O'Brien and Vonnegut

There are multiple ways in which Kurt Vonnegut’s narrative structure is similar to that of Tim O’Brien. One of the similarities that stands out the most to me is the choppy, segmented style of how the story is told. Vonnegut tells shorter stories within the chapter that do not seem to have much of any resolution. These shorter stories also often get repeated, almost identical to the manner of O’Brien. Notably present in the first chapter is the heavy use of metafiction. Both authors relay the difficulty they experience when trying to tell their war stories. They both also show concern about the truth in their narratives. This was extremely evident in O’Briens, “How To Tell A True War Story,” and is also present in Vonnegut’s writing. For example, Vonnegut starts the book by saying, “All this happened, more or less,” and specifies a few events that he holds really happened. Another instance where Vonnegut talks about the truth is in chapter two when he is talking about Roland Weary being bundled up. Vonnegut writes, “He was so snug in there that he was able to pretend that he was safe at home, having survived the war, and that he was telling his parents and his sister a true war story -- whereas the true war story was still going on”(53). Another similarity between O’Brien and Vonnegut is the, at times, vulgar language. Vonnegut speaks of things of the war using sexual language. When talking of the ‘mopping up’ military operation, he writes, “...whose name alone, when reported as news or history, gives many war enthusiasts a sort of post-coital satisfaction. It is... the divinely listless loveplay that follows the orgasm of victory”(66). While Vonnegut and O’Brien might appear to have a different style of crudeness, the uncensored language remains a similarity.