Myles A.

Gosmon @104218 Carpenter Summary

Carpenter believes that the expression of postmodernism will have a different affect on

generations to come. Carpenter accounts Tim Obriens loose association with facts, as a new and interesting way of presenting a war Novel. Carpenter writes He also mentions If I Die in a Combat Zone creating a point of intertextuality that further confuses fact and fiction. He describes Obrien and those that practice this post modernistic style as given the Vietnam War an individual identity shown through the perspective of someone who can be anyone. This way of telling a war story personalizes the account for the reader and gives him/her a subjective archival of actual events offering a sexier level of credulity than an autobiography may have. The explanation of the post modernist is relative, and the authors immerse themselves within the blur of fact and fiction to make wars relativism personal and believable for the reader. Carpenter recounts Obrien as stating, So I am saying to you that after each battle each soldier will have a different story to tell, vastly different stories, and than when a war is ended it is as there have been a million wars, or as many wars as there were soldiers. This way of expression challenges the old way of creating a war narrative. In the past a few agreed upon ideals, by reader and author, were established in order for the reader to absorb what the author was providing. The Vietnam War was different in that it never had a consensus opinion on almost anything. This approach is what Carpenter believes bore the post modernistic way of expression. Carpenter even argues that to classify these types of text is a disservice to their work, as it is contrasted against the other texts it is trying to be separate from. Carpenter uses a quote from Michael Bibby to explain this point. To term the war post modernist, then is to colonize the war under the cultural practices we have come to recognize as the postmodern; to restrict the war under this name; to repress its historicity in the name of a unifying signifier

It appears as though the writers of this genre wanted the freedom to recount and even challenge the past without restraint. This proactive expression of individuality did not spring up after the Vietnam War, but it is this war where this type of expression is the mode in which most writer/veterans choose to express themselves. Carpenter intimates this was not their fathers war, so in kind the expression of the war should be as contrasted as the war itself. This contrast is Carpenter sole observation, and by the year 1995 the amount of these types of stories had amounted to the ominous number of 666. More than likely not an omen, but a fact that offers even more credulity to those who are seeking to be absolutely credible, and also tell a good story. In critiquing Carpenters summary, I believe he is witnessing a paradigm shift in literary expression and is very interested in the result of this shift. I believe this is why he and other critics do not even categorize these types of literature as postmodern; because once something is classified it can be put in a box. When this happens the particulars that made this genre of writing so interesting, can be marginalized by critics and overlooked by the public. Very similar to the reality that the soldiers encountered when they came home from work. Although the young men and women of the country protested the war, they were marginalized by the power construct of America due to the way they expressed their disdain for the war and what it represented. In the past Americas wars where supported and lionized by the public, and any challenge to this resolve was thwarted because of the intertwining narrative that we are all in this together. If that is the case, any individual challenge to this resolve is met with a nationalistic pride for our troops and what they do. The Vietnam war was different in that for the first time there were enough individuals who cared enough about their ideas, autonomous from the country, to make the country rectify what they believed was wrong. I believe Carpenter and his contemporaries saw the reality of marginalization and the power of capitalism and are fighting for an unbiased account of actual events and how they actually affected the people involved. One theme surrounding one event was no longer enough for people who believed the theme was either inaccurate or unfinished. In allowing postmodernism to remain declassified, gives this genre what it needs to grow and because it is declassified, any deviation from previous authors will not be considered deviation. It would be

considered growth. I believe that is carpenters entire reason for the paper. Allow this genre to grow without the need for classification, and enjoy this individualistic forms of expression.