeing what other stories O Brien has in there.

The things they carried

This book was a really easy read and was interesting. It is basically the first work that we're using that is a nonfictional (more or less) presentation of the Vietnam War. To be honest I'm actually kind of unclear about what O'Brien meant in the chapter regarding whether or not he killed a man or not, and whether this book really is fiction or nonfiction. Others, such as the three movies that we watched, were only realistic stories that could've happened. It is just a different feeling to read someone's thoughts about what he remembers about the war.

I enjoyed reading O'Brien's attitudes towards the war. I thought that the way he split each chapter into a different story makes it easy to read the book piece by piece; throughout last week I read a chapter, went to class, and then could quickly pick off where I stopped earlier.

The Things They Humped

"How To Tell A True War Story" was a chapter that gave this entire book, despite what it's title page says (A work of fiction by Tim O'Brien), credibility. The subtitle “a work of fiction” is paradoxical to the actions and thoughts of characters in O'Brien's book, most especially the character/narrator Tim O'Brien himself. The paradox: The Things They Carried is a narrative composed of war stories where things don't seem to end up happy and morally correct- our author calls it "a work of fiction." But our character Tim O'Brien says that these moral wrongs -from the unreturned letter to the unnecessary slaughter of a baby buffalo- are what makes a war story true ("A true war story is never moral..If a story seems moral, do not believe it.") This would suggest that O'Brien as the author is telling a set of stories that are very real, and very true. In a greater context, the immorality of everything going on in this book, lends credibility to Tim's narrative as a true war story. By asserting that his book is fictional but demonstrating and explaining indirectly through the characters in his narrative otherwise, we can believe his story is really true....

things they carried

I really enjoying reading this book. It was very easy to follow and hard to put down. I liked that each chapter was a little story of its own yet they all relate to one another and together they tell about his experience with the Vietnam War. I especially liked the chapters: On the Rainy River and The Lives of the Dead. It showed other times of his life other than what happened during the Vietnam War. I thought it was very well written. It had great style and I really liked all the details that O'Brien used to allow his readers to see the image he had in mind.

One thing I didn't like were the stories by Rat. They weren't reliable and you didn't know to what extent to believe the stories. I guess in a way it's good because you can use your imagination.

Minor syllabus tweak

Friends,

Please don't worry about watching Gimme Shelter this week if you don't get a chance. I want all your focus to be on The Things They Carry. I will post RA #4 topics later today.