This was easy, yet difficult read. DFW made his ideas flow in way that lead one idea into another making it easy to follow what he was saying. The mass amount of abbreviations made this read very difficult for me. I kept forgetting what certain acronyms stood for and had to repeatedly go to the page were he listed all the abbreviations.
With the amount of abbreviations, the numerous facts about people aged 18-35 and voting, and the fact that this article was published in the Rolling Stone magazine, I think it’s safe to say that this article is intended for the younger adult crowd. If you tie the ease of reading this article with the previous observations it makes this article attract a younger crowd because it grasps their attention and keeps it.
While reading this I felt that DFW was very sarcastic. His disclaimer in the foreword and the “Who Cares” section really put a smirk on my face. While reading I got this “I don’t care what you think. I’m just writing this because they asked me to. So now I’m going to report the stuff I saw and how I perceived it,” attitude.
Even though DFW said this article wasn’t pro- or anti-McCain, you get this underlying rhetoric that it’s making you want to vote for him. He adds pathos appeal by telling us about McCain’s POW years. It even made me want to sit back and say wow…this man has been through a lot. But then again I get that sarcastic tone from DFW that’s saying “they guy has been through a lot…just vote for him,” which makes this article confusing on whether this article is completely sarcasm or if it’s a deeper meaning that we need to get.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Bullshit 1
To think, the whole premise of this article hinges on a simple difference in physical location. John McCain is in the Straight Talk Express and Rolling Stone is in Bullshit 1. John McCain is in the press salon and Rolling Stone is enduring a long DT squished between the techs and the 12M with nothing to do but think. And thinking is what Rolling Stone apparently does best. Thinking and writing. Essentially, that is what constitutes Up, Simba: pages upon pages of Rolling Stone pondering some of the paradox’s that plague modern politics. Trapped in battle “between cynicism and idealism…marketing and leadership,” (130) Rolling Stone, or more specifically David Foster Wallace, is left with nothing but his personal instinct and gut feelings to solve these paradoxes. And that is the point of the article. Rolling Stone is not campaigning for anyone. Rolling Stone is simply fond of the publicly discernable John McCain while also skeptical of the validity of this portrayal. Up, Simba is not arguing that you should or should not vote for John McCain. Up, Simba is making readers aware of how the media portrays John McCain while also questioning the legitimacy of such portrayals, and ultimately forcing readers to decide for themselves where John McCain falls on the scale between “Salesman” and “leader” (131).
David Foster Wallace shows no hesitancy in acknowledging major media’s specific tactics and methodology in dealing with a campaign. He even goes to far as to actively remind readers that he himself is part of that exact media when he decides to refer to himself as Rolling Stone. He is not hiding his agenda or the possible biases that could result from such an affiliation. Instead, most of the article is spent actively informing readers about how the media operate in the context of an election. Wallace is also very aware of the position that he, as a representative of Rolling Stone, takes amongst the hierarchy of media sources, and he never shies away from acknowledging his relative lack of importance. He constantly describes his subordination to the 12M and how, while they are furiously working, he is hanging out with the techs. However, due to his awareness of such things, he knows that he will not be able to provide any new, unique, or utterly valuable insights into the life of John McCain through direct contact with him. Instead, he chose to write about what he did have access to: the media itself.
I should now note that Wallace calling himself Rolling Stone is an important tactic in that it brings to the foreground his membership in the very media that he is writing about, and as such, I will also refer to Wallace as Rolling Stone henceforth.
Up, Simba provides a detailed look into the lives of the press corps that was responsible for the media’s representation of John McCain, covering both how they work and how they live outside of their work. In fact, because Up, Simba is so detailed in every description and also because it uses stereotyping commonplaces so well, readers will undoubtedly find themselves able to easily identify with Rolling Stone, feeling as if they too are riding the Bullshit 1. He uses this created sense of familiarity for a specific reason: Rolling Stone wants readers to know that the press corps are just humans doing their job. By humanizing the press corps, readers are better able to understand how they operate, and thus, are better able to look past all the spin and marketing and form their own personal opinion on John McCain. For that, ultimately is the goal of Up, Simba.
While Up, Simba is textually focused almost entirely on the media, it is contextually focused on John McCain. Although McCain himself is obviously prevalent throughout the article, Up, Simba really focuses mostly on the members press corps. Even the title itself refers to the press corps. Rolling Stone could have called title the article anything, yet Up, Simba, a phrase commonly uttered by a tech as he prepares to film, was chosen. Not John McCain: Real of Phony or any such title, but Up, Simba. However, through the focus on the media Rolling Stone is able to reveal the spin tractics and strategies and therefore raise countless questions about how John McCain is portrayed and whether this portrayal is his true persona or an act. All of these questions, Rolling Stone intentionally fails to answer, leaving readers forced to answer the questions for themselves.
"McCan"
This essay was quite the lengthy one but didn't struggle to keep my attention as much as I thought. Could it be perhaps the fact that Wallace was fire talker that up front referred to my generation as uninformed, naive when it comes to politics? Could be. Or maybe it's the fact that his first paragraph was "Who Cares," I don't know, but Wallace had my attention. You know that feeling that you get when someone tells you, "You don't know nothing," and so you get flustered and you are immediately drawn into whatever it is that they tell you don’t know. Well that was exactly the effect taking place here and might I say, it worked.
In the beginning first few paragraphs of this essay Wallace states a clearly defined audience which was 18 to 35 year old Rolling Stone readers and then he continues on to call them out on their lack of knowledge and suggest that they will probably not even finish the article once they find out what it’s really about. I found this strategy to be quite effective, because it’s almost as if this becomes a game and you want to finish it just to show this seemingly arrogant jerk who’s right and who’s wrong. Nevertheless, the read becomes quickly interesting. Wallace begins to talk about the strategies that McCain used in furthering his campaign and attempted to further explain what many of us, or at least what I didn’t know, about this candidate.
One of the biggest points that I believe Wallace touches on relatively early would be McCain’s lack of self-interest and his trustworthiness, per se, because of it. This is something that I didn’t quite realize and never actually knew was a huge campaign strategy utilized by McCain. I knew he was a vet but when Wallace goes into detail about what exactly McCain went through, this to me showed great courage and at the same time much like the article said, made me wonder was this guy noble or insane?
This lends way to another rhetorical strategy when examining McCain’s torturous past, the ability to relate to the audience. Now wait, let me finish. This generation, the generation that Wallace points out is his audience has a “thing” for gore. Take for instance the popularity of such movies like “SAW” and the fact that we have become desensitized to much violence because of what we are exposed to in the media. Well, when Wallace begins to recap this moment in McCain’s life I can’t help but think gore and sadly enough I kept reading because I just had to know what happened. Did they hurt him more? Try to kill him? Or what other torturous things did they try to do this man, AND he survived. We must not forget he survived. That’s the kicker behind all the violence, the fact that this man suffered through this pain and voluntarily suffered four more years and lived.
However, McCain honestly seemed doomed in my eyes when looking back at this election. The new generation although, “uninformed,” is among the least prejudice, therefore giving way for Obama to work his magic. Although yes, presidential credentials and statistics mattered but, just like Wallace said stats weren’t checked too often by my group. The race issue was at the heart of this election and although McCain was noble or insane whichever you prefer, it still didn’t justify the fact that he was against some of the very ideas the new generation has come to love and accept, and let’s face it, as we all know Americans were ready to see some change. So this article did a great job at informing. I personally thought it was going to slay McCain’s campaign in the first few pages there but later learned it was actually informing an audience like me on the things I didn’t know, and didn’t care to find out, and actually left me with a greater knowledge and more respect for McCain, or as they named him in Hanoi McCan.
In the beginning first few paragraphs of this essay Wallace states a clearly defined audience which was 18 to 35 year old Rolling Stone readers and then he continues on to call them out on their lack of knowledge and suggest that they will probably not even finish the article once they find out what it’s really about. I found this strategy to be quite effective, because it’s almost as if this becomes a game and you want to finish it just to show this seemingly arrogant jerk who’s right and who’s wrong. Nevertheless, the read becomes quickly interesting. Wallace begins to talk about the strategies that McCain used in furthering his campaign and attempted to further explain what many of us, or at least what I didn’t know, about this candidate.
One of the biggest points that I believe Wallace touches on relatively early would be McCain’s lack of self-interest and his trustworthiness, per se, because of it. This is something that I didn’t quite realize and never actually knew was a huge campaign strategy utilized by McCain. I knew he was a vet but when Wallace goes into detail about what exactly McCain went through, this to me showed great courage and at the same time much like the article said, made me wonder was this guy noble or insane?
This lends way to another rhetorical strategy when examining McCain’s torturous past, the ability to relate to the audience. Now wait, let me finish. This generation, the generation that Wallace points out is his audience has a “thing” for gore. Take for instance the popularity of such movies like “SAW” and the fact that we have become desensitized to much violence because of what we are exposed to in the media. Well, when Wallace begins to recap this moment in McCain’s life I can’t help but think gore and sadly enough I kept reading because I just had to know what happened. Did they hurt him more? Try to kill him? Or what other torturous things did they try to do this man, AND he survived. We must not forget he survived. That’s the kicker behind all the violence, the fact that this man suffered through this pain and voluntarily suffered four more years and lived.
However, McCain honestly seemed doomed in my eyes when looking back at this election. The new generation although, “uninformed,” is among the least prejudice, therefore giving way for Obama to work his magic. Although yes, presidential credentials and statistics mattered but, just like Wallace said stats weren’t checked too often by my group. The race issue was at the heart of this election and although McCain was noble or insane whichever you prefer, it still didn’t justify the fact that he was against some of the very ideas the new generation has come to love and accept, and let’s face it, as we all know Americans were ready to see some change. So this article did a great job at informing. I personally thought it was going to slay McCain’s campaign in the first few pages there but later learned it was actually informing an audience like me on the things I didn’t know, and didn’t care to find out, and actually left me with a greater knowledge and more respect for McCain, or as they named him in Hanoi McCan.
Two Sided
It was noted from the very beginning that there were “no partisan movies or conservative agenda,” regarding the article (Course Packet, 92). This summarized the very structure of the article. The article would state a given fact, discuss it in one way that would view McCain is a positive light, then turn right around and analyze it in another way that would view McCain in a negative light.
Take the example of how David Foster Wallace satirizes McCain as “a cool guy” (Course Packet, 107). Previous presidential candidates were in “student government and band,” which was perfect leadership experiences for a future presidential candidate, while McCain was a “varsity jock and hell-raiser” (Course Packet, 107). The audience indirectly sees how McCain is a bad choice for the presidency spot because of how he isn’t as qualified as the previous presidents. However, in the same paragraph, Wallace says how this quality of McCain can be good. Who doesn’t love a presidential candidate that seems like a human being? It’s the perfect commonplace for all voters.
Another good example is McCain’s time as a prisoner of war. His honor of the US military’s Code of Conduct for Prisoners of War showed capability “of devotion to something other… than his own self interest” (Course Packet, 96-97). However, this could also be deemed as bullshit, maybe even “both the truth and bullshit” (Course Packet, 97).
There are two sides to things for Wallace. He displays how one single fact can be twisted and turned to either appeal or repel the audience. This is a tactic that most politicians use (as implied by the article). Not only that, but it can be extended further to the realms of rhetoric. Any fact can be used for our purpose. We just need to know how to redefine terms and use the words to our advantage.
Take the example of how David Foster Wallace satirizes McCain as “a cool guy” (Course Packet, 107). Previous presidential candidates were in “student government and band,” which was perfect leadership experiences for a future presidential candidate, while McCain was a “varsity jock and hell-raiser” (Course Packet, 107). The audience indirectly sees how McCain is a bad choice for the presidency spot because of how he isn’t as qualified as the previous presidents. However, in the same paragraph, Wallace says how this quality of McCain can be good. Who doesn’t love a presidential candidate that seems like a human being? It’s the perfect commonplace for all voters.
Another good example is McCain’s time as a prisoner of war. His honor of the US military’s Code of Conduct for Prisoners of War showed capability “of devotion to something other… than his own self interest” (Course Packet, 96-97). However, this could also be deemed as bullshit, maybe even “both the truth and bullshit” (Course Packet, 97).
There are two sides to things for Wallace. He displays how one single fact can be twisted and turned to either appeal or repel the audience. This is a tactic that most politicians use (as implied by the article). Not only that, but it can be extended further to the realms of rhetoric. Any fact can be used for our purpose. We just need to know how to redefine terms and use the words to our advantage.
The audience...
I was totally caught off guard by the Foreword that was part of the article. I think that it added so much to the reading. The author talks about some of his rhetorical devices, which allowed me to be able to spot them throughout the reading. He explains that he is not a Republican, which promotes the idea that the article was not written to influence the audience into voting for McCain. It is also a little bit ironic that we are reading an article about the man who lost the Presidential election just last year.
The first paragraph of the article is the one that my mind kept flashing back to throughout the reading. Wallace uses McCain's strong Right ideals and the fact that McCain is a "serious hard-ass," to show that this is not a regular audience that is reading this article. It is obvious that this is written for a younger and "hipper" generation that does not value the serene nature of McCain so much as his bad-assness. I found myself laughing as Wallace used the idea of Senator John McCain whoring himself out. Wallace uses many ideas that are natural to much of the younger demographic that reads Rolling Stone, which is what this article is for. He establishes his audience within that first paragraph.
