Archetypes and the Influence of Context

In "The Things They Carried" the reader is immediately exposed to two archetypes that I believe have been present in American literature since World War I - the soldier and his awaiting sweetheart. As I read that "First Lieutenant Jimmy Cross carried letters from a girl named Martha," my mind immediately jumped to these two archetypes, even though I read one line later that "They were not love letters, but Lieutenant Cross was hoping" (280). It's funny because I was immediately hoping as well. I feel like that's the power of archetypes - even though Martha is not necessarily a romantic interest, the less messy role that she fits in is as the girlfriend awaiting her soldier boyfriend. Even if later she were to write him a Dear John letter, then the break-up would fit more cleanly into a mold of 'the way things happen.'

But context, even though it can create a bit of a mess, seems to play an important role in the realization of archetypes. Yes, Jimmy Cross is a soldier, and he is brave and heroic and masculine in that he is physically fighting to further the cause of his nation. But he is also scared, naive, and numbed... words not necessarily associated with the soldier/warrior archetype. We learn that the men both "share the weight of memory" and perform with specific "stage presence" (287, 290). It is here that the context of this specific war, and O'Brien's feelings about it, enter into the understanding of the story. The soldiers were "afraid of dying, but they were even more afraid to show it," and for these men, death "seemed scripted... irony mixed with tragedy" in the way that war deaths were 'supposed to' seem (287). The men, in essence, were afraid to break their stereotyped roles, and they worked to ensure each death was profound in its national sacrifice, and not in its senselessness or randomness.

The specific context of the Vietnam War further complicates the expression of archetypes in this story. In this particular war, where the men were in jungle lands completely foreign to American military, fighting a war (drafted mostly) that was seriously opposed by large youth and media movements, the senselessness felt by many soldiers (at least in O'Brien's account) of this particular national aggression challenges the roles of a 'good American.' As O'Brien dictates that "Men killed and died because they were embarrassed not to," there are two versions of bravery at stake that do not necessarily align with archetypes ( 291).

For one, the soldiers are compelled by their ingrained sense of duty to their country, and they would be "embarrassed" to diverge from this behavior. On the other hand, the fact that the men are compelled solely by their fear of society's judgment suggests no legitimate passion to fight the spread of Communism in Vietnam. Here, bravery could be either to serve the country (in the traditional sense of a 'brave soldier') or to rebel against the dictates of society, and resist service to the country. Here another archetype - the rebel - begins to emerge, but it is not fully realized, as the men of the Alpha Unit are, in fact, fighting as soldiers in the war.

To me, then, (and I know this is a jumble of thoughts) context helps to influence and determine the complexity of an archetype; and the developed complexities may in fact take down the traditional dictates of a given role (e.g. the dutiful soldier as part rebel).