Ch.

1- 4 Questions: The Things They Carried

The Things They Carried

1. The Things They Carried, moves from concrete to abstract things. It begins with military
necessities (guns, helmets, radios, ammo, and rations) and personal items (comic books,
pictures, letters, drugs) and ends with emotions, memories, family, history, tragedy, heartbreak,
guilt, love. In this way "carry" is a transitive verb: it requires direct objects, and O'Brien lists
them, and their weights, to give the novel military verisimilitude and to give the men
psychological baggage.
2. The concept men killed, and died, because they were too embarrassed not to directly
introduces the theme of shame and guilt by emphasizing the motives of why Lt. Jimmy Cross
and his platoon were in Vietnam, as soldiers, and why they continued to fight. The sentence
suggests that the platoon did not go to war solely based on their own opinions, but were
influenced by some other source that was profound enough to affect their decision. They
continued to battle the enemy out of not wanting to be the coward[ly] one, hoping to defend
their reputation.
Love
1. OBriens narrative strategies reflect the self-suppression that his characters practice, most
noticeably changing from the tension of the past, to the serenity of the present. It is unclear
whether OBriens conversation with Cross actually happened or whether it is a fiction that
renders The Things They Carried more realistic. The distinction is not made in this story about
the resemblance between OBrien the author and OBrien the main character. The difference
between actuality and fiction does not mean much to OBrien; feelings behind the story give
the narrative its resolve.
2. Although the request is not explicitly stated, it could be inferred that in the event Jimmy Cross
was to star in OBriens novel, that OBrien would not include a section about Lavenders death
and Jimmys self-blame. By requesting this, it reveals that Jimmy, much like the soldiers during
the war, would rather abstain from being dishonored. Jimmy wants to keep his shame close to
only himself, as to preserve it from the greedy, judging views of others.
Spin
1. The men enjoy Dobbins and Bowkers well-ordered, rational games of checkers because all the
pieces are easy to see, you can tell what side their on, the board is laid out, and its strategy over
uncertainty. Its also emphasized that the war has neither rules nor winners, and men witness
horrific acts juxtaposed with random acts of kindness.
2. OBrien presents the ideas in this chapter in separate, almost disconnected and fragmented
sections in order to develop the characters in a way he was unable to before. Through this, we
are able to see the juvenile cruelty of Azar, the logical even-headedness of Kiowa, and the
dimness of Norman Bowker. Each character becomes more real with the exposure of a new
aspect. One way that Spin develops characters is by describing the inner conflicts that define
them throughout The Things They Carried. With each new look at a given occurrence we gain
additional perspective on the characters involved.
On the Rainy River

1. On the Rainy River is an the development of the role of shame in war because the theme of
embarrassment as a motivating factor. Just as Jimmy Cross feels guilty about Ted Lavenders
death, OBrien feels guilty about going to Vietnam against his principles. His story describes his
ethical dilemma after receiving a draft notice, he has no desire to fight in a war he believes is
unjust, but he does not want to be assumed a coward. OBriens individual experience shows
that the fear of being shamed before ones peers is a powerful motivating factor in war. He
questions his own motives, and in this story he returns to the origin of his decision in order to
examine with us the specifics of cause and effect.
2. OBrien addresses the reader to reveal that he senses the need to justify and elaborate on his
decision to us, his readers, by putting us in the position of ethical judges of his actions. OBriens
portrayal is of a nave, impressionable youth is part of a defense of himself and of his actions.
Although his blunt questioning of What would you do? forces us to recognize the difficulty of
his position, it also asks us to evaluate the rationality of his sequence of action.