He emphasizes that McCain drawing 500 college kids at 3:00 am is absolutely absurd. But, at the same time he implies that it is not so stunning because of the younger voter turnout that occurred in the New Hampshire primaries. Wallace continually plays off of his audience and uses ideas that they are acquainted with to show what McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign was truly like.
The first paragraph of the article is the one that my mind kept flashing back to throughout the reading. Wallace uses McCain's strong Right ideals and the fact that McCain is a "serious hard-ass," to show that this is not a regular audience that is reading this article. It is obvious that this is written for a younger and "hipper" generation that does not value the serene nature of McCain so much as his bad-assness. I found myself laughing as Wallace used the idea of Senator John McCain whoring himself out. Wallace uses many ideas that are natural to much of the younger demographic that reads Rolling Stone, which is what this article is for. He establishes his audience within that first paragraph.
He emphasizes that McCain drawing 500 college kids at 3:00 am is absolutely absurd. But, at the same time he implies that it is not so stunning because of the younger voter turnout that occurred in the New Hampshire primaries. Wallace continually plays off of his audience and uses ideas that they are acquainted with to show what McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign was truly like.
David Foster Wallace lands one sweet gig
In the fourth paragraph of his Biblically-proportioned essay, David Foster Wallace explicitly identifies his intended audience: ‘you are an American between say 18 and 35.’ In the next few sentences, he clearly establishes the patronizing, even downright in-your-face-insulting, tone which he will take toward these “Young Voters,” whom he has just identified as his audience, for the remainder of the piece. Btw, DFW was 38 years old at the time.
Although I would not doubt that the 38-year old DFW considered himself sufficiently superior to the 18 to 35 year old readers of Rolling Stone magazine to justify the condescension with which he treats the group throughout Up, Simba, I certainly do not believe that these Young Voters were actually his intended audience. Rather, he uses this textual identification of his intended audience as a rhetorical device—something like what Heinrichs describes as “irony, the technique of saying one thing to outsiders and another to insiders.”
That is, while ostensibly addressing 18 to 35 year old Rolling Stone readers, DFW was actually writing to his peers in the hallowed world of academia. English prof’s. Poly Sci and Gender Studies PhD’s. Folks who could grasp the ‘complicated stuff’ which didn’t make it into the magazine version. Which begs the question: if Wallace was really writing for such a high-minded audience, why didn’t he just make a few calls and get one of his friends to pull some strings over at the New Yorker?
By addressing 18 to 35 year old Rolling Stone readers, DFW enables himself to use as many shit’s and fuck’s as he wants. He can devote multiple pages to the elaborate development of observations which border upon truism (i.e. Incessant inundation with sales marketing in the latter decades of the 20th century has made Americans increasingly cynical toward political campaigns...really?!) He can flow freely from academic-sounding flourishes to obnoxious run-on sentences filled with MTV colloquialisms—the parlance of our times. After all, the article was written for the 18 to 35 year old readers of Rolling Stone, right?
What to Believe?
As a could-care-less, uninformed young voter (basically who this article was repetitvely directed towards) I felt this article proved my already existing beliefs toward the political system and the whole campaigning process. This was just actual evidence and facts that I can now use as evidence to credit my beliefs. Furthermore, I also gained a respect that I didn't have before for McCain. I had heard a brief summary of his POW story and had also heard that his body to this day is still showing the effects from it, but I never had actually read into all the details of what happened. I know at the beginning of this article, the author says that this is intended to be non-biased toward either party or candidate and strictly informational, but as with all things, I understand bias still could be incorporated unintentionaly. Knowing this, my gained respect for McCain comes mostly from the story of what he did as a POW. That story in itself is enough to back his honest, sincere image that his tour was campaigning.
Overall, I feel this article was well done and was very insightful for me and my voting situation. My stance on voting has always been that you shouldn't go pick a candidate unless you have done full adequate research on the election. I think this article completely proved that idea. With all the "sales" going on in the candidates trying to persuade people to buy into their ideas and ultimately give them their vote, you can't fully believe anything they say. So because of this I feel you need to do extensive research from multiple different sources before you choose and argue with people over which candidate is better. Dig up information from the root of these people, where they are coming from, whats the story behind their campaign strategy etc. I feel had I of done this on this election being studied in this article, I would have ultimately came away voting for McCain. I would have chose him because at his point, how can we really know what the candidates are going to do in office and what they actually stand for. Even if McCain's strategies for healthcare, tax-reform, or fixing debt problems aren't as solid as other candidates, I think its more important to at least be able to find some kind of sense of trust in the candidate were planning to put into office. I think that will ultimately go further in office than what their "selling" as strategies they will implement to fix our countries problems because those strategies are only said to sound as good as possible to attract their target audience. This might be because this is how I choose to view most situations on people in that (with some exceptions) its not what the person said, it who the person is behind what is said. Meaning if a friend of mine says something stupid that I'm completely in disagree with if I feel I know the person well enough and know bottom line he means well and has similar views as me, I am capable of disregarding the statement over what I know about the person. And relate this to other people and situations by using as much as you know about them for their "who the person is behind what is said" and if you don't know enough about the person to make a fair judgement of their "who", this is where the exceptions come in and just use your best judgement.
From all this it comes down to the problem of what do I do about voting. I understand that much research needs to be done before I can be an educated voter, but do I care enough to actually take the time to do it, or believe enough that my one vote will make that much of a difference. To me, even after this article, the answer is no. The reason is just because this article just proved that the whole campaigning and election system is just a whole messed up bunch of bs. I don't know if I want to participate in a system that knows they have problems, recognizes what those problems are, knows that they could be fixed, but yet choose not to fix them because in some messed up way it benefits certain parties involved. On the other hand, by me recognizing this problem and choosing not to do anything in some kind of way to help fix it, I am being hypocritical in saying that I am not going to support it because by not doing anything is supporting it. I did like the idea the author brought up about even if your not voting your still voting and actually your probably even voting for the exact person you don't want to be voting for. This brought up a valid point and you know, who knows what I am going to actually do in the future voting wise. I guess beween now and the next election well see how much my motivation changes towards becoming an educated voter. Bottom line, this article helped put things in perspective and might serve as a first step in a direction towards becoming a more aware citizen involved in the political and voting processes.
Overall, I feel this article was well done and was very insightful for me and my voting situation. My stance on voting has always been that you shouldn't go pick a candidate unless you have done full adequate research on the election. I think this article completely proved that idea. With all the "sales" going on in the candidates trying to persuade people to buy into their ideas and ultimately give them their vote, you can't fully believe anything they say. So because of this I feel you need to do extensive research from multiple different sources before you choose and argue with people over which candidate is better. Dig up information from the root of these people, where they are coming from, whats the story behind their campaign strategy etc. I feel had I of done this on this election being studied in this article, I would have ultimately came away voting for McCain. I would have chose him because at his point, how can we really know what the candidates are going to do in office and what they actually stand for. Even if McCain's strategies for healthcare, tax-reform, or fixing debt problems aren't as solid as other candidates, I think its more important to at least be able to find some kind of sense of trust in the candidate were planning to put into office. I think that will ultimately go further in office than what their "selling" as strategies they will implement to fix our countries problems because those strategies are only said to sound as good as possible to attract their target audience. This might be because this is how I choose to view most situations on people in that (with some exceptions) its not what the person said, it who the person is behind what is said. Meaning if a friend of mine says something stupid that I'm completely in disagree with if I feel I know the person well enough and know bottom line he means well and has similar views as me, I am capable of disregarding the statement over what I know about the person. And relate this to other people and situations by using as much as you know about them for their "who the person is behind what is said" and if you don't know enough about the person to make a fair judgement of their "who", this is where the exceptions come in and just use your best judgement.
From all this it comes down to the problem of what do I do about voting. I understand that much research needs to be done before I can be an educated voter, but do I care enough to actually take the time to do it, or believe enough that my one vote will make that much of a difference. To me, even after this article, the answer is no. The reason is just because this article just proved that the whole campaigning and election system is just a whole messed up bunch of bs. I don't know if I want to participate in a system that knows they have problems, recognizes what those problems are, knows that they could be fixed, but yet choose not to fix them because in some messed up way it benefits certain parties involved. On the other hand, by me recognizing this problem and choosing not to do anything in some kind of way to help fix it, I am being hypocritical in saying that I am not going to support it because by not doing anything is supporting it. I did like the idea the author brought up about even if your not voting your still voting and actually your probably even voting for the exact person you don't want to be voting for. This brought up a valid point and you know, who knows what I am going to actually do in the future voting wise. I guess beween now and the next election well see how much my motivation changes towards becoming an educated voter. Bottom line, this article helped put things in perspective and might serve as a first step in a direction towards becoming a more aware citizen involved in the political and voting processes.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Bob D
Bob Dylan has always been one of those artists that I hear about but never really listened to his music nor, ever realized if I was listening to his music. Growing up in a different era being exposed to a completely different genre of music. I'm used to hearing old school songs from artists like Luther Vandross who created a new sound for R&B and older artists like Al Green that talked about love and that good "soul music" that African Americans grew to love culturally.
However, I didn't grow up in a little bubble that consisted of only African American artists but I was definitely exposed to other artists like for instance, my mom loved Bruce Springsteen and she constantly blared his music in our garage as she pulled up from work. Nevertheless, Bob Dylan, as I expressed earlier, has always been one of those names floating around. However, after listening to his music, I don't know why. Maybe, I'm just missing the magic of his music and who knows, it could be the fact that I'm from a different era and am accustomed to music of different sound, as well as music with a different message.
After listening to A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall I felt a bit confused of the overall message. While some lines made sense other left me baffled and unable to figure out what exactly this means...I mean, a highway of diamonds with nobody on it? Nonetheless, I came to discover the message to seem to be about a parent who was looking for their "blue-eyed son” and along the way came across a slew of obstacles in the world. This to me alluded to a deeper message of the dilemmas and turmoil in this country. For instance, a young woman whose body was burning and ten talkers whose tongues were all broken. Nevertheless my problem still stands that while there is a message it seems to a bit hard to decipher at times because it seems like Dylan just decided to play a song and make up some lyrics, some go some don’t and that’s just my opinion and like I said maybe its because I’m not on “that level” or perhaps because I’m from another generation.
However, I didn't grow up in a little bubble that consisted of only African American artists but I was definitely exposed to other artists like for instance, my mom loved Bruce Springsteen and she constantly blared his music in our garage as she pulled up from work. Nevertheless, Bob Dylan, as I expressed earlier, has always been one of those names floating around. However, after listening to his music, I don't know why. Maybe, I'm just missing the magic of his music and who knows, it could be the fact that I'm from a different era and am accustomed to music of different sound, as well as music with a different message.
After listening to A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall I felt a bit confused of the overall message. While some lines made sense other left me baffled and unable to figure out what exactly this means...I mean, a highway of diamonds with nobody on it? Nonetheless, I came to discover the message to seem to be about a parent who was looking for their "blue-eyed son” and along the way came across a slew of obstacles in the world. This to me alluded to a deeper message of the dilemmas and turmoil in this country. For instance, a young woman whose body was burning and ten talkers whose tongues were all broken. Nevertheless my problem still stands that while there is a message it seems to a bit hard to decipher at times because it seems like Dylan just decided to play a song and make up some lyrics, some go some don’t and that’s just my opinion and like I said maybe its because I’m not on “that level” or perhaps because I’m from another generation.
Monday, November 2, 2009
What's Going On? - Marvin Gaye
While growing up, my mom and grandparents would listen to Marvin Gaye's albums and I would hear this song on numerous occasions. It wasn't until now that I actually read the lyrics and seen the underlying message Gaye was trying to get across.
Gaye was asking the world "What's Going On?". He wanted to know why we were having these wars. He wanted everyone to get along and talk out their differences. He even said in his lyrics that war is not the answer and that only love can conquer hate and that we need to find a way to bring love in and settle these differences.
I wouldn't call this a anti-war song. I believe it is promoting love and peace throughout the United States and throughout the world. Gaye wants us all to examine ourselves and try to approach situations in a non-violent way. This is a song that makes you really think and examine your life.
Gaye was asking the world "What's Going On?". He wanted to know why we were having these wars. He wanted everyone to get along and talk out their differences. He even said in his lyrics that war is not the answer and that only love can conquer hate and that we need to find a way to bring love in and settle these differences.
I wouldn't call this a anti-war song. I believe it is promoting love and peace throughout the United States and throughout the world. Gaye wants us all to examine ourselves and try to approach situations in a non-violent way. This is a song that makes you really think and examine your life.
The Unsung Singer - Phil Ochs
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22white+boots+marching+in+a+yellow+land%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/white-boots.html
In my opinion, folk singer Phil Ochs was one of the most articulate voices of the anti-Vietnam war movement. Of course, Bob Dylan was a staunch civil rights advocate and Ochs’ rival, but he abandoned his activist lyrics for those of surrealist rock and roll. I and many others are glad he did. However, Ochs’ loyalty to social and political justice resonates with me more than any other singer of the times.
While “Blowing in the Wind” and “The Times They are A-Changing” were emblematic of the evolving social discourse and an era of self-awareness, Phil Ochs’ songs and lyrics were often overlooked due to Dylan and other popular artists of the time.
Ochs’s 1968 song “White Boots Marching in a Yellow Land” unleashes a flood of images critical of America’s presence in Vietnam. It’s this inability to see nothing but vivid pictures of Ochs’ words that makes this song my favorite and his writing utterly moving.
