Do you think the character of
Tim O’Brien is a coward for going to war or courageous? Justify your answer by
using evidence from the text, clearly explaining what a paradox is and
reflecting on what we learned in class about conscription, conscientious objectors
and Vietnam War protests.
No, I do not think that the character of Tim O’Brien is a
coward for choosing to go to war. This is because to have the courage to come
back after nearly running away, to come back and face that shame would be brave
enough, but to then willingly go to war for his country should make him a hero
in his own right. The fact that Tim is thinking himself a coward for going to
war can be seen as a paradox, a seemingly contradictory statement that has no
singular answer, but has many depending to the perspective in which you look at
it. It can be seen as a paradox as he is brave for going to war therefore he
would be a coward for running away, but on the other hand, he would also have
been brave to resist the conscription, the “lottery” in which decided who went
to war, and run away to Canada, and therefore if he had gone to war, we would
have been a coward for giving into injustice. This concept can be related to
the half glass of water, it can be both seen as half-empty or half full. Therefore,
as I am solid in my resolve that he is a brave man for going to war, he and
others would say that he is a coward for going. It really is, in reality, a two
edged sword, you can either go to war and possibly die a “hero” or become a
conscientious objector and possibly be
charged with treason and maybe die a “peoples hero”. Either way, you both lose
and win. O’Brien states this sad fact in the story “on a rainy river”, where he
talks about how he came home from the war, how he survived but how “it’s not a
happy ending” (Page 25). Because either way he did not die a hero, he did not
die defending his country.
