In my estimation, the basic goal of Jim Neilson’s essay is to prove that The Things They Carried, along with other American Vietnam War Narratives, is so centered around the author’s desire to reconcile himself to his individual experience in Vietnam that his narrative completely ignores any political, social, or moral potential for message. Neilson sets about to prove this point by analyzing the author’s own state of mind, as well as how the postmodern worldview (which alleges to “provide space for individuals, groups, and beliefs previously marginalized by the metanarratives that comprise the Western tradition” and is prevalent throughout Things) actually causes the narrative to retreat into itself and focus “on literary and epistemological preoccupations at the expense both of a Vietnamese perspective and of any broader historical/political understanding.”
The insights I gained from this article and Jim Nielson’s criticisms for Things are virtually one in the same. Neilson put into words a tight, gray ball of frustration that has been growing in the back of my mind for months. I have already explained in the blog two weeks ago how postmodernism contradicts itself in one of its core assertions that metanarratives are totalitarian constructs that seek to dominate other schools of thought and should be rejected by society (this is clearly a metanarrative as it suggests that the world dump all other perspectives in favor of a postmodern one; that the postmodern theory is “true.” [FAIL]). However, there are other aspects of postmodernist theory that never quite sat right with me, but I couldn’t explain why. Well, this article certainly helped me find my words! One especially annoying aspect was postmodernism tendency to complicate issues by imposing questions (a valid and, imo, intellectually honest exercise), but then failing to offer any answers “since answers to questions…require facts that are knowable, history that is objective, and truths that are verifiable.” Or, pm will offer many possible answers/solutions, while never making distinctions between or endorsing any of them. Neilson reinforces this tendency by inserting an excerpt from Things: “when a man died, there had to be blame…You could blame the war. You could blame the idiots who made the war. You could blame Kiowa for going to it…You could blame the enemy. You could blame the mortar rounds. You could blame people who were too lazy to read a newspaper, who were bored by the daily body counts, who switched channels at the mention of politics. You could blame whole nations. You could blame God. You could blame the munitions makers or Karl Marx or a trick of fate or an old man in Omaha who forgot to vote.” (198-99) Now to hopefully gain a little perspective on this approach, let’s look at a separate, smaller-scale example. Let’s say that I am always sleepy during the week (lulz). Would this chronic exhaustion have more to do with the fact that I consume too many simple sugars during the week—which cause sugar highs and lows—or would it have more to do with the fact that I get less than 5 hours of sleep per night? In the same way, Neilson counters O’Brien’s assertion by saying that “some causes are more proximate and explanatory than others. Robert McNamara [US Secretary of Defense, 1961-68] is more responsible for deaths in Vietnam than an old man in Omaha who forgets to vote”, in the same way that my getting 5 hours of sleep is more of a factor to my fatigue than eating white rice instead of brown (although, for the record, I love brown rice). Postmodernism, to me, is often a rejection of common sense and logic like this. There are many factors, sides, and influencers in different situations—especially the controversial ones—and I believe postmodernisms recognition of that is it’s sole virtue. (After all, the denial of the man in Omaha and my eating too many simple carbs are genuine factors in their respective situations) Unfortunately, postmodernism merely acknowledges complexities and then retreats into itself to begin the unhelpful (if not destructive) cycle of circular reasoning, contradictions, and self-obsession. It does not try to sort through the data, to understand the world, to decipher the truth through logical deductions—it runs and hides in its panicked, little, introspective shell. Postmodernism reinforces the need for logic while ignoring logic itself.
This might seem like somewhat of a subject change, but for me the previous discussion brings to mind postmodernism’s claim that there is no such thing as universal truth. Again, as with most postmodern claims, this theory is doomed from the very beginning because the claim that there is no such thing as universal truth is a claim to an universal truth: that there is no truth. I mean, honestly, these people are saying “the truth is that there is no truth.kthnxbye:P.” FAIL!! While, there is a lot of grey area in this world, some things are simply true and some things simply aren’t, and postmodernism, to me, seems unwilling to make even this concession. I think this is what Orwell was warning society about in 1984, a postmodern government that can rule the world by changing people’s views on reality and truth. I don’t know, maybe everyone else already understood this when we first read the novel, in which case, I’m sorry I’m late. But I digress. My basic point with this whole shpeel is that logic shows me that our universe is designed to have metanarratives and universal truths, plain and simple. Any attempts to say otherwise immediately collapse on themselves. As to which metanarratives and truths are correct, well, now I’m getting dangerously close to theological territory. ;)
FIN. (In honor of the Olympics, eh? [Plus, I just like saying “fin.”])
P.S. Yeah, I know this is like an essay. Sry. :/
