Alec’s Comments (group member since Nov 19, 2019)

Alec’s comments from the The Leftovers group.

A perfect example of this is the relatively brief chapter "The Man I Killed." The chapter starts very plainly with a detailed description of the corpse that resulted from O'Brien's grenade: "His jaw was in his throat, his upper lip and teeth were gone, his one eye was shut, his other eye was a star-shaped hole..." (118). Now, this level of detail already burns an image into the reader's mind, but it doesn't end there. Throughout the chapter, O'Brien repeats each one of these individual descriptive phrases on at least 3 or 4 different occasions. This technique of repetition only gives the reader a clearer mental image of the corpse, and to a degree, the reader can be brought to feel as though he/she is right there on that trail with the corpse right before his/her eyes. Additionally, O'Brien's description of the dead man's past drives the metaphorical emotional nail that much deeper.

This is very clearly one of O'Brien's most vital techniques throughout the book. However, the imagery is always more powerful when coupled with another technique. Identify an example of another technique being used to supplement imagery, and analyze how this supplementation maximizes the imagery's emotional impact on the reader.

June wrote: "My interpretation of the way that O'Brien writes is that he is trying to covey a flashback of his memories of the Vietnam War. Additionally, I see the changing perspectives as his comrades he has t..."

Your interpretation seems exactly right. Further, I think O'Brien was aiming to juxtapose how different it was being at war vs back home with the things that remained constant throughout, such as Cross' love for Martha.

June wrote: "Alec wrote: "O'Brien's shifting of time period and perspective appears to me as a sort of attempt to connect different facets of the narrator's life back to his time in the war. For instance, while..."

I definitely agree with you on the notion that it could've been done better. The general motive for the time shifts still appears more than logical to me, however spreading out the shifts more would definitely have minimized the downsides of the technique in general.

A clear example of O'Brien utilizing one of his own storytelling principles actually comes right before he describes the first principle. In retelling Mitchell Sanders' already secondhand account of the week-long mountain LP Patrol, the reader is fully absorbed in what is arguably the most suspenseful section of Sanders' story, mentally visualizing how "[The patrol] get arty and gunships. They call in airstrikes. And... they fuckin' crash that cocktail party" (71). Not long after, the story ends abruptly when the patrolmen, standing mute in front of their commanding officer, simply "salute the fucker and walk away, because some stories you don't ever tell" (72). One would expect the story to continue with harsh consequences for the trigger-happy soldiers who acted without so much as a visual on the enemy, but no. Sanders ends it there, letting it resonate in O'Brien's mind, just as a true war story does when told correctly. This is exactly the principle described by O'Brien to the reader immediately after with the words "You can tell a true war story by the way it never seems to end. Not then, not ever" (72). In explaining this principle so immediately after clearly utilizing it himself, O'Brien cleverly drives the notion deep into the reader's mind. For me personally, the abrupt ending threw me off at first, but after reading the explanatory line, I only had to glance back up a single paragraph, and then I understood. And "It hit me hard" is the epitome of an understatement in this case.

Throughout this chapter (look at the thread name), O'Brien explains the key principles to be followed when telling a war story in its truest form. Identify and briefly analyze one instance in which O'Brien follows one of these principles with one of his own short, intermittent stories within the chapter. Additionally, describe the impact that your chosen impact had on you as the reader considering the use of one of the principles.

O'Brien's shifting of time period and perspective appears to me as a sort of attempt to connect different facets of the narrator's life back to his time in the war. For instance, while reminiscing 20 years later as a writer, he mentions lessons he's learned as well as other things he took away from his time in Vietnam. In any case, I personally found it a bit odd at first and thought that it suddenly disrupted the scenery, but in hindsight, O'Brien's apparent motive behind it makes it make sense.

Tim O'Brien shifts between first and third person, as well as the past vs the present (aka the time of writing) as the chapters change. What might he be trying to accomplish in doing this? Do you find it confusing or annoying as a reader to be suddenly thrown into a whole different setting, even if it is only for a few pages?