In the lake of the woods Essay

In his novel In the Lake of the Woods Tim OBrien paints a vivid image of the horrors of the Vietnam War, particular the viciousness of the Thuan smart massacre. While prior to variation the novel readers instinctively diabolic the soldiers themselves for their immoral actions, as the novel progresses, OBrien shows that while the soldiers may have physically committed the brutal acts of murder, blame cannot completely be placed on them. OBrien depicts the Vietnam landscape as one that, due its elusive and chaotic constitution, was partially responsible for the horrors that the men committed.Furthermore, the very nature of objet dart and our innate capacity for evil suggests that while the soldiers themselves committed the physical acts of terror, our cap might to commit such atrocities when placed within the scenario of struggle means that either undivided would have been taken over by the insanity of the conflict. Ultimately, OBrien demonstrates that while the horrors of My Lai are unforgivable, there are palliate circumstances which suggest that blame cannot solely be placed on the soldiers who themselves were at times victims to the nature of warfare.While OBrien depicts the nature of war as chaotic, he never denies the individual responsibly that each soldiers had for the evils they committed while at war. Sorcerer comments that this was not madness, this was sin. By differentiating between sin and madness OBrien shows the immorality of the soldiers actions, rather than simply blaming the evils they committed on the Vietnam landscape.While madness suggests a lack of control and that the soldiers were unable to make moral decisions, sin is associated with a advised decision to commit evils and thus an empathiseing of ones immoral actions. The feature that in between the savage killing and sexual perversion of the Thuan Yen massacre solders were able to take smoke breaks suggests that the soldiers knew of the pure wrongness of their actions an d yet never made the moral decision to stop the killings. If soldiers did in fact understand their actions, OBrien asks whether they can ever be forgiven.Justifications are futile states OBrien the total disregard for the mores of our society means that we cannot justify nor excuse the ultimate acts of savagery that were exhibited in Thuan Yen. Such evils committed by men are unforgivable and thus, the soldiers who partook in the massacre mustiness accept responsibility for their actions, at least to roughly extent. However, within a landscape as chaotic as that of the Vietnam War, OBrien asks whether each individuals could have retained his sanity.If not, OBrien suggests that some blame can be placed on the insanity of the environment of war that warped the moral codes of those who fought in there. Vietnam is depicted as a the spirit world dark and glowering a hellish environment in which the line between good and evil, moral and immoral and right and wrong had been blurred to such an extent that soldiers who had to get loss the war landscape were sucked in by the chaos and the amorality.The question of whether any individual, let alone any soldier, would have been able to make moral decisions during war is one that is ever-present in OBriens text. As readers witness the total disregard for merciful life that was the Thuan Yen massacre, it is hard to believe that any person, no matter how sane and morally upright one may have been before the war, could have retained their sanity within an environment that appears to occur into the soul of every soldiers and dislodge the part that enables us to make moral decisions.Varnado Simpson, a member of the Charlie Company states that we simply lost control we killed all that we could kill. In his court trial, Simpson defines the very nature of war, with its aimless shooting, elusive enemy and constant paranoia, as a scenario in which any individual would have been taken over by the hysteria that war created. Ultimately, OBrien graphic depictions of the war landscape allow readers to sympathise with the soldiers and thus allow the blame to shifted, however not excused, from the soldiers themselves.In light of the very nature of war, OBrien suggests that despite the atrocities of their actions, the inability to make moral and ethical decisions within the world of ghosts and graveyards means that the evils committed by the soldiers must be, at times, viewed with sympathy as well as the scorn that readers naturally thrust upon them. Furthermore, OBrien demonstrates that it is the very nature of man and our innate capacity for some(prenominal) undying love and unbelievable destruction that ensures that, while their actions are unforgivable, soldiers can be viewed with sympathy.The impossible combinations of the war depicted by OBrien reflect the ability of man to express both the dichotomies of love and destruction equally and at the same time a seemingly impossible combination of its own. However, the very fact that these two traits are not mutually exclusive suggests that it is in our very nature to commit acts of evil when placed within a landscape such as that of war. John Wade did not go to war to kill or brutalise or even to be a good citizen. OBrien ensures through repetition of the statement that it was in the nature of love that Wade went to war.How then, OBrien asks, can Wade be solely blamed for his actions when his intentions in going to war were pure? While we cannot simply forgive Wade for the massacre in which he partook, OBrien leads readers to view Wade not as a monster, that a man. Despite the horrors that he committed while at war, it appears as if John Wade was a victim not only of the war landscape, but of ultimately of human nature. In the concluding pages of the novel, as Wade slowly loses himself within the tangle of his own deceit, OBrien asks if Wade was innocent of everything but his own life. The more poignant question, however, is whet her Wade and the rest of the Vietnam veterans are innocent of everything but human nature and our innate ability to commit acts of evil. It is thus that OBrien suggests that while the actions of the soldiers at Thuan Yen cannot be excused completely, the soldiers themselves cannot solely be blamed. Can we believe that he was not a monster, but a man? It is with this open ended question that Tim OBrien draws to a conclusion the enigmatic story of Vietnam veteran John Wade.Despite the horrors that he committed throughout his life, most(prenominal) notably the Thuan Yen massacre, OBrien asks whether humanity can view Wade as a man who was a victim to the chaos of war, to the capacity of human nature to commit evil and ultimately, to his own reality. The actions of soldiers at war cannot be justified it is with this sentiment that OBrien writes this antiwar protests however there are undeniably extenuating circumstances which lead soldiers to commit acts of evil.While culpability sh ould not be lifted from the soldiers completely and their actions should not be excused, OBrien ensures that we sympathize with the soldiers as many a(prenominal) of them were simply swept away in the amorality of the landscape. Ultimately, OBrien explores human nature and the capacity that man had for destruction. It is this weakness, rather than that of any individual soldiers, that is ultimately responsible for the evils of war.