The Human Conditioned

In my opinion, this book is about more than just the human condition. While it definitely explores the emotional and mental range of the human race, I think that it takes the analysis to a different arena. Rather than looking at the experiences that connect us, it focuses more on the uniquely horrifying experiences that alienate us. It boldly lays before the reader the affect of war on O’Brien and—through O’Brien’s observations and assumptions—his comrades. I am not saying this as some simplistic, anti-war shpeel. In my personal view, war is necessary in certain situations. Similarly, I am not condemning the Vietnam War, I would have to do a good deal more research and thinking before completely condemning anything. I am merely expressing a respect for O’Brien’s attempt to express the inexpressible. It is his tale of what happens to the human spirit under the ghastliest of conditions—the human conditioned. Even if what he is saying is not true, it is, in my opinion, real.

This collection of stories has many different themes. They weave in and out of each other, winding themselves up just to unravel a second later. (Goodness, I’m feeling a tad lyrical tonight!) But, to me, one of the most prevalent themes is that of communication. In both The Things They Carried and Love, Lieutenant Jimmy Cross struggles to decipher the feelings of Martha, his long-time, unrequited love. The main topic of How To Tell A True War Story revolves around truth as it seems v. truth as it happened and the battle between the two (as well as the battle between the storyteller and the storylistener). Spin, Enemies, Friends, and The Dentist contain some interesting opinions on how communication works, as well.

I realize that I’m leaving that topic a bit too soon and that the one I’m about to add is going to seem bit undeveloped. That’s because it is. But I haven’t quite figured out what I want to do with either of them yet. So, I will unsatisfactorily state that irony plays a major role in all of the stories thus far as well, in my estimation.

That is all.

The Self-Hating Metanarrative :)

May I be frank for a minute? Cool.

I don’t know if Postmodernism makes me want to laugh, cry, or kick it in the shins. No offense to any believers out there (Really. Any ragging I do on PM is aimed at the ideas themselves, not necessarily the people who believe in them.), but it is one of the most interesting and ridiculous schools of thought I have ever encountered! It amazes me that a perspective that so thoroughly contradicts itself can be taken so seriously. I mean, if a theory is dethroned by its own definition (if you can call it that; I suppose you can get away with a lot when you claim that definitions are terrible and mean and refuse to take on one. But really, it does.), shouldn’t that raise some red flags??  Postmodernism says that metanarratives are bad, trying to rule human thought/behavior and only leading to the exclusion of other ideas. In fact, we can see from the picture on Mr. Dominguez’s blog prompt that some people are so convicted by this Postmodernist claim that they went out to protest and broadcast their beliefs. But wait a second, if you go out saying, “DOWN WITH ALL METANARRATIVES”(which is what a sign reads in the background), then aren’t you actually promoting Postmodernism as a superior world-view that should dominate all others??

Or, let’s say you don’t protest, but just believe in Postmodernism. Sorry, but the contradictions are still there, I’m afraid. You simply can’t get away from the fact that Postmodernism is a metanarrative, a perspective on life that, if adopted in your life, would proceed to exclude all others. I have heard people argue that because PM admits this itself (See Postmodernism For Beginners p.33), somehow that make’s this okay. Wait, what??? If you’ll forgive me for getting defensive for a moment, can someone please explain to me how if any average Joe off the street flips through a Bible he’s never really studied and points out two verse that “contradict” themselves (completely ignoring context, the meaning in the original language, and common sense), it is further “proof” that Christianity is nonsense; but if Postmodernism contradicts itself in its root claims, it somehow further “proves” that postmodernism is the way, the truth, and the light? The poet Maya Angelou once said, “If someone tells you who they are, believe them.” Well, I put that forth today that if a theory tells you that it’s bulls***, believe it.

All this being said, there are certain aspects of Postmodernism that I agree with, and I do not regret in the least studying it this past semester. I think it is very important to be aware of the fact that not everyone has the same opinions, that the mix of mutual and exclusive experiences in our lives gives each of us a unique world view, and, to that end, that our own opinions and views are shaped by our experiences and are not necessarily the universal truth we presume them to be. But the Postmodernist pill, as a whole, is just too much for me to swallow.

Maybe I’m taking this too seriously, but I guess I just expect largely adopted central perspectives to make sense. :/