The truth conveyed by this irony is that the story is probably exaggerated as it’s passed to O’Brien, and it is not what it actually happened. Contrast and Juxtaposition “The truths are contradictory”(80). Based on Tim O’Brien, many argue that war is grotesque, but war could also be beauty. Although war is not lovely because of all the killings and awful moments, it could also be beautiful. As O’Brien mentions, war is like a cancer under a microscope.
Civilians often assume that when someone joins the army and goes to war, he constantly fights in battles and accomplishes it in a heroic and honorable way. But what they fail to understand is the horrible killing and pointless taking of human life. In Ernest Hemingway’s “Soldier’s Home” the character Krebs in the story reveals the differences between the reality soldiers experience in war versus the illusion civilians back home assume about the soldiers ' experiences. While Tim O’Brien’s “The Man I Killed” and Kevin Tillman’s “After Pats Birthday” explain and point out the actualities and problems of war not being what it is made out to be. A great majority of the public believe when the soldiers leave to war they expect to be treated well and come back home as a hero.
Throughout The Red Badge of Courage, by Stephen Crane, Henry Fleming makes mistakes and has to relearn what he is capable of. His transgressions include running from a battle, abandoning a dying man, and lying to his comrades. Tim O’Brien defines what a true war story is in his book The Things They Carried, and states that, “A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior…” Although the youth makes many mistakes throughout The Red Badge of Courage, and many immoral acts are portrayed, it is not a true war story according to Tim O’Brien’s definition. To begin with, The Red Badge of Courage does not show an “absolute and uncompromising allegiance to obscenity and evil,” because throughout the novel, good deeds are shown, and Henry finds role models that are ideals of virtue in war.
Bierce subtly hints throughout the story about the folly of war and its destructions rather than its ability to solve disputes. Bierce believes that war is glorified by those who never fought, but it is truly deadly and destructive to the
People trusted the idealised version of the war and were enthusiastic in their efforts of enlisting in the war. However, when they were sent out into the midst of the war many of them realised the misconceptions they had and were led to believe. They became disillusioned as they realized that the war was much more brutal and horrific than they had previously believed. In All Quiet on the Western Front, Erich Remarque effectively comments on the horrors of war from Paul’s perspective, especially when Paul comments on injuries the soldiers endure and witness by stating “We see men go on living with the top of their skulls missing; we see soldiers go on running when both their feet have been shot away…Another man…with his guts spilling out over his hands as he holds them in.” (Remarque,
It provides a viscerally realistic portrayal of combat, a by turns uplifting and sad portrayal of the friendships and emotions shared by men under constant threat of death, and most of all a clear (at times to the point of heavy-handed) portrayal of what it means to be a good officer who leads from the front and seeks to get the utmost effort out of his men, while caring about their lives more than is own. This got me thinking a bit about what makes a novel "anti-war". Of the novels that I 've read which I 've heard described as "anti-war", the description often seems earned by conveying sentiments such as "combat is horrific", "war creates terrible destruction" and "doing violence wound even the victor". And yet, these don 't seem like ideas that are necessarily in the sense of "pacifist" or "believing that war is always worse than its alternative". They are incompatible with the claim "war is a positive good in and of itself", but one would have to be pretty appallingly deluded to think
“For thos who understand need no explanation, for those who don’t no explanationa is possible” This quote in Bill Edmonds’ talk based on his book “Torture, Trauma, Moral Injuries of War” was intriguing to me because to me, it clearly depicted the effect that war has. Unless you experience war, it is impossible to understand the how injurious and traumatic war is. In his talk he shared a personal story as a special operation. He discusses the horrible evil of war morality that hauns him till this day. The evils of the war eventually consumed him and haunted him.
I was being so negative and telling him all the bad things that happen to the soldiers here. All he had to say was, “What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.” (Paine 153) He said that we have come so far, and why would we stop now? Another soldier told us about another quote of Thomas Paine’s pamphlet “ the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph” I have heard this quote so many times, and I wondered, what’s so special about it? George Washington came in and said that same quote then he said to us, “If we get something too easily we let it go too easily. Let this not happen to us.” I then knew.
