The Things They Carried, Ambush - Tim O'Brien (1990) - How does the past affect the present in this essay?

Extract

[...] In reporting his experiences O'Brien leaves out no details and assumes the bare facts (« The fact of the young man's body », §6), his regrets («Almost certainly the young man would have passed by. And it will always be that way », §4 and his whole responsibility (« I threw a grenade that exploded at his feet and killed him », §2). Instead of a man reflecting and reconciling his actions to himself, he now feels urged to justify them to a new audience. [...]

[...] A compelling need for understanding and testimony O'Brien seems to relive the scene through his storytelling. His speech rate is one of clear, chronological but swift succession of events. In a series of short sentences the narrator outlines the process, by which he killed the young Vietnamese soldier : « The night was foggy and hot », « And then for maybe half an hour I kneeled there and waited », « he seemed at ease », « there was no sound at all », « I had already pulled the pin on a grenade », « I had come up to a crouch », « it was entirely automatic », « I was terrified », « the grenade bounced once and rolled across the trail », « I wanted to warn him », « he fell on his back »?(§3) C. [...]

[...] Concluding on this point of our essay, in « Ambush », O'Brien shares the things he carries with us. This war story is that much vivid and full of universal feelings that, as readers, one cannot help but think the author asks us to help carry the burden of Vietnam War as a part of a collective past. III. A story about the way a soldier/veteran resolves or tries to resolve his internal conflicts Alongside O'Brien's desire to understand his own actions and his need to relate them to his daughter, the present short story conveys the narrator's attempt to move beyond what he did. [...]

[...] The way O'Brien describes his throwing the grenade highlights in what a thoughtless and automatic way a terrified man might make his decisions. His narrative makes it absolutely clear that he did not act to kill the man, but he just wanted him to disappear. There were no moral questions that made him pause before he threw the grenade. Morality did not come into it. Thus, one can say that his survival instinct overshadowed any moral compass. In this war story, there is no moral and no goodness behind the murder to make up for it. [...]

[...] A narrative, that is nominally constructed for the benefit of O'Brien's daughter O'Brien prefaces the story by saying that he lied to his daughter, Kathleen, about not having killed a man in Vietnam (« It was a difficult moment but I did what seemed right, which was to say, 'Of course not'. ») Reflecting on his lie, O'Brien hopes Kathleen will ask the same question again when she is older. In his eyes, it is important that one day she should know what happened to him during the Vietnam War. But he prefers to wait to tell her about his experiences until she is mature enough to understand them. [...]