My Reaction to Vowell's essay

While I was reading Sarah Vowell's essay, The Partly Cloudy Patriot, I appreciated how she used sarcasm to make her essay a bit light-hearted.  Even though the essay was about serious topics.  I ended up finding the essay very enjoyable to read.  However, it was not only the sarcastic tone alone that made it so enjoyable, it actually made me think about the history, the current events, and the politics of not only this country, but the entire world.

In this blog, there is actually only one particular section in the essay that I am willing to write about.  That section is when Vowell has a conversation with "the record collectors of Bosnia" (Vowell 1061).  When I read this brief narrative, I realized Vowell included it in order to prove some point.  That point is that there is actually a fine line between patriotism created from appreciating culture and patriotism that leads "to exclusion, hate, and murder" (Vowell 1062).  The Bosnian record collectors seem to denounce any sign of nationalism as being evil.  They do this because they had (possibly) witnessed a civil war in Yugoslavia.  When Vowell tells the record collectors of her thoughts of Memphis, she seems to say that nationalism does not always can lead to horrible violence.  She even says that when she thinks about the musicians "who had walked its streets", she "was proud to feel...patriotic" (Vowell 1062).  As I read her feelings of Memphis, I realized that Vowell is trying to say that nationalism can exist without violence.

Showdown!: Tim O'Brien vs. Jeannette Walls!!!!

On Tuesday (which was September 13th), we were discussing how The Things They Carried blurs the line between fact and fiction.  Our discussion had actually reminded me of my own thoughts of a different book we have discussed in class.  If you haven't already guessed what that book is (by just reading the title of this post), I shall tell you it is The Glass Castle.  The reason why I mention the memoir is because I have been questioning the verisimilitude of that book since our discussion on Tuesday.

Before I write about how our discussion on The Things They Carried changed my views on The Glass Castle, I would want to mention how I felt about both books when I first read them.  I had initially thought The Glass Castle was an excellent memoir.  I was appalled to see Jeannette and her siblings suffer from the consequences of their parents' actions.  I was also impressed by Walls's writing style merely because helped me understand the unique plot clearly (even though it was painful to read).  As for The Things They Carried, I initially thought the book was only a fictional portrayal of Tim O'Brien's experiences in the Vietnam War.  In other words, I thought that the book was mainly about the terrors of war. (I managed to enjoy it anyway).  However, since our discussion on O'Brien's novel, my perceptions of both books changed.  I began to think negatively of The Glass Castle and view The Things They Carried more than just a war story.

Our discussion on Tuesday had opened my mind to how people can tell a story that is claimed to be true, but could have a little bit of fiction in it.  It also made me think that Tim O'Brien probably managed to add some truth of himself in The Things They Carried.  The reason why I thought this was because of a particular chapter in the book called "The Ghost Soldiers".  In the chapter, Tim (the character) describes how he "wanted to hurt Bobby Jorgenson the way he hurt me" (O'Brien 191).  Tim actually admits he had a grudge against Bobby for improperly treating his wound.  Tim claims that he had entered the war as "a quiet thoughtful sort of person" (O'Brien 190).  He then tells that after "seven months in the [war]...[he had] turned mean inside" (O'Brien 190).  Tim admits that the war had changed him from being a reasonable man to someone "capable of evil" (O'Brien 191).  He is admitting his own flaws as he narrates the chapter.  This made me wonder if O'Brien (the author) had added a bit of his own flaws into the narrator.  I had this thought because the flaws of Tim O'Brien (the character) made him seem more realistic and believable.  In other words, he seemed more human.  In fact, if I never knew The Things They Carried was fictional, I would've thought it was a memoir simply because the narrator admits his flaws.  As a result, I had considered the possibility that O'Brien (the author) added some truth of his own personality in the book by making it the narrator's own personality.  (I could be wrong though).

As for The Glass Castle, I began to realise (after the discussion on Tuesday) that Jeannette Walls probably did not tell the entire truth in the memoir.  This realization sprung from the observation that Walls presents too few flaws of herself.  In fact, she rarely commits anything that is evil (except stealing a watch, but she does return it).  I also noticed that Walls mentions of how she got good grades in school, escort a poor boy to his home, and get a successful career in journalism.  In other words, Walls seems to only include her accomplishments rather than her flaws.  That made her seem like a robot to me.  She just seemed less human than Tim O'Brien (the character) was.  This concept had made me question the verisimilitude of the memoir.  I wondered if Walls had simply left out her flaws because she was too embarrassed to write about them.  I am not implying that Jeannette Walls is a narcissist.  I just think Walls was perhaps either too afraid about revealing her own flaws or just failed to find any flaws in herself.  Whatever the reason for the exclusion of flaws, I now find it hard to think The Glass Castle as a completely accurate autobiography.    I find it hard to believe Jeannette Walls is human (not literally of course).  I find it hard to not think about how Walls could have created fictional facts in the memoir.  (This does not mean I excessively hate The Glass Castle.  I still manage to appreciate Walls's concise writing style.  I also appreciate how there are complex, thought-provoking themes revolving around some of the other people mentioned in the book, especially the mother and father).

Ever since our discussion on The Things They Carried, I began to think about what exactly makes a story believable.  I now think that the answer to that problem is that in order to make a believable story, the author will have to admit flaws in the main protagonist.  This especially applies to autobiographies because the author would have to admit his or her own flaws to make their novel seem truthful to the reader.  However, even if an author does make a story realistic, it does not mean that story is true (and vice versa).  For instance, I would've believed The Things They Carried was a true story because the narrator's flaws made him seem so realistic.    Also, if I never knew The Glass Castle was a memoir, I probably would have thought it was fictional because Jeannette seemed to be too perfect.  Regardless of how true a story seems to be, there always is a chance that fictional facts are included in that story.