Name : Natasha Puetz
Some Questions for Tim O’Brien’s “How to Tell a True War Story”
1) How would you describe the plot of this story? Remember that “plot” is the sequence
or order or structure of events. Is this story’s plot chronological or linear? Episodic?
Circular? A montage? What plot devices is this writer using? Flashbacks? Framing?
Multiple, parallel, or intersecting plots?
We’ve only just touched on plot in our class discussions so far, but do as well as you
can with this question. The story obviously does not have a traditional plot—see what
you can come up with.
The structure could be best described as Episodic because it has two stories that are tied
together by a similar place and purpose. They both took place in Vietnam and they both
were used to help describe how to tell a true war story. The plot devices were probably
intersecting plot and flash back. The two storied that are fully told share the same
purpose and area. The flash back is used to tell a story that happened before the second
on e was finished.
2) Thinking as a fiction writer, and considering the kinds of choices writers must
inevitably make, WHY go with the kind of plot you’ve described above? Why would
a writer chose such a structure for his/her narrative?
They would probably choose that particular structure to help give many examples of the
point he is trying to get across. He used multiple stories to show what makes a war story
true instead of telling us one story and hoping we get it from just the one example.
3) Who are the story’s main characters? What is the main character’s chief form of pain?
What’s his issue? Who is the main character?
The main characters are the narrator and Sanders because they told the two main stories.
The narrator’s pain is getting people to understand what a true war story is and to listen
when he tells his story. His issue, I think, is trying to cope with what happened so long
ago because he did not cope with it then. The narrator is a soldier who is severely
traumatized by what happened and is troubled with how people take his story.
4) The title of this piece suggests that the story will ultimately explain or give
instructions for telling a true war story. So—how DOES one tell a true war story?
What are the particular difficulties, according to this narrator, in telling the events of
war? What is this narrator saying about “truth” and how we understand it?
One can tell a true war story by telling a story that has such an important purpose that it
impacts the reader and they are able to take something away from the story. He uses the
example that you know a war story is true when you ask the question “Is it true?” and the
answer matters. The difficulties are getting the people who don’t listen to “get it”. As
long as the “truth” is important and means something, weather it is true or not dose not
really matter.
5) How important is setting in this story?
For the simple reason that it is educating us on how to tell a true war story, yes, it is
important. However, the message about truth could be wrapped up in any setting and
have the same effect.
6) What are some interesting, strange, moving, thought-provoking, or otherwise
resonant details of the setting?
I thought it was very odd how unattached the other soldier was when they peeled the
soldier off the tree after he stepped in a land mine. I guess it makes since why they are
still haunted by it all these years later because they did not deal with it when it happened.
I also thought that what makes a true war story true is the answer to the question you ask
was very interesting.
7) Why does the writer include the details you identified in #7 above? Out of all the
possible details in that particular setting, why has he allowed us to see (or hear, or
smell) THOSE details? What is the effect of those details on the reader? Again: read
like a writer.
I think it shows a soldier’s life and what they have to deal with after the war is over.
They are obviously perturbed with people who do not get it and do not listen. They
struggle with sights they saw back then and never dealt with.
2