How does The Things They Carried subvert the preconceived notion of soldiers fighting in

Vietnam as violent and immoral?

Word count: 1768

 Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried is a collection of short stories following the men

of the Alpha company and primarily the protagonist of the author’s name. O’Brien, having

served in the Vietnam war, tells the experiences of war through the perspective of “Tim” and

fellow soldiers. Following the Vietnam war, veterans faced wide criticism for their involvement,

largely by anti-war opponents. To many, Vietnam veterans represented everything wrong with

the war, and were perceived as murderous, immoral and figures of mass destruction (Dean 4,

Kohn 9). War films throughout the 1970s often reflected this notion of American soldiers,

depicting them as “genocidal marauders” (McMahon 22). As such, one might read The Things

They Carried expecting descriptions of violence and massacre. Instead, O’Brien subverts this

expectation by exploring soldiers’ vulnerability and humanity in the war. In The Things They

Carried, O’Brien subverts the preconceived notion of soldiers fighting in Vietnam as violent and

immoral. He does this through depicting the fear driving soldiers to take part in the war, showing

soldiers’ remorseful and compassionate attitude towards their enemies and portraying acts of

violence as responses of psychological distress.

O’Brien deconstructs the notion of soldiers fighting in Vietnam as inhumane and violent

by depicting the fear driving soldiers to take part in the war. He does this first by establishing

soldiers as victims of societal pressure forced to join the war. The protagonist, Tim, recalls being

drafted at twenty-one years old to “fight a war [he] hated” (O’Brien 38). He “was no soldier”,

“hated Boy Scouts'' and “didn’t know a rifle from a slingshot” (39). He compares his expectation

of war to “Boy Scouts'' and compares firearms to “slingshots'', which both act as symbols of

adolescence. Tim’s naive outlook represents the true youth and innocence of men being drafted

to fight in the war. These were not bloodthirsty men; they were children who were confused and

reluctant to fight. When Tim considers fleeing to Canada to evade the draft, he feels an
“irrational and powerful force… resisting… like a weight pushing [him] toward the war” (49).

He feels “paralyzed” (41). O’Brien characterises the humiliation that Tim fears as a physical

force controlling him, depicting the power of fear of embarrassment pressuring men to partake in

the war. Tim admits to submitting to “a sense of shame… hot, stupid shame” (49). Sensory

descriptions of the “hot” shame that Tim feels substantialises the embarrassment of failing his

social obligations that he can’t ignore. Tim imagines “all those eyes on [him]”, people calling

him a “Traitor!... Turncoat! Pussy!” (59). He describes it as “a kind of schizophrenia” (44). The

judgement of being a “pussy” for avoiding the war associates men’s reluctance to fight with a

loss of masculinity, which they feel obliged to preserve by going to war. Being labelled as a

“traitor” and “turncoat” shows not just the embarrassment men would face for avoiding war but

also hostility from society. Tim’s imaginative fabrications of these judgements send him into a

psychological spiral, showing the power of the societal pressure many men faced when drafted.

As such, instead of willingly going to fight, many went out of social obligation.

O’Brien further describes the fear of death driving soldiers during their time in Vietnam.

As Tim recalls the first man he killed, Tim states that he “had no thoughts about killing” and

simply threw the grenade “to make him go away - just evaporate” because “[he] was terrified”

(132-133). As Tim imagines the man “evaporating” rather than dying, Tim didn’t act to kill but

rather out of his fear of the man’s presence and of his own death. O’Brien thus subverts the

notion that soldiers fought with murderous intent by demonstrating that they were driven by fear.

Tim describes how he had “already thrown the grenade before telling [himself] to throw it”

(133), and that it was “entirely automatic” (132). Tim’s actions were “automatic” thus out of his

control and predetermined by his survival instinct, demonstrating the power of fear of death

driving soldiers’ actions. As the grenade was thrown, the young man “seemed to jerk upward as
if pulled by invisible wires” (133). The “invisible wires” suggest that Tim’s actions against the

man were involuntary and rather controlled by another force - his fear of death.

O’Brien portrays soldiers’ guilt and remorse over the deaths of their enemies and

involvement in the war, therefore subverting the perspective of soldiers as ruthlessly murderous.

In the short story Good Form, Tim recalls watching a man die near My Khe. Although he “did

not kill him”, he feels as though his “presence was guilt enough” (179). Despite Tim not literally

killing the man, he views his presence thus involvement as figuratively killing him. Tim even

admits to entirely making up the story, showing that even without witnessing the deaths

firsthand, he feels the same guilt and remorse for his involvement in the war. Through this

O’Brien portrays the burden of guilt and shame many soldiers bear just because of their

involvement in the war, contradicting the notion of soldiers’ violent hostility.

