What Really is the Truth?
While the story “Good Form” was one of the shortest and
simplest, I feel it perfectly summed up what truth means to O’Brien in his
stories. He said, “I want you to feel
what I felt. I want you to know why
story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth” (171). O’Brien goes on to tell the story about the
man he witnessed die, but then says the “story-truth” is that he killed the
man. I believe that in some cases, such
as this one, emotions speak louder than the facts. What a person feels in the moment is his or
her truth, and for the sake of sympathy and emotion, the “happening-truth” does
not seem to matter all that much. With
this comes a fine line, though. To what
extent can a person believe a story solely on the emotions of the storyteller? Do you not question
the validity of the story because the storyteller pours so much emotion into
it? When O’Brien told the story about
the man he killed, I never questioned whether or not he actually killed the man
or just felt some blame for the man’s death.
In actuality, O’Brien did not kill that man, but he felt as though he
did, and that is the truth we were given and believed.
Going back
to the quote, I want to also focus on the first sentence: “I want you to feel
what I felt.” As in most stories, the author or storyteller
wants you to feel a certain emotion and wants you to put yourself in his or her
shoes. In order to do this, O’Brien
created a new truth that was his version, but it worked in making the reader
feel what he felt. The story-truth is definitely truer than the happening-truth in O'Brien's stories because his emotions mattered more than the actual facts. In stories like these, the correct factual details have very little importance, and what really matters is the message and emotion O'Brien is able to share with the reader.
Comments
Post a Comment