I’ve taken the liberty of recording my reading of it below. It’s quite short, but it will stick with you for a while. It did for me anyway.
[audio:good_form.mp3]
“Good Form” by Tim O’Brien
why “story-truth” is truer than “happening-truth”
We’ve been discussing, the relationship of truth and fiction in my writing classes lately. More specifically, we’ve been discussing the idea of truth in fiction. It can be a tough sell, with students balking at my arguments, refusing to believe that there can be any legitimate truth to that which is so clearly labeled “fiction”–the graceful lie after all–that is until I share a piece by Tim O’Brien entitled “Good Form” from his collection The Things They Carried.
Jordan Withers says:
I feel that this passage of the story speaks the truth. Between the “Story Truth” and the “Happening Truth,” I can see the difference. The “Story Truth” was what the reader said it was, making me believe that the character was truely there by providing specific facts and details. This made the story seem more realistic in my opinion and invoked emotions. As for the “Happening Truth,” I felt it did not have the same impact that the ” Story Truth” did. The “Happening Truth” is still the truth, able to make a story based upon the events that occured, but if you do not change (or improve) certain aspects of the story, it will not be as impressive as the “Story Truth.” I guess what I am trying to say is that by providing more imagery, details,etc. to a “Happening Story,” you make it have more of an impact upon the reader and more interesting, overall creating a “Story Truth” story.
November 15, 2009 — 3:53 pm
Nicole Berlin says:
I feel that the story truth is just more exciting than the happening truth, and people tend to believe more in the story truth than the happening truth if the story truth isn’t embelished to the point of disbelief according to the preconceived ideas of society. In that which is truer? I think both are true, but happening truth is more true because the story teller doesn’t feel the need to embelish it to appeal to the curiousity and excitement of the listener, as is what happens is story truth.
November 15, 2009 — 10:55 pm
Laura Abbott says:
I think that the each form is, in ways, more true than the other. The “happening truth” is a timeline, a recalling of events, what happened, the feelings, the memory. But in ways, it doesn’t tell the whole story. Why is this memory important? What about that visual made you feel this way? How did this event change you? I think that this is where ‘Story-truth” comes in. It can explain these things in an easier way. We’ve all been explained something using a metaphor. We’ve all explained something with a metaphor – in a sense, I suppose in my opinion – the story truth is a way of /expanding/ the truth. It’s telling the raw truth, using a different method.
I like to say, “Yes, the action is important, but what really matters is the motive.” This is the same concept here; the action being the actual piece of writing and the motive being the emotion and meaning behind the writing. My opinion is that it’s not about what /really/ happened. It’s about the impression that writing is meant to leave behind, fictitious or not.
I also agree with Jordan – a story truth will often grab/hold your attention easier than a happening truth will.
November 15, 2009 — 11:20 pm
Angel Koyuyong says:
I was thinking that both versions of the story tell the truth. It’s just that in the happening-truth the story is seen from one point of view. When you tell the story, you’re reminded of what you saw and how you felt at the time. You already know its impact and its emotions because it’s your story. But, if the story is told through only clinical details, then the words fall victim to their denotations and connotations. Your listener will understand the ‘what’ but they won’t get the ‘why’. And that’s the important part.
November 17, 2009 — 2:19 am
Dani Radue says:
I feel there is a great difference of how Story Truth is way more effective then Happening Truth. To me Happening Truth in this passage seemed more of a distant thought or memory. In the Story Truth I could actually feel what the story teller felt. I pictured things a lot more clearly, and if you want to tell any kind of story at all, you need that clear picture. It’s still the truth in most aspected, and it completly beleiveable as long as you don’t bend the facts too far and extensivly.
November 23, 2009 — 8:17 pm
Whitney Freeman says:
I think they both are true, I just think that the “Story Truth” has more feeling and emotion to it. I feel like he was really there. I think it added more detail and he described the scene and feeling of being there so much better then just describing his throat and that the guy died in the “Happening Truth.” He went further in the “Story Truth” than the “Happening Truth.”
November 23, 2009 — 11:43 pm