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.