The Things They May or May Not Have Carried: Fiction vs. Nonfiction

With his book The Things They Carried, Tim O’Brien decided to label it fiction, despite the many influences the work takes from his real life experience in Vietnam. He even specifically notes in the book that it is mostly fiction. This would not be necessary if the book didn’t feel like reality. J.K. Rowling never needed to point out that England wasn’t full of wizards and witches. This begs the question of why didn’t O’Brien simply make the The Things They Carried nonfiction. Although nonfiction carries with it many pros such as a feeling of importance, fiction is more advantages to O’Brien as it allows him to portray Vietnam in a way that appeals to a deeper emotional truth that the reader can connect with.

Nonfiction is reality, cold hard factual truths that happened. This in itself eliminates the problem of having to ground the reader in a relatable setting, as anyone can relate to the world they live in. Being based in reality also makes the story feel important, as that means it has had a tangible impact on the world that something purely on paper can never have. However, these advantages have somewhat been lessened by books that claim they are based on true stories. In these books, the reader is constantly question what actually happened, what’s been exaggerated, and what is fabricated by the author. This has created somewhat of a public distrust of nonfiction stories, even stories that are rooted purely in fact. By using fiction, O’Brien actually makes his story more believable. Once the reader is no longer worried about what is factual, he/she can focus on whether the story feels true on an emotional level. This is great for O’Brien, as he excels at presenting these emotional truths. So, using fiction makes The Things They Carried much more effective at telling the truth of the Vietnam War than a nonfiction story could.