Ochs doesn’t pull punches. His lyrics are angry and accusatory but concealed behind a veil of a major key chord progression. The song itself is an anti-hymn meant to ironically sound like a military theme march with trumpets blaring and snare drums rolling through the chorus.
The lyrics paint America as being the ethnocentric and untarnished “white boots” marching in the uncivilized “yellow land” of foreign soil. The use of yellow emphasizes bigoted ideology that color is significant and uses the derogatory nickname for Asian skin color as a symbol of ignorance. The line “The colors of a civil war are louder than commands” suggests that civil wars, both foreign and domestic are often struggles over racial supremacy.
Part of the irony of the song is its lyrical composition from the perspective of “America,” the “White boots.” The lyrics “It's written in the ashes of the village towns we burn/ It's written in the empty bed of the fathers unreturned” is laden with guilt and anger felt by Ochs for the bloody history written by his own country.
The most powerful part of the song comes in the last verse, where Orchs suggests that the politicians, “the comic and the beauty queen…dancing on the stage” have indoctrinated the minds of the recruits who “line[ed] up like coffins in a cage” to serve. In Ochs eyes, the mindset of the anti-communist, capitalist political agenda fueled the “fighting in a war we lost before the war began.”
Protest songs are composed of line after line of argument, some blatant, others subtle; some symbolic, others metaphorical. Ochs’ anger towards the war machine bred constant accusations he embodied in his song in the accessible manner of a simple sounding folksong.
http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/white-boots.html
In my opinion, folk singer Phil Ochs was one of the most articulate voices of the anti-Vietnam war movement. Of course, Bob Dylan was a staunch civil rights advocate and Ochs’ rival, but he abandoned his activist lyrics for those of surrealist rock and roll. I and many others are glad he did. However, Ochs’ loyalty to social and political justice resonates with me more than any other singer of the times.
While “Blowing in the Wind” and “The Times They are A-Changing” were emblematic of the evolving social discourse and an era of self-awareness, Phil Ochs’ songs and lyrics were often overlooked due to Dylan and other popular artists of the time.
Ochs’s 1968 song “White Boots Marching in a Yellow Land” unleashes a flood of images critical of America’s presence in Vietnam. It’s this inability to see nothing but vivid pictures of Ochs’ words that makes this song my favorite and his writing utterly moving.
Ochs doesn’t pull punches. His lyrics are angry and accusatory but concealed behind a veil of a major key chord progression. The song itself is an anti-hymn meant to ironically sound like a military theme march with trumpets blaring and snare drums rolling through the chorus.
The lyrics paint America as being the ethnocentric and untarnished “white boots” marching in the uncivilized “yellow land” of foreign soil. The use of yellow emphasizes bigoted ideology that color is significant and uses the derogatory nickname for Asian skin color as a symbol of ignorance. The line “The colors of a civil war are louder than commands” suggests that civil wars, both foreign and domestic are often struggles over racial supremacy.
Part of the irony of the song is its lyrical composition from the perspective of “America,” the “White boots.” The lyrics “It's written in the ashes of the village towns we burn/ It's written in the empty bed of the fathers unreturned” is laden with guilt and anger felt by Ochs for the bloody history written by his own country.
The most powerful part of the song comes in the last verse, where Orchs suggests that the politicians, “the comic and the beauty queen…dancing on the stage” have indoctrinated the minds of the recruits who “line[ed] up like coffins in a cage” to serve. In Ochs eyes, the mindset of the anti-communist, capitalist political agenda fueled the “fighting in a war we lost before the war began.”
Protest songs are composed of line after line of argument, some blatant, others subtle; some symbolic, others metaphorical. Ochs’ anger towards the war machine bred constant accusations he embodied in his song in the accessible manner of a simple sounding folksong.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Eve of Destruction
While reading over the lyrics of the different songs, I thought back to The Fog of War and McNamara's last point on the stubbornness of human nature. The two songs that left the greatest impression on me was "Eve of Destruction" and "Masters of War." The two songs included various explicit statements reflecting the artist's anti-war stance.
"You're old enough to kill but not for votin'." In "Eve of Destruction," Barry McGuire sings of the disastrous path the world is taking by entering so many wars and fighting so much. Boys in their teens are being sent off to a war, a war that perhaps they do not even support yet they have no say in because they are still underage. Although the leader's of the country are trying to take steps to appease the public, hatred for others runs deep and it is impossible to satisfy everybody. This inescapable hatred causes human respect to fall apart and lose validity. Human nature is the cause of all of this ruin, and no matter how hard people may try to get rid of the bitterness and anger, it's all always still going to remain. Human nature cannot be changed, as stated by Robert McNamara.
"You've thrown the worst fear / That can ever be hurled." Bob Dylan's anti-war song, "Masters of War" is powerful in stating the major human flaws that bring about war. Those who are in control in countries give out orders that must be filled and behind the safety of their power, they placate the population through deceit, convincing the people that all is well and the increases in deaths are bringing about victory. The spreading of lies to cover the horrors of war is brought to the forefront, and Dylan can see right past the lies. Lies and deceit, terrible human flaws, can never result in good in the long run.
Passionate hate and anger between humans has brought about war in the past and the present, and this human imperfection cannot be mended. Though the two songs do not explicitly state this fact, they definitely still bring up the fact that humans are on a destructive path that cannot lead to any good, only more death and ruin.
"You're old enough to kill but not for votin'." In "Eve of Destruction," Barry McGuire sings of the disastrous path the world is taking by entering so many wars and fighting so much. Boys in their teens are being sent off to a war, a war that perhaps they do not even support yet they have no say in because they are still underage. Although the leader's of the country are trying to take steps to appease the public, hatred for others runs deep and it is impossible to satisfy everybody. This inescapable hatred causes human respect to fall apart and lose validity. Human nature is the cause of all of this ruin, and no matter how hard people may try to get rid of the bitterness and anger, it's all always still going to remain. Human nature cannot be changed, as stated by Robert McNamara.
"You've thrown the worst fear / That can ever be hurled." Bob Dylan's anti-war song, "Masters of War" is powerful in stating the major human flaws that bring about war. Those who are in control in countries give out orders that must be filled and behind the safety of their power, they placate the population through deceit, convincing the people that all is well and the increases in deaths are bringing about victory. The spreading of lies to cover the horrors of war is brought to the forefront, and Dylan can see right past the lies. Lies and deceit, terrible human flaws, can never result in good in the long run.
Passionate hate and anger between humans has brought about war in the past and the present, and this human imperfection cannot be mended. Though the two songs do not explicitly state this fact, they definitely still bring up the fact that humans are on a destructive path that cannot lead to any good, only more death and ruin.
Masters of War - Bob Dylan
It is frightening to think about how little the voice of the citizens counts in this country. Growing up, I had always been told that the United States was the land of the free, where every individual has the right to pursue happiness, and the freedom of speech is not just a meaningless collection of words. These ideals, however, are not always adhered to. There is a certain level of disenchantment that exists in the United States today, especially among my peers, that took root in the tumultuous years during which the Vietnam War took place.
Popular dissent against the "late war" had been growing steadily during the early 1960's and it had turned into a full-blown pacifist movement by the time that Masters of War had been released. Hearing this song made me consider how grand the "hippie" movement really was, what a large percentage of the U.S. population was against any military action in the far east, and how little those people's opinions counted in the end.
Oedipa
I feel that I am hopelessly being washed away in an Oedipa nightmare. It seems to me that, intended or not, Oedipa is quickly becoming our class mascot as we chase circles of confusing and intricate rhetorical strategies. Or are they confusing?
Oh so many questions.... Can an argument be believable when it is a lie? Is it still a lie when O'Brien has had the experience? Can it be considered untrustworthy even though the author is displaying his trustworthiness by not hiding his lie? Does the background behind McNamara have anything to do with the documentaries portrayal of him?... Oh so few answers.
Upon Completing The Things They Carried, I felt my questions had been answered and that I had a grasp of the novels general meaning. Now I feel that I am dealing with a completely different element of which I have no understanding. Likewise I feel that our class time dive into the rhetorical strategies behind The Fog of War has left me with loads of unanswered questions.
In relation to the understanding of plot pertaining to both The Things They Carried and Fog of War, I feel that I have an adequate understanding. What I don't understand is how something seemingly simple can become so impossible.
In both cases I understand that the rhetorical strategies deployed work, and I know of the strategies used, but I have no idea how the meeans reach the endpoint. I don't even know that there is an endpoint. I wonder if either O'Brien or Errol intended their work to be so complex.
To my audience: Please don't take this blog post as a complaint.
Oh so many questions.... Can an argument be believable when it is a lie? Is it still a lie when O'Brien has had the experience? Can it be considered untrustworthy even though the author is displaying his trustworthiness by not hiding his lie? Does the background behind McNamara have anything to do with the documentaries portrayal of him?... Oh so few answers.
Upon Completing The Things They Carried, I felt my questions had been answered and that I had a grasp of the novels general meaning. Now I feel that I am dealing with a completely different element of which I have no understanding. Likewise I feel that our class time dive into the rhetorical strategies behind The Fog of War has left me with loads of unanswered questions.
In relation to the understanding of plot pertaining to both The Things They Carried and Fog of War, I feel that I have an adequate understanding. What I don't understand is how something seemingly simple can become so impossible.
In both cases I understand that the rhetorical strategies deployed work, and I know of the strategies used, but I have no idea how the meeans reach the endpoint. I don't even know that there is an endpoint. I wonder if either O'Brien or Errol intended their work to be so complex.
To my audience: Please don't take this blog post as a complaint.
commonality of it all
In the song Blowin’ in the Wind, Bob Dylan uses a lot of symbolism in his lyrics. Whether it is about the “Doves,” a term used for anti-war people, or “a mountain.” His symbolism allows him to reach the listeners on a deeper level then expected.
His commonplace items and actions are mostly things seen everyday (with the exception of the cannonballs). He uses these to allow the listener to connect with the items so that they can imagine and expand what is sung. We are able to create scenarios in our heads that accompany the lyrics because we can draw a deeper meaning from the symbols used.
He is making us as the listeners feel comfortable with the lyrics, which allows them to affect us in a way that is not obvious at first. We do not think of the deeper meaning when we first come across the song, but after a while the words bring up stronger images of what they mean.
Bob Dylan uses freedom as a main theme, just like Hearts and Minds. They both seem to imply that the war is not helping people to attain freedom, but rather that we are stifling the imminent freedom of the people. He uses the common ideas to show the deeper meaning behind the words themselves and the feelings about the war itself, “The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind.”
His commonplace items and actions are mostly things seen everyday (with the exception of the cannonballs). He uses these to allow the listener to connect with the items so that they can imagine and expand what is sung. We are able to create scenarios in our heads that accompany the lyrics because we can draw a deeper meaning from the symbols used.
He is making us as the listeners feel comfortable with the lyrics, which allows them to affect us in a way that is not obvious at first. We do not think of the deeper meaning when we first come across the song, but after a while the words bring up stronger images of what they mean.
Bob Dylan uses freedom as a main theme, just like Hearts and Minds. They both seem to imply that the war is not helping people to attain freedom, but rather that we are stifling the imminent freedom of the people. He uses the common ideas to show the deeper meaning behind the words themselves and the feelings about the war itself, “The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind.”
Bob Dylan
Music is another outlet to express our inner emotions and thoughts. After a bad break-up, who does not rely on music's cathartic and healing qualities to moving us along the lamenting process?! Bob Dylan provided many songs that moved people through the lamenting emotions attached to the Vietnam War. In an interview with "USA Today," Bob Dylan said the song "Masters of Wars," "is supposed to be a pacifistic song against war. It's not an anti-war song. It's speaking against what Eisenhower was calling a military-industrial complex as he was making his exit from the presidency. That spirit was in the air, and I picked it up."
"Blowing in the Wind" proposes many unanswered questions and what is necessary to happen for us to answer these questions? I understand the answers being in the wind to mean that they may never be answered. Dylan addresses the questions that many were asking during the time of Vietnam War and expresses the same vagueness in understanding where the answers may lay. During where there many questions and little answers, Dylan connects with his listeners.
"Blowing in the Wind" proposes many unanswered questions and what is necessary to happen for us to answer these questions? I understand the answers being in the wind to mean that they may never be answered. Dylan addresses the questions that many were asking during the time of Vietnam War and expresses the same vagueness in understanding where the answers may lay. During where there many questions and little answers, Dylan connects with his listeners.
Monday, October 26, 2009
“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
“We are made wise not by the recollection of our past, but by the responsibility for our future.” – George Bernard Shaw
“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” - George Santayana
“What experience and history teach is this -- that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles.” – George Wilhelm Hegel
“What we do about history matters. The often repeated saying that those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them has a lot of truth in it. But what are 'the lessons of history'? The very attempt at definition furnishes ground for new conflicts. History is not a recipe book; past events are never replicated in the present in quite the same way. Historical events are infinitely variable and their interpretations are a constantly shifting process. There are no certainties to be found in the past.”
- Gerda Lerner
Seldom do we hear individuals of high power admitting they made mistakes. Hearing former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamera say “we were wrong” comes as a shock because people generally don’t like to acknowledge errors in judgment (especially politicians) and he comes from the generation of politicians who unwaveringly supported the conflict in Vietnam.
