What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos

1

Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers

2

Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge

3

Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more
Close
With rendition switcher

Transcript

Question: Do readers frequently misunderstand your work?

Tim O’Brien: There are those, and it’s not a function of age, and it probably isn’t even a function entirely of education or political leanings.  But there’s a temper in probably America for sure, I know in America and maybe worldwide for the literal.  A literal take on everything that reality TV has taken advantage of and incorporated as part of itself.  And the literal take on things is a take without irony and without edge and without... it’s usually a fairly—there’s a certitude to it.  Why don’t you write a book that has nothing to do with war?  As if that’s a certain possibility, you should certainly try to do it as a way of recovering from the war.  And you want to say a number of things.  That this is just not a book about war, you idiot.  It’s a book about love and a book about storytelling.  But you also feel overwhelmed by the knowledge that you’re not going to get through, that the literal-minded are going to remain literal-minded.  And maybe someone else can help them, but someone else is not this guy.  So, there’s a wave of anger, or bitterness.  It has to do with Vietnam, and it has to do with a kind of mindset of the literal all around me that doesn’t fit my take on the world and my experience in the world where it’s hard for me to take anything very literally. 

The words “I love you.”  As soon as they’re uttered, I’m suspect.  How much?  And when will you stop?  And will you?  In what way do you love me?  And what is love to you, by the way?  Is it forever or is it until the next person who passes you?  All this stuff complicates.  Whereas someone else will say, well, love is love.  If you don’t know what it is, then really, poor guy.  And that’s their take.

Question: Is fiction’s job to find the truth behind that kind of cliché?

Tim O’Brien: It partly is that.  I probably skew it, parody it, make fun of it, ridicule it and put it in its place.  Partly I’m sympathetic to the literal.  That is, I’m sympathetic with some mom who is holding a dead kid in their arms, and how else is she going to take it?  But "Here’s my dead child."  And so there’s a part of me that understands it and is sympathetic to it.  And probably the better part of me is that way, or I have at least some capacity—I think as novelists kind of have to have to imagine otherness.  Outside oneself.  And as a consequence, my books are filled with characters who bear no resemblance to me and who can be villainous in ways that I’m not villainous and be good in ways I’m not good that I think the capacity for empathy, or understanding goes with a successful book because you have to create other characters and other angles of vision on material for a book to ring with some kind of authenticity. 

Among my fellow soldiers in Vietnam, I mean there was and remains to this day a kind of absence of that kind of empathy.  A dead child is a dead gook, and a dead Vietnamese woman, or one of their legs blown off is a gook with her legs blown off.  And it pretty much remains that way to this day, 40 years later: these same buddies I served with in Vietnam don’t have much empathy for the so-called enemy.  And I doubt they would be capable of—because that's there—writing “The Things They Carried.”  They’d write another book, but it would be a much different book.

Recorded March 22, 2010
Interviewed by Austin Allen

More from the Big Idea for Sunday, March 30 2014

War and Redemption

David Mamet's play Glengarry Glen Ross won a Pulitzer Prize, and his screenplays for The Verdict and Wag the Dog were nominated for Academy Awards.  On honor of Veteran's Day, Big Think is feat... Read More…

 

War Stories Are Also Love S...

Newsletter: Share: