Jim Neilson's Article

From what I could tell from the article is that Neilson is trying to argue that O'Brien's novel is "incapable of opposing the ongoing reconstruction of the war as an American tragedy." I remember discussing in class or maybe hearing it somewhere else that The Things They Carried is supposed to be a different representation of the Vietnam war, and do the opposite of Neilson's accusation of what the novel is incapable of. As far as I could tell, Neilson's argument was primarily focused on the way O'Brien wrote his novel and why he wrote it the way he did. One of the quotes used by Neilson was from Peter S. Prescott, "Messy wars, like the one we fought in Vietnam, lend themselves more readily to fragmented narratives." I think the gist of the argument centers around this prospect and the whole debate about truth and lies that we have discussed so often in class. That latter prospect became clear to me with this prospect that Neilson stated: "It is within this framework -- the belief that the war escapes understanding and representation and even makes us liars -- that O'Brien attempts to tell a true war story."

The most useful insight I found was actually his use of the novel. Yes, the argument was very eyeopening on a different view of the novel, but I really liked how he used the novel for evidence; connecting different quotes from separate parts in the novel and using them appropriately. You can really tell that he thought out his structure and made sure is point got across.

One criticism Neilson makes is evident in this comment, “the board of directors of Dow Chemical are more blameworthy than people who switched channels at the mention of politics. O'Brien cannot make such seemingly obvious distinctions because, according to the logic of postmodernism, to do so is to endorse a naive and dangerous positivism. And so he is left with an assortment of equally plausible (and equally false) explanations.” I think the point Neilson makes is true. O’ Brien could have done a better job on taking his stance, but instead he takes his stance in a vague manner; perhaps because the war itself and the other issues of the surrounding time were vague.