Errol Morris’ Fog of War is a warning to Americans and future generations to recognize the lessons learned by McNamera throughout his life as a policy maker.
The film is divided into eleven sections, or eleven rhetorical arguments. Each section begins with the text of McNamera’s lesson followed by elaboration that draws from his experience, mistakes and his own philosophy.
The intensity and sincerity of his speech as well as his own remorse for the lives lost during Vietnam convey a strong ethos that implores the audience to factor in his wisdom when making decisions in the future. His own rhetoric is emphasized by a dramatic score by Phillip Glass and montage of images and conversations between McNamera and Presidents that illustrate the confused trajectory of the conflict and its consequences on McNamera and the public.
Although the lessons in Fog of War are mostly illustrated by McNamera’s tenure as Secretary of Defense, they transcend the foreign and domestic conflicts and can be viewed pragmatic wisdom. The lessons are direct but abstract and open to interpretation. McNamera proves their validity through his own experience in war however every single one of them can be applied to the lives of others.
“To empathize with your enemy” can represent the acknowledgement of an opposing viewpoint in an argument. McNamera’s statement that “rationality will not save us” is similar to the idea that logic alone will not win an argument. In McNamera’s case, luck saved the United State from nuclear war, not three rational men of power. Similarly, ethos and pathos can prevail over logic in an argument.
To admit that “There’s something beyond one’s self” is to recognize the responsibility one has to society, to morals and to ethics beyond one’s own needs.
“Maximize efficiency,” “get the data,” and “be prepared to reexamine your reasoning” are all traits of responsible thinkers that can apply to everything from simple decisions in consumer spending or tremendous decisions to invade a foreign country.
Whether or not we learn from our mistakes is difficult to determine. As historian and author Gerda Lerner believes, no event in the present will ever mirror a past event for variables are constantly evolving. Essentially, we seldom make the same mistake twice. For example, I stubbed my toe on a chair two weeks ago walking from my Kitchen to my room. It was painful so I told myself to be more careful when walking barefoot (as if it was the first time it had happened). Earlier today I stubbed the same to on the leg of my piano as I stood up. Same accident, different circumstances, new mistake.
The nature of a mistake is unpredictable and is only realized once it is too late. There is often sufficient warning leading up to it however we often disregard it or fail to realize the clues.
My point is its easy to make mistakes but when we fail to factor in the wisdom of our predecessors and their mistakes, we run the risk of ignorance. We will never know the mistakes we have avoided only those that have been made but with an increased consciousness, we can minimize the damage and hopefully avoid them to begin with.
Errol attempts to heighten the awareness of his audience by encouraging them to factor in the lessons learned by Robert McNamera in their lives. Undoubtedly, people will forget and ignore McNamera’s words but those who are conscious of his wisdom will recognize circumstances that can be dealt with and possibly avoided,
“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” - George Santayana
“What experience and history teach is this -- that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles.” – George Wilhelm Hegel
“What we do about history matters. The often repeated saying that those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them has a lot of truth in it. But what are 'the lessons of history'? The very attempt at definition furnishes ground for new conflicts. History is not a recipe book; past events are never replicated in the present in quite the same way. Historical events are infinitely variable and their interpretations are a constantly shifting process. There are no certainties to be found in the past.”
- Gerda Lerner
Seldom do we hear individuals of high power admitting they made mistakes. Hearing former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamera say “we were wrong” comes as a shock because people generally don’t like to acknowledge errors in judgment (especially politicians) and he comes from the generation of politicians who unwaveringly supported the conflict in Vietnam.
Errol Morris’ Fog of War is a warning to Americans and future generations to recognize the lessons learned by McNamera throughout his life as a policy maker.
The film is divided into eleven sections, or eleven rhetorical arguments. Each section begins with the text of McNamera’s lesson followed by elaboration that draws from his experience, mistakes and his own philosophy.
The intensity and sincerity of his speech as well as his own remorse for the lives lost during Vietnam convey a strong ethos that implores the audience to factor in his wisdom when making decisions in the future. His own rhetoric is emphasized by a dramatic score by Phillip Glass and montage of images and conversations between McNamera and Presidents that illustrate the confused trajectory of the conflict and its consequences on McNamera and the public.
Although the lessons in Fog of War are mostly illustrated by McNamera’s tenure as Secretary of Defense, they transcend the foreign and domestic conflicts and can be viewed pragmatic wisdom. The lessons are direct but abstract and open to interpretation. McNamera proves their validity through his own experience in war however every single one of them can be applied to the lives of others.
“To empathize with your enemy” can represent the acknowledgement of an opposing viewpoint in an argument. McNamera’s statement that “rationality will not save us” is similar to the idea that logic alone will not win an argument. In McNamera’s case, luck saved the United State from nuclear war, not three rational men of power. Similarly, ethos and pathos can prevail over logic in an argument.
To admit that “There’s something beyond one’s self” is to recognize the responsibility one has to society, to morals and to ethics beyond one’s own needs.
“Maximize efficiency,” “get the data,” and “be prepared to reexamine your reasoning” are all traits of responsible thinkers that can apply to everything from simple decisions in consumer spending or tremendous decisions to invade a foreign country.
Whether or not we learn from our mistakes is difficult to determine. As historian and author Gerda Lerner believes, no event in the present will ever mirror a past event for variables are constantly evolving. Essentially, we seldom make the same mistake twice. For example, I stubbed my toe on a chair two weeks ago walking from my Kitchen to my room. It was painful so I told myself to be more careful when walking barefoot (as if it was the first time it had happened). Earlier today I stubbed the same to on the leg of my piano as I stood up. Same accident, different circumstances, new mistake.
The nature of a mistake is unpredictable and is only realized once it is too late. There is often sufficient warning leading up to it however we often disregard it or fail to realize the clues.
My point is its easy to make mistakes but when we fail to factor in the wisdom of our predecessors and their mistakes, we run the risk of ignorance. We will never know the mistakes we have avoided only those that have been made but with an increased consciousness, we can minimize the damage and hopefully avoid them to begin with.
Errol attempts to heighten the awareness of his audience by encouraging them to factor in the lessons learned by Robert McNamera in their lives. Undoubtedly, people will forget and ignore McNamera’s words but those who are conscious of his wisdom will recognize circumstances that can be dealt with and possibly avoided,
THIS IS ONLY THE BEGINNING.
The Fog of War paints a vivid image of self defense on the part of Robert McNamara for the part he played in The Vietnam War and the Cold War. In retrospect, he did his quite well. My favorite quote from the film was "Answer the question you wished was asked." This simple, one line statement summed up not only McNamara's position throughout the Vietnam/Cold War, but what I consider to be, the mindset of the majority of American politicians.
Robert Strange McNamara was a brilliant man. Had he not been asked to bear the burden of Secretary of Defense for the United States of America during these perilous times, he could have ultimately been one of the most powerful businessmen in the world. I admire him for his decision to serve the country and President Kennedy. This film paints McNamara in a new light that takes away the warmonger title associated with his name for his actions. At the end of the film, I felt a certain sense of pity for the man. Perhaps this is the product of excellent rhetoric on his part.
A powerful segment of the film came during the Cold War. McNamara states that Fidel Castro would have sacrificed all of Cuba in an attack on America. This reality of the choices involved in war and the weight on each end of the scale presented throughout the documentary provide for a powerful argument against anti-war documentaries like Hearts and Minds. While I still believe that the Vietnam War was wrong, the what if? aspect to Robert McNamara's statements in the Lesson #11 segment (You Can't Change Human Nature) make me question was our involvement necessary? The dominoes rising back up as the camera is rewound to a powerful, mysterious string arrangement provides for a moving testimony to these statements. "You don't have hindsight at the time."
In the lesson, You Can't Change Human Nature, there was one scene in particular that struck me as overly moving. McNamara is discussing the idea that War will not be eliminated in our lifetime or for generations to come- A bomb technician is wheeling a bomb to a plane, on the bomb's facade, inscribed in white paint is "THIS IS ONLY THE BEGINNING." A chilling moment in the movie. We, as young Americans, have not witnessed a war as severe as Vietnam. This piece of visual rhetoric should frighten even the bravest of Americans.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
"Is That What We Want in the 21st Century?"
"Is That What We Want in the 21st Century?"
War seems to have this ability to punish the "guilty" at the sacrifice of the innocent. So, we observe the human race continually entering into these great conflicts over and over throughout history. I must ask is it necessary? How has the disconnect form to where disagreements, injustices, debates can not be solved in peaceful ways? This disconnect gives us an sense of entitlement along with justification of violence as a means for a solution in times of mutual disagreement. Yet, the justification of violent acts is dangerous, especially in these times. War has evolved from a dispute between a few countries over several years of gruesome battles to annihilating thousands of people within a few moments by a press of a button. As McNamara states, "We need to think more about killing and conflict. Is that what we want in the 21st century?"
"The Fog of War" addresses realities of war in our time, the 21st century. The lives of millions of people are easily dispensable in times of war as Nuclear war is a reality in our time. We must be more apprehensive upon entering these conflicts because no longer are few countries are at stake, but entire continents. McNamara enlightens the truths of how close we, as Americans, were to total Nuclear War with the Soviet Union. He states throughout his position as the secretary of defense he was in the Cold War as the fear of being annihilated with a nuclear weapons was so realistic to him. How realistic is nuclear war to us? To our men and women in office?
McNamara tells of Castro's willingness to annihilate Cuba in efforts to attack the United States. The idea of one man's power to dictate the lives of millions brews a fear within me. To know our lives could be within the hands of cruel dictator is rattling to our sense of security. We may not be able to change the perception and morality of dictator such as Castro, but we are able to control our own and influence our leaders. We must ask ourselves to rethink this idea of war and our willingness to enter into it, support it. Not only our lives are at stake, but the lives other societies around the world. War in the 21st century, must be handled with tact, apprehension, and virtue for it is diffent beast in this day of age as it effects the lives of billions of people. So now, I ask, "Is that what we want in the 21st century?"
War seems to have this ability to punish the "guilty" at the sacrifice of the innocent. So, we observe the human race continually entering into these great conflicts over and over throughout history. I must ask is it necessary? How has the disconnect form to where disagreements, injustices, debates can not be solved in peaceful ways? This disconnect gives us an sense of entitlement along with justification of violence as a means for a solution in times of mutual disagreement. Yet, the justification of violent acts is dangerous, especially in these times. War has evolved from a dispute between a few countries over several years of gruesome battles to annihilating thousands of people within a few moments by a press of a button. As McNamara states, "We need to think more about killing and conflict. Is that what we want in the 21st century?"
"The Fog of War" addresses realities of war in our time, the 21st century. The lives of millions of people are easily dispensable in times of war as Nuclear war is a reality in our time. We must be more apprehensive upon entering these conflicts because no longer are few countries are at stake, but entire continents. McNamara enlightens the truths of how close we, as Americans, were to total Nuclear War with the Soviet Union. He states throughout his position as the secretary of defense he was in the Cold War as the fear of being annihilated with a nuclear weapons was so realistic to him. How realistic is nuclear war to us? To our men and women in office?
McNamara tells of Castro's willingness to annihilate Cuba in efforts to attack the United States. The idea of one man's power to dictate the lives of millions brews a fear within me. To know our lives could be within the hands of cruel dictator is rattling to our sense of security. We may not be able to change the perception and morality of dictator such as Castro, but we are able to control our own and influence our leaders. We must ask ourselves to rethink this idea of war and our willingness to enter into it, support it. Not only our lives are at stake, but the lives other societies around the world. War in the 21st century, must be handled with tact, apprehension, and virtue for it is diffent beast in this day of age as it effects the lives of billions of people. So now, I ask, "Is that what we want in the 21st century?"
Maya Lin
The thing that struck me the most about Maya Lin was her calm yet persistent demeanor.
I doubt that anyone could watch that documentary and not understand that Maya is clearly very devoted to her work and possesses great talent. Yet, she did not strike me as arrogant or pretentious. I was continually impressed with Maya’s skills and determined work ethic but most of all how she was able to maintain a professional yet likable demeanor throughout all of her varied and challenging undertakings.
Maya Lin clearly posses an innate talent for designing both visually pleasing and emotionally charged works. In fact, in the scene where they announce the winner of the Vietnam Memorial design contest, the guy next to her mentions how the top design firms in the country were competing for the job while Maya, only a student at the time, ended up winning. However, I think her talent is also apparent in how she was able to successfully execute such a wide variety of designs. She makes sculptures, museum shows, houses, fountains, and some other creations I cannot even label, yet all done with extraordinary skill and expertise.
However, Maya Lin doesn’t just have natural talents, she also has an intense personal devotion to her work. She obviously dedicates an enormous amount of time and care into each project. I found this particularly noticeable in the scene where she is analyzing how the water flows over the letters in the civil rights structure. She talks about filling the points with epoxy to make sure that the water flow is even and doesn’t clump together. Also, in the glass project, she stated that she had to experiment heavily with different types of glass until she eventually found a mixture that finally possessed the color she felt was best. However, she also is very emotionally invested in each of her projects. There are numerous scenes where she discusses how she goes about planning each design and she spends a considerable amount of time talking about the emotions contained and portrayed by each design. During the scene where she examines the circular portion of the civil rights design, she talks about how anxious she was while she waiting for it to be fabricated, hoping desperately that it would turn out how she imagined.
Yet, I think Maya Lin’s best quality is her calm and mature demeanor. A lot of her tasks dealt with very controversial subjects. In fact, in quite a few of the issues she had little to no first hand experience. She discusses how most of the civil rights movement occurred before she was born and she talks about how she was fairly sheltered from the Vietnam War. However, she still as able to understand the significance of these events and convey that through her designs. She was only a student when she designed the Vietnam Memorial, and throughout the litigation that ensued, she was verbally attacked by people who were much older and more powerful than her. Yet, despite her obvious nervousness, she was able to clearly and logically defend her designs amidst the onslaught of belligerence. Also, as a professional procrastinator, I can relate to the stress of a fast approaching deadline. However, even when the museum curators are installing the show hours before the museum is supposed to open, she remains calm. Determined and focused, yet calm.
Even while under enormous pressure from forces far more powerful than herself, Maya Lin manages to retain a pleasant disposition, and even considering her seemingly endless talent and will to succeed, I feel that this is her best quality. From a young age, Maya has been able to successfully showcase her abilities, both in art and in cultural understanding, even while she is under enormous societal pressures. She attributes a lot of her strength and courage to her parents, and while I am sure that they deserve thanks, Maya also deserves the credit. Her parents are not in her shoes and although they raised her, Maya is still the one who had to stand there and defend her work while people questioned and accused her, and that is why I have developed a great respect for Maya Lin.
The difference
“Rationality will not save us.”
When this phrase appeared across the screen, I felt like a tank just rammed into me, knocked me off my chair, and imprinted the words “déjà vu” across my forehead. The idea of dealing only with the “truth”, the “facts”, and “nonfiction” is not a new idea to only Tim O’Brien; others, such as Robert McNamara have also thought of this.
McNamara credited the end of the war to the fact that “we lucked out.” All of our leaders were rational people, the data were all logical, the other world leaders were also rational, but that didn’t matter. In the end, luck prevailed.
A parallel is drawn for me between McNamara’s differentiations between rational and luck versus Tim O’Brien’s differentiation between truth and lie. Both have the warning of society needing to be wary of depending too much on the “truth” or “rational” part of life. Being rational can only get you so far, and the other part has to be luck. Humans are prone to error, not matter how rational we may be “human fallibility can [still] destroy nations.”
In my personal opinion, I believe society has placed an emphasis more on the factual and concrete ideas of life. Take our education system; once you can tell how protein is synthesized in the ribosome and then transports to the Golgi apparatus, you get an “A” for mastering the material. However, in an English class it is still entirely possible to argue that your paper deserved a higher grade, because you had effectively used the process of “redefining your terms”, avoided all of the common fallacies, and persuaded half of the class to change their stance after reading your paper. Getting an “A” is the main objective of most students, and in providing a more concrete way of attaining the high grade based on mastery and not something up to the professor’s discretion, the factual side of life is sought after more.
However, McNamara and O’Brien argued that this is not all to the world. The world is in need of fiction and luck. O’Brien captured our attention with his war stories that could possibly be all lies. McNamara told us of how close we were to war, and how even though our leaders were rational and knew how horrible war could be, they still were going to take that step, because logic dictated it.
---
Here’s a further thought.
In class, I felt like there was a slight conclusion drawn on that as a society, we have placed more value on business, but English and rhetoric are the ones that are able to move our hearts and strengthen our soul. Without English and rhetoric, our souls will shrivel and die. My question is this… how come we still place emphasis on religion, when for all we know, it could just be another lie?
When this phrase appeared across the screen, I felt like a tank just rammed into me, knocked me off my chair, and imprinted the words “déjà vu” across my forehead. The idea of dealing only with the “truth”, the “facts”, and “nonfiction” is not a new idea to only Tim O’Brien; others, such as Robert McNamara have also thought of this.
McNamara credited the end of the war to the fact that “we lucked out.” All of our leaders were rational people, the data were all logical, the other world leaders were also rational, but that didn’t matter. In the end, luck prevailed.
A parallel is drawn for me between McNamara’s differentiations between rational and luck versus Tim O’Brien’s differentiation between truth and lie. Both have the warning of society needing to be wary of depending too much on the “truth” or “rational” part of life. Being rational can only get you so far, and the other part has to be luck. Humans are prone to error, not matter how rational we may be “human fallibility can [still] destroy nations.”
In my personal opinion, I believe society has placed an emphasis more on the factual and concrete ideas of life. Take our education system; once you can tell how protein is synthesized in the ribosome and then transports to the Golgi apparatus, you get an “A” for mastering the material. However, in an English class it is still entirely possible to argue that your paper deserved a higher grade, because you had effectively used the process of “redefining your terms”, avoided all of the common fallacies, and persuaded half of the class to change their stance after reading your paper. Getting an “A” is the main objective of most students, and in providing a more concrete way of attaining the high grade based on mastery and not something up to the professor’s discretion, the factual side of life is sought after more.
However, McNamara and O’Brien argued that this is not all to the world. The world is in need of fiction and luck. O’Brien captured our attention with his war stories that could possibly be all lies. McNamara told us of how close we were to war, and how even though our leaders were rational and knew how horrible war could be, they still were going to take that step, because logic dictated it.
---
Here’s a further thought.
In class, I felt like there was a slight conclusion drawn on that as a society, we have placed more value on business, but English and rhetoric are the ones that are able to move our hearts and strengthen our soul. Without English and rhetoric, our souls will shrivel and die. My question is this… how come we still place emphasis on religion, when for all we know, it could just be another lie?
Fog of War vs. Hearts and Minds
I know that I better not say this but..man, oh, man was I glad Fog of War wasn't just another version of Hearts and Minds. It was so refreshing to see the other side to the Vietnam War argument. I very much enjoyed watching Fog of War because it is everything that Hearts and Minds is not. This is not to say that I absolutely hated having to watch Hearts and Minds, but it certainly was not very agreeable.
The two documentaries present very different sides of the issue. Hearts and Minds is an anti-war movie, and it sets out to persuade the audience that what happened in Vietnam was wrong and that the United States government and its imperialistic policies are to blame. Fog of War is a 2003 Errol Morris documentary consisting mostly of interviews with Robert McNamara and archival footage.
I also liked the way Fog of War was actually executed more in comparison to Hearts and Minds. Fog of War had a clear structure and it was easy to follow. The documentary was broken into 11 lessons and followed a chronological order of McNamara's life and the events of the war themselves. I had much more difficulty following the points made during Hearts and Minds. It seemed like it was simply showing images and stories of the lives of the people affected by the war in no particular order or pattern.
Hearts and Minds also showed a very large number of disturbing graphic images and told very heart wrenching stories, which made the movie very hard to watch. Quite frankly, it depressed me. Fog of War did not take a huge emotional toll on me. It was actually very enlightening and enjoyable to hear a highly intelligent man speak about his life experiences and hardships. Throughout the documentary, my respect and admiration of this man grew exponentially.
Hearts and Minds also seemed to continuously bash the government system and the people that were key to instrumenting the Vietnam War. It was full of anti war ideology and did not address the other side of the conflict. Fog of War gave me a more in depth look at what led the leaders of this nation, McNamara in particular, to make the decisions that were made and to try to explain their reasoning in a way that I could understand. McNamara is very honest in his self-reflection and does not try to cover up his tracks. It was very moving when he made a comment about being considered a war criminal if the U.S. had been on the losing side of the conflict.
The Fog of War
The Fog of War and Hearts and Minds seem to use similar rhetorical techniques to stimulate the audience's emotions: a specific choice of historical footage to tie in with spoken arguments, close ups and other cinematic techniques to capture interviewee expressions, a lack of narration, etc. However, during several moments in The Fog of War, director Errol Morris managed to use raw data as an appeal to pathos.
Lesson #5 states "proportionality should be a guideline to war". In order to reinforce McNamara's argument, Morris one-by-one lists the names of major cities in the United States with respective damage percentages to illustrate the magnitude of the destruction done to Japanese cities before atomic weapons were used. As time progresses, cities, percentages and images are listed at an ever-increasing rate. At the same time, a silent yet suspenseful orchestra plays in the background.
By reading a name, humans have the capacity to create personal definitions through imagery and memory. When I read "New York 51%", many important images came to my mind. I thought of the Manhattan skyline, the construction at ground-zero, Madison Square Park, the Empire State Building. I thought of Queens and Brooklyn, large sidewalks, hot-dog vendors and crowded streets. I thought of my family, my cousins, aunts and uncles, my parents. With the relationship that I have with New York, it's difficult to imagine over half of it destroyed, let alone knowing that many people suffered those difficulties as a city across the Pacific was actually destroyed in similar proportions.
Using these comparisons, Morris sought to stir the emotions of his intended audience by allowing it to create definitions, images, and memories which form the basis of America's culture and prowess. Major cities across the nation tend to form part of what we can define as the United States. For example, Detroit and Los Angeles have been constantly associated with the auto and movie industries, respectively. By allowing the viewer to make the connections between major cities and the backbone of the United States, Morris gives us a wake-up call by adding an ingredient of destruction to our definitions. It's a matter of perspective. Morris gives us a glimpse at the fate the Japanese suffered during World War II as we try to understand how we would feel if our major cities faced similar destruction and despair.
Much in the same way as Maya Lin used names in the Vietnam War Memorial as a way to bring back everything someone could remember about a person, Morris deployed a similar method as a way for his audience to remember everything they could about a particular major city. Only, Morris used McNamara's argument coupled with imagery to destroy those recollections in order for the audience to understand the emotions many people experienced when destruction was a reality. Morris also demonstrates how elements that appeal to logos, such as technical data, can be used to control the flow of emotion in his audience.
Lesson #5 states "proportionality should be a guideline to war". In order to reinforce McNamara's argument, Morris one-by-one lists the names of major cities in the United States with respective damage percentages to illustrate the magnitude of the destruction done to Japanese cities before atomic weapons were used. As time progresses, cities, percentages and images are listed at an ever-increasing rate. At the same time, a silent yet suspenseful orchestra plays in the background.
By reading a name, humans have the capacity to create personal definitions through imagery and memory. When I read "New York 51%", many important images came to my mind. I thought of the Manhattan skyline, the construction at ground-zero, Madison Square Park, the Empire State Building. I thought of Queens and Brooklyn, large sidewalks, hot-dog vendors and crowded streets. I thought of my family, my cousins, aunts and uncles, my parents. With the relationship that I have with New York, it's difficult to imagine over half of it destroyed, let alone knowing that many people suffered those difficulties as a city across the Pacific was actually destroyed in similar proportions.
Using these comparisons, Morris sought to stir the emotions of his intended audience by allowing it to create definitions, images, and memories which form the basis of America's culture and prowess. Major cities across the nation tend to form part of what we can define as the United States. For example, Detroit and Los Angeles have been constantly associated with the auto and movie industries, respectively. By allowing the viewer to make the connections between major cities and the backbone of the United States, Morris gives us a wake-up call by adding an ingredient of destruction to our definitions. It's a matter of perspective. Morris gives us a glimpse at the fate the Japanese suffered during World War II as we try to understand how we would feel if our major cities faced similar destruction and despair.
Much in the same way as Maya Lin used names in the Vietnam War Memorial as a way to bring back everything someone could remember about a person, Morris deployed a similar method as a way for his audience to remember everything they could about a particular major city. Only, Morris used McNamara's argument coupled with imagery to destroy those recollections in order for the audience to understand the emotions many people experienced when destruction was a reality. Morris also demonstrates how elements that appeal to logos, such as technical data, can be used to control the flow of emotion in his audience.
Human Nature
The Vietnam War brought about many different feelings across America. Some were adamant supporters of American involvement while others strongly opposed any intervention in another country's affairs. In The Fog of War, Robert McNamara outlines 11 lessons he learned throughout his life and his career as Secretary of Defense. A majority of his points pertain to the problem of natural human tendencies. Humans tend to prefer logically thinking things through to predict outcomes of events, knowing exactly what is going to happen and how to counteract that. Yet McNamara states in lesson 2 that rationality will not save a country in war. He explains that the "rational" choices that President Kennedy made in regards to the Cuban missile crisis nearly caused an nuclear war that was only narrowly avoided.
Lesson 7 states that belief and seeing are both often wrong. The interviewer interjects with the statement that we see what we believe even if it may not be true. What human doesn't want their own personal beliefs to be true and for others to share that belief? McNamara's very last lesson is that you can't change human nature. As much as someone would like to believe that another war like one that occurred in the past won't happen again, there is always something that sparks a strong hatred in one country for another. President Eisenhower told the American public that WWI was the war to end all wars, yet since that time, many wars have already been fought and we're even in one right now. Hostility can't be completely eliminated from the range of human emotions.
This hatred that fuels these many wars that have existed for thousands of years, however, cannot actually be helped according to McNamara. I really like his explanation of the title of the film, The Fog of War--that there are much too many complications for humans to comprehend the all the intricacies of war itself. McNamara doesn't pinpoint the War on any specific individual or group of individuals. Our human judgment and understanding are inadequate to actually deal with it all, which leads to kill one another out of our lack of comprehension of the concept of war.
Lesson 7 states that belief and seeing are both often wrong. The interviewer interjects with the statement that we see what we believe even if it may not be true. What human doesn't want their own personal beliefs to be true and for others to share that belief? McNamara's very last lesson is that you can't change human nature. As much as someone would like to believe that another war like one that occurred in the past won't happen again, there is always something that sparks a strong hatred in one country for another. President Eisenhower told the American public that WWI was the war to end all wars, yet since that time, many wars have already been fought and we're even in one right now. Hostility can't be completely eliminated from the range of human emotions.