Pessimism and sorrow cohesive with war and malice lie in deception to create a ruse for innocent individuals. A Separate Peace is a pessimistic novel due its involvement with war, malice, and sorrow. This is due to its revolution around World War II, Gene’s malice towards Finny, and a murder caused by an unlikely source. The thought of war routinely forces sorrow like clothes given on Christmas, which brings sadness. The first reason why A Separate Peace is pessimistic is because it revolves around war, which is a time of death and sorrow.
What was once a lukewarm stance on the war turned into a fiery, passionate hatred for the war and anyone who agreed with it. He began to loathe even the people in his hometown; he “held them responsible.” He described his state of mind as a kind of schizophrenia, and his entire life revolved around the draft notice. Even the description of his workplace turned into an ambience of war, calling the tools he used “guns,” and discussing how the odor never left his skin, just like the thought of killing someone at war would never leave him. Tim became ashamed of his country, unsure of the USS maddox, unsure of what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin and unsure about the people leading the war. “The only certainty that summer was moral confusion.” Tim was an educated man and because the war did not add up in his mind, it made him uncertain, and even ashamed of his country.
Not only by being insubordinate but by sending lies back home, his actions provide an initial impression of immorality. Beyond this literal interpretation, Heller goes out of his way to ensure that the word “Death” is capitalized and stands out as a command. While Yossarian’s enthusiasm towards this dark word taints his jovial view of the situation, the emphasis on such a word juxtaposed next to the word “game” creates an ominous yet comedic tone. Heller creates a parallel between Yossarian and war. He sounds ridiculous; war sounds ridiculous.
The anonymous review that I read was on the nose when it said: “Voltaire seems indeed to have understood the opinion, which he has endeavored to ridicule, and the arguments by which it is supported in a very imperfect and confusing manner?” The key phrase in that was confusing manner. Voltaire was very confusing not only in his criticism but also in his writing of Candide. To me, it seemed that he just skipped around and didn’t really have a flowing storyline. But with his criticism the anonymous review said it best when it said “It is now certain either that I shall die tonight, or I shall not; if that I shall, I shall die tho’ I do not drink the poison: if that I shall not, I shall live tho’ I do drink it”. I read that and was immediately confused.
In “fighting for the wrong war”, O’Brien becomes a coward, and only in fighting for the right wars will he find his courage. In saying so, the war O’Brien desires to fight is not one of bloodshed and distraught, but that of reason, just, and knowledge. He “detested [others] blind, thoughtless, automatic acquiescence,” and held every individual at war responsible to God. “Politically naive,” but educated of the fundamentals of a war simply to stop Communist, O’Brien held the strong belief that fighting for a war that was undesired and not understood was intolerable. Although he survived the war, “It [was] not a happy ending,” as in the act of going to war, O’Brien depleted what “finited quantities” of courage he possessed.
“A good war story is not simply about blood and death. It examines war as a transformation in the lives of those affected.” Comment on this statement, making close reference to David Malouf’s Fly Away Peter. War is a subject that fascinates us all in many ways; our reasoning is usually out of pure curiosity as most of us have never been, although we know that war is hell on earth. Know one wants to read or watch a war story filled with blood and death, what a miserable way to spend your time, but it is just a fact about war that can not be ignored. Human transformation is what really appeals to us; it fuels our knowledge about things we do not understand fully, just like Jim Saddler does in “Fly Away Peter”, he chooses to go to war because he has a similar curious drive that motivates him.
I 'm not usually stunned by opinion regardless of how delusional the foundation of it is, but even the hardened polemist may wince at the vehement aimed at global warming skeptics / deniers. Debate is a wonderful thing if it is about interpretations surrounding water tight credible data; I crave for hard evidence - herewith, while seeking it the waters become murky and the rhetoric shifts onwards to comparisons you 'll never dream of... A war veteran 's letter illustrates this point with bells on. "Propaganda by global-warming skeptics and deniers remind me of 1944, when as an Army officer I saw living skeletons in striped pajamas. Horror stories about Nazi concentration camps suddenly rang true. I wondered how intelligent people could commit such atrocities.