O’Brien uses a very distinct and powerful method of story
telling. His narrative is able to draw the reader into the protagonists mind
and describe the horrors of the Vietnam War. Each short story captures an
aspect of the war and only after reading the total sum of his work is the
reader able to understand the full story. O’Brien attempts to tell a story
about war that emulates at least a portion of the experiences him and his
fellow veterans went through. The disjointed nature of the short stories leaves
the reader off guard and makes it difficult for his audience to condense a
single meaning or message out of his work.
Speigelman’s method of story telling on the other hand
follows a more proper method of story telling. However, I believe the authors
have two very different objectives. O’Brien isn’t trying to write about an
event. He is trying to describe a feeling. A feeling that is unexplainable by
its very nature. Speigelman is trying to recreate an event in time. He uses
pictures and an orderly timeline to recreate that event. Both methods of story
telling are powerful in their own way. However, I prefer O’Brien’s method of
story telling. I feel like in contains more raw and genuine emotion. Because of
this it makes it easier for me to get taken in by his stories
I think you brought up some good points. I also like O'Briens method of story telling better. The emotion definitely plays a huge role.
ReplyDeletePersonally I enjoy Spiegleman's storytelling more. It's hard however, to assert which method is truly better. I think both authors found a different ways into the stories they tell. In a way it's like comparing apple's to oranges: O'Brien's an extremely adept writer while Spiegleman's plays on his ability to tell stories through pictures.
ReplyDelete