The gist of the author's argument is basically that O'Brien uses a very postmodern approach throughout the book the things they carried, but such approach is also seen as a paradox due to the fact that he tries to selfishly tell the truth in such war stories or events that occur throughout the book as well. "O'Brien has been successful at conveying these vital truths about the war, many critics argue, because of his use of a postmodern aesthetic. By "postmodernism" I mean what Jean-Francois Lyotard identifies as "that severe reexamination . . . on the thought of the Enlightenment, on the idea of a unitary end of history and of a subject" (73). Or as Stanley Aronowitz and Henry Giroux explain, postmodernism consists of a "refusal of grand narratives, [a] rejection of universal reason as a foundation for human affairs, [a] decentering of the humanist subject, [and a] radical problematization of representation" (61).
For many critics and theorists, the war cannot be represented adequately through traditional literary modes; only a postmodern aesthetic can convey something of the war's surreal, sense-shattering, media-inflected nature." i thought these views and statements were very useful insights. I agree with the fact that Jim Neilson states that O'Brien has been successful in conveying vital truths in the war, by his usage of this postmodern approach. Such is clearly seen throughout the book as O'Brien talks about several stories that happened during the war, however, it is almost doubtful as to what actually did happen because the way he sets up his stories and tells them, and the turns around to negate what he has just told, leaves the reader in awe of what the truth really is. Hence, O'Brien seems to be using this postmodern approach not seeking the ultimate meaning of the war, or trying to tell the ultimate truth of the war, but rather by adding several different pieces to the puzzle the makes up what the war is. He adds pieces to this huge puzzle, by depicting stories and making the reader see the truth through his words.Neilson criticizes "
O'Brien's focus on his individual experience does not merely result in the exclusion of the Vietnamese. This self-interest, combined with a postmodern aversion to totality, causes him to disregard any larger perspective. Hence he does not place the actions of his platoon within the context of a policy that encouraged systematic terror; does not depict senior officers, let alone military strategists and government policy-makers; and does not view his actions in Vietnam as part of a broad strategy to further American geopolitical aims." IN other words i think what Neilson is criticizing is the fact that O'Brien's postmodern approach seems to exclude the Vietnamese and their side of the war. Neilson feels that be selfishly being focused on telling his war stories and the truth in such, O'Brien fails to show the other side of the stories, the opponents, and their side of history.