Of Third-Person Narration In The Things They Carried By Tim O Brien

Tim O’Brien’s use of third-person limited omniscient narration in “The Things They Carried” allows him to objectively develop the characters based on the physical objects they carry and their conversational interactions with one another. His use of third-person point of view allows him to not only differentiate each of the grunts based on their individual values and roles, but also to illustrate their common mindset of obedience. Much like the actual historical context of the Vietnam War, most of the grunts maintain a light, humorous atmosphere throughout the story in order to cope with their fears, and O’Brien’s depiction of their antics helps humanize the soldiers despite their orders to destroy communities in Vietnam.

O’Brien’s description

Because O’Brien’s narration focuses on the development of Lieutenant Cross, there is a clear character transition in the story. After experiencing the death of a fellow soldier, Cross begins to feel the true weight of his leadership role. To describes the night that Cross wrestles with Ted Lavender’s death, O’Brien writes, “He tried not to cry. With his entrenching tool, which weighed five pounds, he began digging a hole in the earth. He felt shame. He hated himself. He had loved Martha more than his men, and as a consequence Lavender was now dead, and this was something he would have to carry like a stone in his stomach for the rest of the war” (O’Brien 107). Consequently, Cross vows to abandon his obsession with Martha, and his dramatic reaction is very reminiscent of many actual Vietnam soldiers’ mindset, as described by a poem from a Vietnam historical analysis by Barbara Tischler. The poem reads, “‘Dig it,’ they said, and I dug. ‘Shoot it,’ they said, and I shot. ‘Eat it,’ they said, and I ate. But then, god dammit, ‘Defend it,’ they said, and I died’” (Tischler 7). This poem makes a key point of many anti-war newspapers and protests of the time, and it highlights the “unwinnable nature” of the Vietnam War. Because of this historical knowledge, the shift in Lieutenant Cross’ behavior– despite its positive light in the story– is regretful and sad. His new dedication to the war and decision to replace his humorous and distracted nature with a hard exterior of obedience and order can be inferred not to ensure the platoon’s survival, but rather to simply change the atmosphere of the platoon. O’Brien’s illustration of this change marks a shift from the comradery of the soldiers to Lieutenant Cross’ burden of leadership– yet another weight to be carried by the