This hatred that fuels these many wars that have existed for thousands of years, however, cannot actually be helped according to McNamara. I really like his explanation of the title of the film, The Fog of War--that there are much too many complications for humans to comprehend the all the intricacies of war itself. McNamara doesn't pinpoint the War on any specific individual or group of individuals. Our human judgment and understanding are inadequate to actually deal with it all, which leads to kill one another out of our lack of comprehension of the concept of war.
The Suspense
Music is powerful. In fog of war the power is expressed as the composed material meshes with the visuals allotted to the viewer. Constantly I felt a sense of suspense despite the rather open testimony of Robert McNamara. Director Errol Morris seems to use this creation to blame the evils of war in general on fate rather than simple human beings.
As early as the opening scene, symphonic music is present in a form that leaves the viewer on seats edge despite the simplistic and rudimentary interview in progress. It is like a horror movie in which the inevitable bad is on the brink, yet it has not showed itself yet. In the interview McNamara continually expresses the desire he and others had to do the right thing. This conflict between content and music seems to sum up Morris' argument as a whole.
Because of prior knowledge, we as viewers already know the content and conflict of the Vietnam War. Morris represents this through the ominous background music he deploys. By this he is showing that the atrocities of the Vietnam war were created independent of an upstanding and successful family and business man in Robert McNamara.
McNamara's Fog of War
I feel to have both grown as a learner and as a student of the Vietnam War because of watching this documentary. Regardless of what you believe about the decisions McNamara has made and the kind of person he has become throughout his rather interesting life, I think respect must be given when respect is due. The man has worked in high positions in multiple wars, served as the Secretary of Defense under two different presidents, attended both Berkeley and Harvard (two of the nation's best universities), been promoted to the President of one of the largest U.S. automobile companies (Ford), and even served as the President of the World Bank. Quite a resume if I must say and to not at least respect what the man has to say is rediculous. Knowing this, just from the fact that I was able to listen to him offer advice and voice his opinions for a couple of hours was beneficial to me. Not to mention we were able to be opened to a whole new point of view on the Vietnam War we had not been yet exposed to in this class.
In "Trip to Hanoi" we were able to see from the other side of the playing field (the Vietnamese), in "Platoon" and "Full Metal Jacket" we were able to get a feel for what it was like to be a soldier in the day to day activites of war, in "The Things They Carried" we were able to better grasp the thoughts and emotions running through an individual soldiers mind, in "Hearts and Minds" we were able to sympathize with anyone involved in the casulaties of the war, and now in "Fog of War" we were able to get a perspective from a lead figure in U.S. government.
Robert McNamara is a figure that I believe to be both genuine and good intentioned just from the feel and vibe I get from his interviews. Take into consideration, he has been able to sustain a family with wife and kids throughout the unimaginable ups and downs of his lifetime. This already a rare accomplishment in present day America just for the average citizen and for him to have kept his family together through the thick and thin shows me he has a good heart.
I thought that this documentary was well constructed and some of the rhetorical tools used were very effective. I like the fact that we were provided with recorded phone calls between McNamara and the Presidents of their respective times. These phone calls were placed in strategic parts of the film between certain scenes and interviews that really emphasized what the calls were about. This particular element providing me with a since of credability for the film in that the topics being discussed reflected actual conversations taken place during the time. Also, McNamara's 11 lessons from war kept the documentary in a orderly flow that really helped us viewers keep up with where his ideas were coming from. Its hard to relate to what a person has to say about a certain issue without knowing what lead that person to think and behave in that certain way. In fact, I believe this according to him, was the difference in winning the Cold War and (label however you want) the Vietnam War. The fact that we knew more about where the Russians were coming from and what they wanted out of the war where as our vision and outlook on the Vietnam War was skewed to that of the Vietnamese. We saw it as an element of the Cold War, they saw it as a Civil War.
From our required materials so far I believe this to be the most beneficial. From a Vietnam War stand point, I think this documentary was the most beneficial because it seems the root of the confusion in this war started with the U.S. government and we were now able to get an idea of what was going through a key figures mind. How are we supposed to get to the bottom of the confusion without getting to its sourse? McNamara was able to provide us with another perspective on the war and on the topic of rationality that we seem to have covered pretty thoroughly in class this past week, having more sides to something = more rational conclusion. From just a person viewing this film stand point, I was able to take his 11 lessons and apply them to life's lessons. I could only dream to have the career and amount of money he has made through his life and if these are some of the 11 lessons he believes he has accumualted, the quote "I wish that I knew what I know now, when I was younger" comes to mind - I think I'm going to get a head start.
In "Trip to Hanoi" we were able to see from the other side of the playing field (the Vietnamese), in "Platoon" and "Full Metal Jacket" we were able to get a feel for what it was like to be a soldier in the day to day activites of war, in "The Things They Carried" we were able to better grasp the thoughts and emotions running through an individual soldiers mind, in "Hearts and Minds" we were able to sympathize with anyone involved in the casulaties of the war, and now in "Fog of War" we were able to get a perspective from a lead figure in U.S. government.
Robert McNamara is a figure that I believe to be both genuine and good intentioned just from the feel and vibe I get from his interviews. Take into consideration, he has been able to sustain a family with wife and kids throughout the unimaginable ups and downs of his lifetime. This already a rare accomplishment in present day America just for the average citizen and for him to have kept his family together through the thick and thin shows me he has a good heart.
I thought that this documentary was well constructed and some of the rhetorical tools used were very effective. I like the fact that we were provided with recorded phone calls between McNamara and the Presidents of their respective times. These phone calls were placed in strategic parts of the film between certain scenes and interviews that really emphasized what the calls were about. This particular element providing me with a since of credability for the film in that the topics being discussed reflected actual conversations taken place during the time. Also, McNamara's 11 lessons from war kept the documentary in a orderly flow that really helped us viewers keep up with where his ideas were coming from. Its hard to relate to what a person has to say about a certain issue without knowing what lead that person to think and behave in that certain way. In fact, I believe this according to him, was the difference in winning the Cold War and (label however you want) the Vietnam War. The fact that we knew more about where the Russians were coming from and what they wanted out of the war where as our vision and outlook on the Vietnam War was skewed to that of the Vietnamese. We saw it as an element of the Cold War, they saw it as a Civil War.
From our required materials so far I believe this to be the most beneficial. From a Vietnam War stand point, I think this documentary was the most beneficial because it seems the root of the confusion in this war started with the U.S. government and we were now able to get an idea of what was going through a key figures mind. How are we supposed to get to the bottom of the confusion without getting to its sourse? McNamara was able to provide us with another perspective on the war and on the topic of rationality that we seem to have covered pretty thoroughly in class this past week, having more sides to something = more rational conclusion. From just a person viewing this film stand point, I was able to take his 11 lessons and apply them to life's lessons. I could only dream to have the career and amount of money he has made through his life and if these are some of the 11 lessons he believes he has accumualted, the quote "I wish that I knew what I know now, when I was younger" comes to mind - I think I'm going to get a head start.
its foggy
Throughout the documentary we, as the watchers, are bombarded with facts not only from Robert McNamara’s experience, but also from government records. It shows us the hard facts, giving the movie credibility, its pathos is strong because many of the facts are introduced in a way that make the choices made to be thought of as reasonable.
Every time that the documentary changes ideas a new rule is displayed on the screen. These lead the audience in the direction that the director wants us to go. It allows us to understand the meanings that are behind the footage, sound bites, and pictures. We are shown another side of the war in terms of these rules. They are meant to be our guidelines. The director knew that by placing these into the documentary that the audience would be steered into thinking what he wanted us to.
He juxtaposed the applications of many of the rules in two different American conflicts, whether it was the Cuban Missile Crisis or World War II. He allowed the audience to see that when the rules were followed that the conflicts would not be looked back upon as horrible mistakes that could have been prevented.
I also like that we are shown Robert McNamara as a person with human emotions, not just an evil man who tried to destroy Vietnam.
Every time that the documentary changes ideas a new rule is displayed on the screen. These lead the audience in the direction that the director wants us to go. It allows us to understand the meanings that are behind the footage, sound bites, and pictures. We are shown another side of the war in terms of these rules. They are meant to be our guidelines. The director knew that by placing these into the documentary that the audience would be steered into thinking what he wanted us to.
He juxtaposed the applications of many of the rules in two different American conflicts, whether it was the Cuban Missile Crisis or World War II. He allowed the audience to see that when the rules were followed that the conflicts would not be looked back upon as horrible mistakes that could have been prevented.
I also like that we are shown Robert McNamara as a person with human emotions, not just an evil man who tried to destroy Vietnam.
Friday, October 23, 2009
A young architecture student with a penchant for primitive Outback weaponry
According to thewall-usa.com, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is “not a war Memorial but a Memorial to those who served in the war.” Be that as it may, the memorial is still a giant permanent fixture, situated smack dab in the middle of our nation’s capitol. Regardless of the ostensible/official purposes for its construction, the memorial also serves as a symbol of the Vietnam War.
To a large degree, the memorial represents America’s collective judgment of the war as a phenomenon in American history. Vietnam veterans were highly cognizant of this aspect of the memorial’s meaning; and this is why some veterans were so virulently opposed to the memorial’s design. Many veterans were viciously harassed and ‘spat’ upon by fellow American citizens when they returned from Vietnam. To these veterans, the memorial was “a black scar, hidden in a hole,” a continuation of the detached, unsympathetic judgment which had been cast upon them in airports and on the streets—as if the entire country was spitting in their faces.
In addition to any messages which the memorial may communicate to surviving Vietnam veterans and to the widows, children, and parents of nearly 60,000 fallen veterans, the memorial will also serve a significant educational function for future Americans. It tells generations to come how America feels about the Vietnam War; and successive generations will accept an increasingly summary characterization of the war, much as we do now for the “American Revolutionary War” and even “World War II.”
So what does the Vietnam Veterans Memorial say to veterans, widows, and future generations of Americans? Ultimately, this question is not definitively soluble—it is far too personal. Even two Vietnam veterans, with similar war experiences, could look at the same memorial and react quite differently. One might see it as a poignant symbol, representing the ‘price of freedom.’ Another might see a ‘black scar.’
As a representative of future generations, I will say this much: Having visited the memorial twice, my own lasting impressions are as follows: 1) Sheer volume- ‘so many fucking names’! 2) The human reality represented by the endless engravings- names like “Adam” and “James” and “Daniel.” 3) The permanence, timelessness. The wall has no artistic flourishes which reveal the passionate hand or twinkling eye of a budding artist. In fact, as I watched Maya Lin, I was almost surprised to think of the wall as having been designed, in the first place.
To a large degree, the memorial represents America’s collective judgment of the war as a phenomenon in American history. Vietnam veterans were highly cognizant of this aspect of the memorial’s meaning; and this is why some veterans were so virulently opposed to the memorial’s design. Many veterans were viciously harassed and ‘spat’ upon by fellow American citizens when they returned from Vietnam. To these veterans, the memorial was “a black scar, hidden in a hole,” a continuation of the detached, unsympathetic judgment which had been cast upon them in airports and on the streets—as if the entire country was spitting in their faces.
In addition to any messages which the memorial may communicate to surviving Vietnam veterans and to the widows, children, and parents of nearly 60,000 fallen veterans, the memorial will also serve a significant educational function for future Americans. It tells generations to come how America feels about the Vietnam War; and successive generations will accept an increasingly summary characterization of the war, much as we do now for the “American Revolutionary War” and even “World War II.”
So what does the Vietnam Veterans Memorial say to veterans, widows, and future generations of Americans? Ultimately, this question is not definitively soluble—it is far too personal. Even two Vietnam veterans, with similar war experiences, could look at the same memorial and react quite differently. One might see it as a poignant symbol, representing the ‘price of freedom.’ Another might see a ‘black scar.’
As a representative of future generations, I will say this much: Having visited the memorial twice, my own lasting impressions are as follows: 1) Sheer volume- ‘so many fucking names’! 2) The human reality represented by the endless engravings- names like “Adam” and “James” and “Daniel.” 3) The permanence, timelessness. The wall has no artistic flourishes which reveal the passionate hand or twinkling eye of a budding artist. In fact, as I watched Maya Lin, I was almost surprised to think of the wall as having been designed, in the first place.
Monday, October 19, 2009
The Things Tim Carried
The Things They Carried was a very intriguing read. Very seldom do you come across a book that has to be read for academic purposes and you actually enjoy reading it. Most of the time you get these fascinating stories about Benjamin Franklin and his contribution to the constitution and shaping America, and honestly, I mean no disrespect to historians, but who cares! However, when reading this I didn’t think “Who cares?” or why care, I thought “I care.”
When I first “encountered” the book it was in the fall of my sophomore year in a History class. I read some chapters and some stories but re-reading this made me look at the story a little differently. When first reading it, it was one of those stories that we had to read because it had some relevance to what we were learning, but truth be told, not much. We probably covered Vietnam in one lecture or two and kept moving, therefore I didn’t really focus much on the book nor did I feel pressured to learn its context. However, after learning so much about the war and seeing documentaries like Hearts and Minds and movies like Platoon and Full Metal Jacket, I think as a reader you can’t help but read the novel differently and see it in a different light. You now think about the soldiers, what they went through, how they felt, and the effects that it had on the victims of both sides of the war.
