Final Thoughts on "In Our Time"

Prior to "Hills Like White Elephants," I only knew Ernest Hemingway as the famous writer of The Old Man and the Sea so In Our Time was my first full experience of Hemingway. 

I have to admit, I didn't enjoy it very much. It felt more like a hodgepodge than a connected series of stories like The Things They Carried. I understand Hemingway's erratic ordering of the stories is representative of the disjointed limbo the world was in post-World War I, but it was often very confusing to follow along.

Hemingway's signature flat prose in and of itself wasn't an issue for me. Though it's not exciting to read, it draws attention to the action by eliminating the distraction of descriptors. The lack of captivating plot to validate it, however, was what disinterested me during most of the book.

There were three stories that I really liked: "Indian Camp," "The Battler," "My Old Man." I found these particular pieces much more compelling than the others. "Indian Camp" featured the grim but significant reality that suffering is a part of both life and death. "The Battler" was driven by the entertaining backstory of arguably the most intriguing character (Ad Francis). And of course, "My Old Man" featured a breath of fresh air in the form of an engaging, non-robotic narrator.

In Our Time has historical significance when it comes to short stories. I respect that. It just wasn't my cup of tea. How'd you like it? 

The "True" War Story

I've always felt when it comes to war stories, the most important aspect was factual truth. I thought real soldiers and veterans would be disgusted with people writing imitation experiences so I was really surprised to see that Fire and Forget is comprised of fictional stories from actual people involved in Iraq & Afghanistan. Now, as we finish up The Things They Carried, I can definitely say I was wrong.

Interspersed among the story chapters are the ones where Tim O'Brien breaks the literary fourth wall to tell us about his writing. "How To Tell a True War Story," "Notes," and "Good Form" all discuss the meaning of truth in the context of war. In "How to Tell a True War Story," O'Brien essentially states that the purpose of a war story is not to convey a message or moral but to invoke a genuine, significant feeling or emotion. In "Notes," he reveals that he took a "true" story from one of his friends and edited to fit a storyline in his book only to realize that it wasn't right. In "Good Form," we learn that O'Brien didn't actually kill anyone so "The Man I Killed" reflects on how he felt as if he had killed the soldier. He explains that there are two types of truth: story and happening. Story truth is far more important for war stories.

In short, a "true" war story is one that incorporates false factual information to give the overall story more truth. Now the question is how does the authenticity of the stories affect your impressions of them? Part of me wishes O'Brien had cut out all of his analysis and let us wonder which stories were real and which weren't while the other part is glad to get some insight and background knowledge on them. What do you think?