Defining Truth

Mary J. Oltarzewski, Rutgers University, Fall 2005

Assignment 1

Both Jon Krakauer and Tim O’Brien, in the assigned readings, stress the importance of trying to arrive at the truth of what happened to their central characters. In “Selections from Into the Wild,” Krakauer does a great deal of investigation in his attempt to determine the truth about why Chris McCandless felt the need to escape into the Alaskan wilderness, and why he died in the endeavor. Similarly, although “How to Tell a True War Story,” is actually a work of fiction, Tim O’Brien stresses repeatedly that he is seeking to arrive at the truth about what happened to him and his fellow soldiers during the Viet Nam War.

How do you define and understand the “truth”, in light of the truth that both Krakauer and O’Brien are trying to arrive at in their work? Does it mean the same thing to you as it does to either or both authors? Do you feel that one of them is more successful than the other in his attempt to arrive at the truth? Why or why not?

Assignment 2

Both “How to Tell a True War Story,” and “The Naked Citadel” are accounts of young men, who whether by choice or by obligation, are isolated from the rest of society in an unnatural fashion; both sets of men create their own rituals and cultures in response to the stress and isolation.

O’Brien addresses the stress by constantly revising and re-telling his account of the narrator’s experience, wondering if he “could ever get the story right,” (p.396); he finally concludes that “You can tell a true war story if you just keep on telling it.” Many of the Citadel cadets quoted in Faludi’s essay address stress differently: they resist change and cling to the same rituals and traditions, showing hostility and aggression toward any person or thing who threatens those traditions.

Once the men who have lived through these experiences leave the military or the Citadel, and return to the larger world, will either approach be more helpful in adjusting to society and living conventional lives? Is it healthy to “revise and re-tell” like O’Brien, or is it possible to defend traditions and rituals, like those of the Citadel, in a socially productive way?

Assignment 3

In “The Roots of Debate” Deborah Tannen states , “If you limit your view of a problem to choosing between two sides, you inevitably reject much that is true, and you narrow your field of vision to the limits of those two sides, making it unlikely you’ll pull back, widen your field of vision and discover the paradigm shift that will permit truly new understanding.” Tannen continues, “We need to use our imaginations and ingenuity to find different ways to seek truth and gain knowledge,” so that as students and readers, our understanding extends beyond the simple, dualistic, “only two sides to a question” method of debate.

In the three assigned essays, by what means have Tim O’Brien, Susan Faludi, or Deborah Tannen attempted to use their “imaginations or ingenuity to find different ways to seek truth and gain knowledge?” If you believe that any of the three authors was significantly more successful in helping you, the reader, to “seek truth and gain knowledge,” explain why, relying on specific examples of the author’s language and content to support your preference. If you believe that any of the three authors was significantly LESS successful in helping you, the reader, to “seek truth and gain knowledge,” explain why, pointing to specific aspects of the author’s language and content that you believe may have impeded his or her message.

Back to top

Back to Sample Sequences