While reading this in the beginning I had to stop and ask myself, “Is this real?” The accounts that Brien details had me wondering did these things really happen. While being a fiction novel, some of it certainly doesn’t feel fiction. For instance, when Brien tells the story about private Lemon, which made me think almost immediately of Lot 49 and the rhetorical play on the naming of the characters, Brien tells of his fear of the dentists and what he did to overcome that fear. However, only overcome it, he went back and faced his fear just to face it complaining of a “tooth ache” that was really no physical ache at all, besides the ache of an unconquered fear. Hmmm, talk about what makes a man army strong, right!
Nevertheless, one of the most touching and memorable stories was when Brien tells the story of “Tim” and the man he killed. What I find so gut-wrenching about this scene was the fact that Brien describes every detail of what the man who was shot in the face looked like. “The skin on his left cheek was pulled back in three ragged strips,” talk about a description of the Saw movies, but no this was war and I definitely wouldn’t put it past the book that things like this didn’t happen. In fact, I know things like this happen, but something about this story, although fake, made me look beyond the fiction category and see it for a tale of soldier’s untold stories.
When I first “encountered” the book it was in the fall of my sophomore year in a History class. I read some chapters and some stories but re-reading this made me look at the story a little differently. When first reading it, it was one of those stories that we had to read because it had some relevance to what we were learning, but truth be told, not much. We probably covered Vietnam in one lecture or two and kept moving, therefore I didn’t really focus much on the book nor did I feel pressured to learn its context. However, after learning so much about the war and seeing documentaries like Hearts and Minds and movies like Platoon and Full Metal Jacket, I think as a reader you can’t help but read the novel differently and see it in a different light. You now think about the soldiers, what they went through, how they felt, and the effects that it had on the victims of both sides of the war.
While reading this in the beginning I had to stop and ask myself, “Is this real?” The accounts that Brien details had me wondering did these things really happen. While being a fiction novel, some of it certainly doesn’t feel fiction. For instance, when Brien tells the story about private Lemon, which made me think almost immediately of Lot 49 and the rhetorical play on the naming of the characters, Brien tells of his fear of the dentists and what he did to overcome that fear. However, only overcome it, he went back and faced his fear just to face it complaining of a “tooth ache” that was really no physical ache at all, besides the ache of an unconquered fear. Hmmm, talk about what makes a man army strong, right!
Nevertheless, one of the most touching and memorable stories was when Brien tells the story of “Tim” and the man he killed. What I find so gut-wrenching about this scene was the fact that Brien describes every detail of what the man who was shot in the face looked like. “The skin on his left cheek was pulled back in three ragged strips,” talk about a description of the Saw movies, but no this was war and I definitely wouldn’t put it past the book that things like this didn’t happen. In fact, I know things like this happen, but something about this story, although fake, made me look beyond the fiction category and see it for a tale of soldier’s untold stories.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Tim O'Brien vs. Tim O'Brien
The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien was a wonderful and absolutely intriguing read. This novel is loaded with meaning, rhetorical tools, and complex characters that I would love to touch on in this post. However, I would like to focus on Tim O'Brien (the character) and Tim O'Brien (the author).
I had the chance to look up some information about the author as well as the novel itself at a library a couple of days ago. It came as a great shock to me that Tim O'Brien (the character) and Tim O'Brien (the author) are not really the same person; although, I should have been able to guess so judging by the fact that The Things They Carried is considered to be a work of fiction and not an actual memoir.
I believe that this was actually a great rhetorical move on the part of the author. Tim O'Brien (the author) actually served in Vietnam, thence a number of events described in the novel had actually happened in real life. However, Tim O'Brien (the author) chose to name the narrator and protagonist after himself and actually gave the character a similar life story, excluding a few minor differences. Tim O'Brien (the character), obviously, also served in Vietnam. He is an accomplished writer. He is also 43 years old.
I believe this was an interesting way to present the story of the Vietnam War because Tim O'Brien (the author) was able to recount his own experiences at war, as well as create events that had never took place through the voice of Tim O'Brien (the character), while still being able to claim it all as his own point of view. Both Tim O'Briens are guilt-ridden middle aged men, who turn to writing about the war in order to cope with painful memories.
How to Tell a True Song, Movie or Advertisement
Well, it looks like I am not alone in taking a particular interest in the “How to Tell a True War Story” chapter. As some of you have mentioned, I thought O’Brien’s contrasting of absolute truth and personal emotions was insightful and intriguing.
In “How to Tell a True War Story”, O’Brien discusses how absolute truth and purpose in a story are not as relevant as the overall impressions of those who experienced the event. O’Brien ends the chapter by saying “a true war story is never about war. It’s about sunlight….It’s about love and memory. It’s about sorrow” (85). O’Brien is saying that the actual truth behind a story is not what matters. What really matters are the emotions involved in the story: what the storyteller feels and what the audience feels.”
Although O’Brien was specifically talking about war stories, I believe this philosophy applies to all forms of communication. O’Brien’s philosophy that gut-reactions are more important than absolute truth can be clearly seen in how society reacts to music, movies, and advertising.
A quick survey of the iTunes Top 10 songs serves as proof that the emotions evoked by music are more important that truth or morals. With all due respect to the Black Eyed Peas and Britney Spears, when the most popular songs in America have choruses that state “Lets Do it, and do it, and do it, and do it, and do it…” or , “1, 2, 3 Peter, Paul & Mary Gettin' down with 3P, Everybody loves Countin”, I would find it hard to argue that absolute truth is the most important aspect of music. Now I would also find it hard to argue that these type of songs aren’t fun, or that they don’t evoke positive emotions. Maybe “Party in the U.S.A.” has changed someone’s life somewhere, but I feel pretty comfortable assuming that these songs are popular for the emotions they evoke and not the wisdom and personal insight they spread.Surveying this weekend’s box office results also supports O’Brien’s theory. All of the top-10 box grossing movies from this past weekend were classified as either thriller, children’s, or comedy. Not to say that these movies can’t have deep and profound morals, but the mere names of the categories suggest otherwise. Thrillers are literally meant to “thrill” the audience. Comedies are supposed to make you laugh. Children’s movies, while occasionally containing some sort of moral or message, are usually dumbed down enough so that their targeted demographic will enjoy and understand them. Obviously this is not always the case. I thought Wall-E ingeniously incorporated an important message into a film that still holds massive appeal to the younger generation. Yet, movies like Wall-E are an exception to the predominant conventions of appealing to the audience’s emotions more than their personal beliefs.
Finally, advertising is another realm of communication that exemplifies O’Brien’s philosophy. For example, iPod and Apple advertisements have become extremely iconic throughout the past decade, but why is that? I doubt it’s because of the “absolute truth” contained in the ads. The early iPod advertisements merely showed shadowed figures dancing on colored backgrounds, iPod in hand, to up-tempo, fun music. Obviously Apple isn’t trying to pound you with a list of logical reasons to buy their product, they are merely instilling emotions in you that will hopefully make you want to buy their product. These ads are fun and cool to look at. They aren’t based on technical specifications or product features, they are based on emotions
Using these examples found in music, movies, and advertising, Tim O’Brien’s theory seems to hold up quite well. O’Brien states that absolute truth is practically irrelevant compared to the feelings and emotions conveyed by a story, and I believe that these examples prove that this theory doesn’t just apply to war stories but actually applies to all forms of communication.
The Things They Carried isn’t just a collection of fictional stories about the Vietnam War, it is also a statement on rhetoric. “How to Tell a True War Story” is an extremely relevant chapter on how emotions can outweigh absolute truth in effective rhetoric. Jay Heinrichs’ also acknowledges in Thank You For Arguing that even the soundest logic needs to be accompanied by effective ethos and pathos. Communication isn’t just stating facts, and both Heinrichs and O’Brien affirm that emotions are an integral part of rhetoric.
Memories and Stories
From the first paragraph of The Things They Carried, I was intrigued. Author Tim O'Brien begins with a third-person point of view, exploring each of the soldiers' personalities and quirks, keeping his tone and style of writing casual. O'Brien then switches to first-person point of view, giving some more insight of his feelings towards the Vietnam War and all the different experiences he encountered. Each chapter details an event that O'Brien either was present for or heard about through a friend. As he writes, he also explains how the reader must be cautious when listening to war stories because they aren't always completely true. He adds in some of his own twists to more deeply engrave the story into the reader's mind.
The last few chapters of the novel sparked my emotions the most. The soldiers form such strong bonds while out fighting together and become like brothers. Yet when they are separated for a period of time, they fall apart, and O'Brien described that he felt betrayed when he was no longer in battle with everyone else. O'Brien is hurt by the loss of kinship he once had. He also talks about how much the war had changed his outlook on life. His prior, quiet life "had somehow been crushed under the weight of the simple daily realities" (227), leaving him feeling much darker and crueler. The rather luxurious life back in America was so different than the war-stricken life in Vietnam.
In order for the soldiers to cope with the atrocities of the war and attempt to keep themselves sane, they used humor as an outlet. They didn't want to think of their dead comrades as actually dead. Rather, they would pretend they were still alive, imagining their voices and faces as they were before, talk to each other as if they were still sitting amongst them. O'Brien wanted to preserve all he had gone through in the war and preserve the lost lives of his fellow soldiers, even if it meant adding in his own details, anything to keep his memories alive. His use of pathos helps the reader to connect with his stories and better understand the hardships the soldiers had to endure.
The last few chapters of the novel sparked my emotions the most. The soldiers form such strong bonds while out fighting together and become like brothers. Yet when they are separated for a period of time, they fall apart, and O'Brien described that he felt betrayed when he was no longer in battle with everyone else. O'Brien is hurt by the loss of kinship he once had. He also talks about how much the war had changed his outlook on life. His prior, quiet life "had somehow been crushed under the weight of the simple daily realities" (227), leaving him feeling much darker and crueler. The rather luxurious life back in America was so different than the war-stricken life in Vietnam.
In order for the soldiers to cope with the atrocities of the war and attempt to keep themselves sane, they used humor as an outlet. They didn't want to think of their dead comrades as actually dead. Rather, they would pretend they were still alive, imagining their voices and faces as they were before, talk to each other as if they were still sitting amongst them. O'Brien wanted to preserve all he had gone through in the war and preserve the lost lives of his fellow soldiers, even if it meant adding in his own details, anything to keep his memories alive. His use of pathos helps the reader to connect with his stories and better understand the hardships the soldiers had to endure.
The de-glorification of war
The extremes of public reactions to personal experiences in the Vietnam War were well-charted by American veterans. John Kerry burned his war medals in front of throngs of protestors in Washington D.C.; Lieutenant Coker spoke of such virtues as courage and love of country in front of a hometown crowd, with uncomplicated admiration.
Tim O’Brien, upon returning from a war in which he had never believed, seemed hell-bent on avoiding extremes. He refused to indulge in simplified characterizations of the war which would vilify one side or the other; nor would he allow himself to rapturously sing the praises of countless untold acts of selfless heroism which he had personally witnessed during epic battles.
Yet he had been greatly affected by the war, and felt compelled to share the experience. So rather than write a war novel that could just as well have been the script for a John Wayne flick, he wrote about the things men carried in their rucksacks while humping. He wrote about how a junior officer privately doted over a picture of a high school volleyball player, while another soldier, being a bigger guy, had chosen to pack his ruck sack with extra desserts. He mentions how the Army dentist who spoiled a day of R&R had had bad breath; how the main thing he remembered after being shot, when his own life seemed to be in jeopardy, was the new pair of boots on the feet of the cherry medic who had waited too long to treat him.
O’Brien weaves a few yarns that are quintessentially ‘Nam. He goes into excruciating detail, drawing readers into eerie, fog-draped mountains where they hear music and impossible voices in the night. But then he tells us they’re mostly hearsay, and that the guy he heard them from was a big exaggerator. Tim O’Brien has a good deal to say about the hardships inherent in the experience of war; but he does not glorify them, and he begs us not to glorify them, either.
Tim O’Brien, upon returning from a war in which he had never believed, seemed hell-bent on avoiding extremes. He refused to indulge in simplified characterizations of the war which would vilify one side or the other; nor would he allow himself to rapturously sing the praises of countless untold acts of selfless heroism which he had personally witnessed during epic battles.
Yet he had been greatly affected by the war, and felt compelled to share the experience. So rather than write a war novel that could just as well have been the script for a John Wayne flick, he wrote about the things men carried in their rucksacks while humping. He wrote about how a junior officer privately doted over a picture of a high school volleyball player, while another soldier, being a bigger guy, had chosen to pack his ruck sack with extra desserts. He mentions how the Army dentist who spoiled a day of R&R had had bad breath; how the main thing he remembered after being shot, when his own life seemed to be in jeopardy, was the new pair of boots on the feet of the cherry medic who had waited too long to treat him.
O’Brien weaves a few yarns that are quintessentially ‘Nam. He goes into excruciating detail, drawing readers into eerie, fog-draped mountains where they hear music and impossible voices in the night. But then he tells us they’re mostly hearsay, and that the guy he heard them from was a big exaggerator. Tim O’Brien has a good deal to say about the hardships inherent in the experience of war; but he does not glorify them, and he begs us not to glorify them, either.
grabbing attention
“I survived, but it’s not a happy ending. I was a coward. I went to the war,” expresses the narrator in The Things They Carried, thus providing a unique antiwar argument that derives its strength from its perspective. Consistently Tim O’Brien paints the atrocities of the war in a way that an audience with no prior experience can relate. He does this by mixing fiction that paints a clear story with a factual based but cloudy outline.