The portrayal of soldiers’ guilt and remorse is emphasised in The Man I Killed and

further subverts the notion of soldiers’ cruelty and ruthlessness. Immediately after Tim kills the

young soldier, he extensively considers the possible life the young man had lived and the life that

Tim had ended. He imagines the young man as “a scholar” who “liked books” and “wanted

someday to be a teacher of mathematics” (124-125). By imagining the man’s passions and

aspirations, Tim gives the man an identity beyond being an enemy killed on the battlefield. Tim

fixates on the man’s “dainty” body being “small and frail” (128). He imagines that schoolboys

“teased him about how pretty he was” and his “woman’s walk” (127). Imagery of the man’s

“small and frail” body depicts his physical weakness and vulnerability on the battlefield that Tim

perceives. Tim associates the man’s “dainty” features of being “pretty” and walking like a

“woman” with femininity, further portraying the man’s weakness and misplacement fighting as a

soldier. Thus Tim views the man as a victim of war, rather than a threatening enemy that
deserved to die. Kiowa urges Tim to “‘Stop staring’” (128), “‘pull [his] shit together’” and “‘talk

about it’” yet is met with no response as Tim continues to focus on the man’s features. The

structural interchange between Kiowa’s requests for Tim to open up and move forward and the

imagery of the man that Tim fixates on portrays Tim’s overwhelming guilt and inability to

process or accept his role in ending the man’s life.

O’Brien also conveys soldiers’ compassionate attitude and behaviour towards civilians in

Vietnam, subverting the notion of soldiers as immoral and destructive. When the platoon come

across the “almost abandoned” pagoda where a pair of monks stay, Kiowa and Dobbins believe

that setting up in the church “‘is all wrong’”(119). They remain in the pagoda for days before

their departure, with Dobbins “[handing] each of [the monks] a can of peaches and a chocolate

bar” (122). Although Dobbins and Kiowa disagree with invading the monks’ pagoda, they have

no choice but to stay with the platoon. Dobbins thus acts compassionately towards the monks to

make up for their selfish imposition. Dobbins believes that “‘all you can do is be nice’” and

“‘treat them decent’” (123). Ironically, even though the soldiers have committed far worse

atrocities on the battlefield, Dobbins and Kiowa still believe in respecting the monks and their

church. Dobbins’ view that acting decently is “all you can do” implies the lack of control

soldiers have in avoiding larger-scale wrongdoings, driving them to act morally in situations they

can control, through their behaviour towards innocent civilians.

In certain instances, The Things They Carried includes moments of soldiers’ intentional

violence. Yet, O’Brien portrays these actions as products of psychological distress rather than

because of soldiers’ inherent cruelty, thus subverting this notion. Outside of Than Ke, “Ted

Lavender was shot in the head on his way back from peeing” (12) while Lieutenant Cross is

occupied fantasizing about Martha. Cross then leads the men “into the village of Than Ke” where
“they burned everything” (16). Lavender’s abrupt death while going to the bathroom unforgiving

randomness of death that soldiers face. Dobbins “[sees] no moral” in his death, showing its

arbitrariness that soldiers struggle to understand. To Cross, Lavender’s death was “something he

would have to carry like a stone in his stomach for the rest of the war” (16). Cross’ guilt over

failure to protect Lavender because of his distraction is compared to a “stone”, thus depicted as a

heavy psychological burden he must bear. Thus, the men were driven to destroy the Than Ke

village by their shock from Lavender’s sudden death and Cross’ unbearing guilt, rather than by

cruelty.

Rat Kiley’s violent behaviour is also portrayed as a response to psychological distress,

rather than cruelty. Following Curt Lemon’s sudden death, his best friend, Rat, viciously shoots

at a baby water buffalo. He shoots not “to kill” but “to hurt” (75). The harm Rat inflicts on the

buffalo represents the same harm he endures following Lemon’s death. Just as Rat doesn’t

attempt to fatally wound and “kill” the buffalo, Lemon’s death doesn’t physically wound Rat but

leaves him psychologically wrecked with grief. Rat “shot randomly, almost casually” in “quick

little spurts'' (79). Rat’s “random” and “casual” manner symbolises the same randomness of

death that soldiers are subject to at war, leaving soldiers such as Rat unable to cope with the

sudden deaths of their companions thus psychologically damaged. Afterwards “Rat Kiley was

crying” and “cradled his rifle” (76). Rat’s emotional expression of crying and irrational

behaviour of “cradling” his rifle depict the extent of his grief and anger. As such, Rat’s actions

are depicted as driven by psychological distress rather than by cruelty.

Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried offers a powerful insight into soldiers’

vulnerability and humanity through their experiences in the war. Published in the midst of the

media narrating American soldiers’ immoral violence and cruelty, The Things They Carried is an
important piece of literature that calls on readers to deconstruct their view of soldiers’ actions

and characters and consider the many elements soldiers must face during war. O’Brien reveals

soldiers’ vulnerability and humanity through depicting the fear men face of social contempt and

of death and portraying soldiers’ remorseful attitude and compassionate behaviour towards their

enemies. He conveys their acts of violence as responses of psychological distress, rather than

driven by cruelty. Thus, O’Brien subverts the preconceived notion of soldiers fighting in

Vietnam as violent and immoral.

 Works Cited

Dean, Eric T. “The Myth of the Troubled and Scorned Vietnam Veteran.” Journal of

American Studies, vol. 26, no. 1, Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp. 59–74,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27555590.

Kohn, Richard H. “The Social History of the American Soldier: A Review and

Prospectus for Research.” The American Historical Review, vol. 86, no. 3,

[Oxford University Press, American Historical Association], 1981, pp. 553–67,

https://doi.org/10.2307/1860370.

McMahon, Robert J. “Contested Memory: The Vietnam War and American Society,

1975–2001.” Diplomatic History, vol. 26, no. 2, Oxford University Press, 2002, pp.

159–84, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24914305.

O'Brien, Tim. The Things They Carried. Houghton Mifflin, 1990.