
In The Things They Carried Tim O’Brien depicts a group of soldiers in the Vietnam War who carry around different physical objects and intangible qualities which influence their experience during this war. The Vietnam War is one of the biggest cultural events underway during the latter 20th century, not to mention that it was also one of the most controversial wars in American history.  The controversy behind this war was caused by American soldiers being sent to Vietnam for purposes not directly relating to the United States.  Research will bring about a new perspective of The Things They Carried. This text explains how friendships are formed in challenging situations due to soldiers’ inside understanding of emotions and masculinity’s role is questioned when speaking of war. 

O’Brien’s text displays a platoon of soldiers who are all having to deal with the circumstances surrounding the war in which they are fighting. Robert Nye in The Warrior Image: Soldiers in American Culture from the Second World War to the Vietnam Era states “The Vietnam conflict completed the shift to the notion of the soldier as victim. Both during and especially after the war in Indo-China, domestic resistance to the war, fueled by opposition to the draft, dwelled on the soldier as an unwilling pawn in a war run by political and military leaders out of touch with the tragic pointlessness of U.S. intervention in a Vietnamese civil war” (Nye 369). This only slightly establishes the frame of mind that the soldiers are in, with soldiers involuntarily being sent to war for purposes that they are not in favor of. In terms of The Things They Carried the soldiers feel like they go through the Vietnam War aimlessly doing what

they are told. Not only were the soldiers without purpose in this war, but were being victimized because of the lack of purpose (O’Brien) being the reason as to why they were now living a completely different reality. Being away from their homes, normalcy, friends and family causes these soldiers to adapt as well as not adapt to the unnatural elements of being at war. With these soldiers being around other soldiers in the same environment, who else besides those living the life that they are would be able to relate? Thus these soldiers form bonds due to abnormal situations, dependency and surely typical friendship.   

Without purpose in a combative territory causes the soldiers in this text to have a firmer hold on their tangible and intangible values in order to stay sane. ““Thomas Kuhne goes further still, arguing that comradeship was “coded feminine,” a “camouflage” for the “male” violence that was the norm of front-line fighting”” (Nye 432). This should not be so, showing comradeship should be a typical human response to other human beings especially those who are facing the same abnormal challenges in this fatal environment. Aggression and nonemotional responses that men were and possibly may still be held to should not be the norm. Cross’s emotions can be seen through Lavender’s death: “He tried not to cry. With his entrenching tool, which weighed 5 pounds, he began digging a hole in the earth. He felt shame. He hated himself. He had loved Martha more than his men, and as a consequence Lavender was now dead, and this was something he would have to carry like a stone in his stomach for the rest of the war (O’Brien 11). This shows that above his relations back home and masculinity Cross is torn by guilt due to his fellow soldier being killed while he thought of his affection for Martha. His comradeship and emotional response to losing Lavender should not be labeled anything except humane. Losing Ted Lavender in such a way affects Cross’s leadership and more than likely will follow him the rest of his life. Even after getting rid of the physical reminders of Martha, what Cross can’t escape is himself and his guilt which are  “things” that he must carry. 

People are all different, no matter the situation, which is a part of our identities as human beings in which soldiers are not outside that understanding. Although soldiers may do a lot of things similarly due to training or due to circumstance, but their emotional responses are all unique to them individually. Kiowa was unlike Cross, not having emotions after soldiers died or experiencing indifference in concern for his fellow soldiers. This lack of comradeship would make Kiowa ‘more masculine’ in terms of Thomas Kuhne’s statement. Although it is learned that throughout the text, Kiowa is happy to stay alive through any means necessary which arguably could fall under various other adjectives. A Grant Study Infantry Officer explained his military experience as such:

I'm damn proud about having been under fire; I think most men who have been,

especially under rifle, personal, aimed fire, are. It makes us all feel clannish and members of an exclusive club, though we'd never say so, and we don't intend to

give away the secrets of that club, though mostly because we can't. But we know you will never really know what it's like to be under fire unless you've been there yourselves. (Monks 86)

This officer mentions that he knows only these select few who share these experiences can relate to him, as well as a satisfaction in living through these circumstances causes him to say this statement. Whether you can identify with this “exclusive club” or not, should not make you feel any less masculine. Not being a part of this exclusivity also should not mean that as a part of the military you will not be able to form friendships with others. Relating to those that are constantly facing mortality may be a different challenge, yet should not affect your level of masculinity. The platoon in the text constantly face fatality, which aids their understanding of each others’ daily lives which only nurtures a friendship because of the circumstances shared. Being on the front lines causes them to carry the objects and to hold their values dear to them in a similar fashion. Soldiers in the text do atypical things to avoid combat, yet the others soldiers know exactly why other soldiers do such a thing as shoot off their own fingers. From the outside looking in, it could be easy to judge this soldier who is a person for doing something as abnormal as this, but having the experience to relate makes all the difference in interpretation. Determining masculinity is a subjective and relative adjective that these soldiers nor other men should be held to a uniform standard of. With this in mind, all should be considerate of how they define or talk to other people so that false descriptions are not made when an individual is faced with a challenging situation. 

Emotions and masculinity, especially in war, are better understood through the perspectives of those who share similar values and life experiences. In The Things They Carried, these soldiers “carry” what they must in order to complete their tasks as well as to stay as close to alive and “normal” as possible. Through the research provided, it is understood that these men who were put into these devastating circumstances relate to each other in a better fashion because of this shared ordeal. These unique bonds built upon trust and dependency cause questions to be mentioned about their emotional well being and masculinity. Although, most do not consider these soldiers as men who are human beings, just like civilians, who just have undergone a multitude of unique situations. In the text after learning of these ideas, the entire cause of the platoon engaging in this behavior is because they are in a fatal war environment.
