Mary Anne Bell Character Analysis
In the novel The Things They Carried by Tim O’Brien, there are an abundance of themes that he uses to alter the aspects of the story. Whether it is the way he integrates metamorphosis into the characters’ lives, the loyalty and companionship between all of the men, or simply the way a war story is told. The character that seemed to be the boldest in this story was Mary Anne Bell. She went through so much change and transformation in one small excerpt of the novel. It seemed as though she lost her innocence and took on a new identity over time. Being Mark Fossie’s girlfriend, nobody was sure how to feel about her at first. When she got there, she was as innocent and sweet as can be. She was attractive with a bubbly personality and a happy
…show more content…
In order for anyone to make it through the traumatic experiences of war they must find trust and companionship within the people they abide with. Though it may not be easy for the men to admit, each of them had some sort of connection with each other. They all acted tough but in the situations they were put through they couldn’t afford to be enemies. For instance, Lee Strunk and Dave Jensen had a very interesting relationship. The pressure of the war influenced these two men from the same side to act violently toward one another. In some ways this relieved some of the tension that the war had put upon them. Jensen and Strunk did not attempt to fix their problems and this symbolizes just how the war breaks a person down mentally. They both wanted to seek revenge on one another. In the end, both of them take responsibility for their actions and are loyal to each other. They can’t afford to be anything less than loyal …show more content…
As Mitchell Sanders said, “All that matters is the raw material, the stuff itself, and you can’t clutter it up with your own half-baked commentary. What you have to do is trust your own story.” (pg.101) No matter if people believe it or not, it doesn’t change the truth or what you know happened. These stories are necessary and true. They must be told. This of course would be hard for the teller of the story. Rat Kiley explained it very well. “They’ll never understand any of this, not in a billion years. Try to tell them about it, they’ll just stare at you with those big round candy eyes. They won’t understand zip. It’s like trying to tell somebody what chocolate tastes like.” (pg.108) You have to make the person you’re telling the story to believe it, whether they like it or not. When the reader feels something just by hearing the story, it makes it seem and feel more true. The problem is, O’Brien blurs the lines between truth and fiction. The stories are not easily defined as one or the other. However, he does not lie; he simply switches up the meaning of telling the truth. Something as serious as a novel like this needs to be examined thoroughly. By paying close attention to the many themes explored in this book, you learn quite a bit. Transformations, companionships, and the importance of a true war story are just a few of the many things brought to the reader’s attention by this novel.
In order for anyone to make it through the traumatic experiences of war they must find trust and companionship within the people they abide with. Though it may not be easy for the men to admit, each of them had some sort of connection with each other. They all acted tough but in the situations they were put through they couldn’t afford to be enemies. For instance, Lee Strunk and Dave Jensen had a very interesting relationship. The pressure of the war influenced these two men from the same side to act violently toward one another. In some ways this relieved some of the tension that the war had put upon them. Jensen and Strunk did not attempt to fix their problems and this symbolizes just how the war breaks a person down mentally. They both wanted to seek revenge on one another. In the end, both of them take responsibility for their actions and are loyal to each other. They can’t afford to be anything less than loyal …show more content…
As Mitchell Sanders said, “All that matters is the raw material, the stuff itself, and you can’t clutter it up with your own half-baked commentary. What you have to do is trust your own story.” (pg.101) No matter if people believe it or not, it doesn’t change the truth or what you know happened. These stories are necessary and true. They must be told. This of course would be hard for the teller of the story. Rat Kiley explained it very well. “They’ll never understand any of this, not in a billion years. Try to tell them about it, they’ll just stare at you with those big round candy eyes. They won’t understand zip. It’s like trying to tell somebody what chocolate tastes like.” (pg.108) You have to make the person you’re telling the story to believe it, whether they like it or not. When the reader feels something just by hearing the story, it makes it seem and feel more true. The problem is, O’Brien blurs the lines between truth and fiction. The stories are not easily defined as one or the other. However, he does not lie; he simply switches up the meaning of telling the truth. Something as serious as a novel like this needs to be examined thoroughly. By paying close attention to the many themes explored in this book, you learn quite a bit. Transformations, companionships, and the importance of a true war story are just a few of the many things brought to the reader’s attention by this novel.