In the first chapter, O’Brien begins to paint this clear picture by relating factual information that serves to build both his logos and pathos. To start, O’Brien shows the materials that the soldiers carried or “humped”. By doing this he is able to create a logical base that is both methodical and conceptual for the audience. Everything in this sequence is described by weight, and thus the physical tax it all takes on the soldiers in turn being described.
Everything after O’Brien’s foundation strays from structured form. Throughout the novel O’Brien appeals to emotions through randomized deaths and spur-of-the-moment decisions. O’Brien explores fictionalized reactions to extreme events that portray elements of each character as an individual, but collectively as they are related to the war. O’Brien’s exploration incorporates a wide variety of elements ranging from the death of a friend to the killing of an enemy, a fantasized relationship to a complex breakup.
Ultimately, we as readers are not to be able to decipher between fact and fiction. O’Brien even gives us insight to this. He wants us to understand rather that he is attempting to provide an understanding; an understanding that the war is wrong.
Stories (bring the past to life)
I love the quote that Renee picked out: "What stories can do, I guess, is make things present." (204 (in my book))
This book is all about stories. Each chapter, a different story, many times from different points of view, different perspectives, but they're all doing the same thing: making the past come to life.
The book is set up as fiction. But the narrator is Tim O'Brien? And the names of the soldiers are people that O'Brien actually fought alongside? (I even looked it up to see if those were their real names.) In "How to Tell a True War Story," O'Brien even says "This is true" in the opening. It's hard to decide if these stories are fiction, which the book says they are, or if there is some truth to them.
I believe that there is some truth to them, much truth to them. And maybe not necessarily in the facts (though I do think that O'Brien used some facts of what did actually happen to create these stories). I think the real truth, the important truth is the subjective here, not the objective. Did "On the Rainy River" actually happen (or happen that way)? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. But those feelings described by the story, the feelings of fear, embarassment, indecision, are all very real. And the same goes for all of the stories. Is this actually what went down? Who knows. But the truth isn't in the objectiveness of the story teling, but the emotions and feeling behind them. That is where the story teller and the audience can relate, connect, understand.
Stories bring the past to life. They are a way of coping, struggling, working through what has already happened by making it a part of the present. Many of the stories are told from O'Briens perspective years after they have happened. The details of the story are probably lost with time, but the emotions from these events are still a part of O'Briens' (or whoever the narrator may be) life. The feelings are still real.
Yes, this is a "fiction" book. Personally, I struggle reading fiction. I almost never do voluntarily because I struggle with seeing value in reading something that's made up, fantasy, not real. What's the point? But I think it is important to see that The Things They Carried isn't exactly "fiction." Yes, these stories could all be made up by O'Brien, and therefore fictional, but the feelings and emotions behind them are very real.
This book is all about stories. Each chapter, a different story, many times from different points of view, different perspectives, but they're all doing the same thing: making the past come to life.
The book is set up as fiction. But the narrator is Tim O'Brien? And the names of the soldiers are people that O'Brien actually fought alongside? (I even looked it up to see if those were their real names.) In "How to Tell a True War Story," O'Brien even says "This is true" in the opening. It's hard to decide if these stories are fiction, which the book says they are, or if there is some truth to them.
I believe that there is some truth to them, much truth to them. And maybe not necessarily in the facts (though I do think that O'Brien used some facts of what did actually happen to create these stories). I think the real truth, the important truth is the subjective here, not the objective. Did "On the Rainy River" actually happen (or happen that way)? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. But those feelings described by the story, the feelings of fear, embarassment, indecision, are all very real. And the same goes for all of the stories. Is this actually what went down? Who knows. But the truth isn't in the objectiveness of the story teling, but the emotions and feeling behind them. That is where the story teller and the audience can relate, connect, understand.
Stories bring the past to life. They are a way of coping, struggling, working through what has already happened by making it a part of the present. Many of the stories are told from O'Briens perspective years after they have happened. The details of the story are probably lost with time, but the emotions from these events are still a part of O'Briens' (or whoever the narrator may be) life. The feelings are still real.
Yes, this is a "fiction" book. Personally, I struggle reading fiction. I almost never do voluntarily because I struggle with seeing value in reading something that's made up, fantasy, not real. What's the point? But I think it is important to see that The Things They Carried isn't exactly "fiction." Yes, these stories could all be made up by O'Brien, and therefore fictional, but the feelings and emotions behind them are very real.
Its Personal.
Throughout Hearts and Minds Tim O’Brien uses many different rhetorical devices to show the readers what being in the Vietnam War was actually like. He writes his thoughts, and those of others; we are able to get a view of life in the war.
He uses stories from other men and from his own personal to try to give the audience the feel of the war and all that it entailed. He gets the audience to trust what he is telling them is true by using the fact that he was there in Vietnam as a soldier. This gives the audience the notion that they can trust him and thus give in to his attempts to show them what it was like.
I love that he tells all the stories not only from his point of view, but also from those of other soldiers he was with in Vietnam. It makes the stories seem more sincere and that makes them more believable. The men are just normal people that were forced to join a war that they didn’t want to be a part of anyways. It goes along with the commonplace from Thank You For Arguing. By using the men he allows the people to envision themselves in the midst of the fighting.
He allows the readers to get to know each of the characters, which allows the reader to become emotionally attached to each one. He uses the emotional connection to each of the characters to make the readers feel for the characters and their stories. It makes the book feel personal.
He uses stories from other men and from his own personal to try to give the audience the feel of the war and all that it entailed. He gets the audience to trust what he is telling them is true by using the fact that he was there in Vietnam as a soldier. This gives the audience the notion that they can trust him and thus give in to his attempts to show them what it was like.
I love that he tells all the stories not only from his point of view, but also from those of other soldiers he was with in Vietnam. It makes the stories seem more sincere and that makes them more believable. The men are just normal people that were forced to join a war that they didn’t want to be a part of anyways. It goes along with the commonplace from Thank You For Arguing. By using the men he allows the people to envision themselves in the midst of the fighting.
He allows the readers to get to know each of the characters, which allows the reader to become emotionally attached to each one. He uses the emotional connection to each of the characters to make the readers feel for the characters and their stories. It makes the book feel personal.
The View of the Implied Author and the Goal of the Author
What impressed me most about “The Things They Carried” was Tim O’Brien’s use of “implied author” versus “author”. From the very beginning, O’Brien explicitly states that this novel was “a work of fiction,” and it was exactly what I expected when I first started reading this book.
In the first chapter, everything was in third person omniscient, and I was able to get a sense of how many characters there will be and their characteristics. However, I was really surprised when the point of view shifted to first person in the second chapter and never specified who “me” was. When I finally figured out that the implied author was Tim O’Brien, it made me do a double take to find out whether this book was truly a fiction book or really non-fiction. I found that the novel is declared as a fictional book, but has a lot of O’Brien’s (the author) history within it.
Finding that out made me more proactive to determine whether this novel could be based on true stories, but was considered fiction in order for O’Brien to keep the identity of his platoon members confidential. It wasn’t until later that I realized his purpose in inserting himself into the story. The Tim O’Brien in the novel was the implied author. Although most of his experiences are consistent with Tim O’Brien the author, ultimately, the implied author expresses the feelings about the war, which the author could not do. The implied author allowed for the author to not have war nightmares that many veterans suffered through, because the implied author told all about the war, and served as the author’s catharsis.
There is a fine line between the implied author and author, just as there is a fine line between fiction and non-fiction in the novel. There are points where I struggle to figure out if the war story was true, until I realized that it didn’t matter if the war story were true, because they served O’Brien’s purpose.
“What stories can do, I guess, is make things present” (180).
I believe that was the goal of O’Brien’s writing. It was his way of letting the world know about war. How he saw the war, allowed others to see the war, and allow for catharsis.
In the first chapter, everything was in third person omniscient, and I was able to get a sense of how many characters there will be and their characteristics. However, I was really surprised when the point of view shifted to first person in the second chapter and never specified who “me” was. When I finally figured out that the implied author was Tim O’Brien, it made me do a double take to find out whether this book was truly a fiction book or really non-fiction. I found that the novel is declared as a fictional book, but has a lot of O’Brien’s (the author) history within it.
Finding that out made me more proactive to determine whether this novel could be based on true stories, but was considered fiction in order for O’Brien to keep the identity of his platoon members confidential. It wasn’t until later that I realized his purpose in inserting himself into the story. The Tim O’Brien in the novel was the implied author. Although most of his experiences are consistent with Tim O’Brien the author, ultimately, the implied author expresses the feelings about the war, which the author could not do. The implied author allowed for the author to not have war nightmares that many veterans suffered through, because the implied author told all about the war, and served as the author’s catharsis.
There is a fine line between the implied author and author, just as there is a fine line between fiction and non-fiction in the novel. There are points where I struggle to figure out if the war story was true, until I realized that it didn’t matter if the war story were true, because they served O’Brien’s purpose.
“What stories can do, I guess, is make things present” (180).
I believe that was the goal of O’Brien’s writing. It was his way of letting the world know about war. How he saw the war, allowed others to see the war, and allow for catharsis.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Hearts and Minds...truly.
This movie was truly a moving one. I have yet to sit through a documentary about war and be so fascinated. When watching the movie, I put on my RTF hat and sat down to think about and analyze this film. One of the opening scenes pictured a village of people living their lives and doing what seems to be normal work, but then we see this image of a soldier walking across the field in the middle of the village's work and what shocks me is how unaware the people of the village seem. They seem to carry on with their lives as if this intruder’s presence was habitual. An interruption in their daily lives seemed to not be so interrupting to the people.
A few of these scenes from this movie brought me back to the war movies we watched in class. One scene in particular was the scene when the soldiers were gathering up the bodies much like in Platoon at the end of the movie. The soldiers are moving the lifeless beings with no care, no consideration, and no compassion. Simply slinging bodies in efforts to carry out the missions issued to them. They were robotic machines. I personally would be terrified to touch a dead body and if I were reluctant to do so I would do so with upmost care and respect. However, this just alludes to the point that many of the injured veterans were making when telling their accounts of war. They became desensitized during their time in the heat of battle and did whatever it took to stay alive, even if it meant for one soldier, using another to shield himself from death.
One of the things that shocked me the most about this film was the realness that it possessed. I was shocked when a man was shown in the street getting executed by another soldier. I was surprised as we are used to seeing such things edited and only in movies with fake guns and executions, but to see a man actually lose his life in front of my eyes was appalling to say the least. Then another account in the movie was when there was an older woman and she was telling of her account in a camp where she was abused and tortured by soldiers and it reminded me of Platoon when the soldier invaded the village and killed innocent people, and the scary thing about the whole situation is that you would think people would have lenience towards women, but actually spared none and as we saw in the clip with the napalm, not even children.
Speaking of this scene it was something about seeing this as opposed to just seeing pictures that I have seen over and over again picturing the young naked girl running down the street with a burned body and the child with his flesh literally hanging off of him. I thought this lended even more evidence to the dehumanization of the soldiers during the war. Another shocking scene was the scene of the soldiers inside the brothel (I guess you can call it that). I found it crazy that these men could sleep with the women of the country and could turn around and kill them in the next instant. No feelings, no morals, and no consideration. The same woman that a soldier was about to be sexually engaged with could have and I strongly believe, would have been the same woman if she was seen on the street or under different circumstances that would have been killed.
Overall I found the film to be shocking and real in every sense of the word.
A few of these scenes from this movie brought me back to the war movies we watched in class. One scene in particular was the scene when the soldiers were gathering up the bodies much like in Platoon at the end of the movie. The soldiers are moving the lifeless beings with no care, no consideration, and no compassion. Simply slinging bodies in efforts to carry out the missions issued to them. They were robotic machines. I personally would be terrified to touch a dead body and if I were reluctant to do so I would do so with upmost care and respect. However, this just alludes to the point that many of the injured veterans were making when telling their accounts of war. They became desensitized during their time in the heat of battle and did whatever it took to stay alive, even if it meant for one soldier, using another to shield himself from death.
One of the things that shocked me the most about this film was the realness that it possessed. I was shocked when a man was shown in the street getting executed by another soldier. I was surprised as we are used to seeing such things edited and only in movies with fake guns and executions, but to see a man actually lose his life in front of my eyes was appalling to say the least. Then another account in the movie was when there was an older woman and she was telling of her account in a camp where she was abused and tortured by soldiers and it reminded me of Platoon when the soldier invaded the village and killed innocent people, and the scary thing about the whole situation is that you would think people would have lenience towards women, but actually spared none and as we saw in the clip with the napalm, not even children.
Speaking of this scene it was something about seeing this as opposed to just seeing pictures that I have seen over and over again picturing the young naked girl running down the street with a burned body and the child with his flesh literally hanging off of him. I thought this lended even more evidence to the dehumanization of the soldiers during the war. Another shocking scene was the scene of the soldiers inside the brothel (I guess you can call it that). I found it crazy that these men could sleep with the women of the country and could turn around and kill them in the next instant. No feelings, no morals, and no consideration. The same woman that a soldier was about to be sexually engaged with could have and I strongly believe, would have been the same woman if she was seen on the street or under different circumstances that would have been killed.
Overall I found the film to be shocking and real in every sense of the word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)