Answer to the Article

I believe the author is trying to convey a sense of contradiction between historical explanation and personal experience. He is trying to persuade the audience that O'Brien could not be accurate in reitterating the happenings of Vietnam because it is all told from a personal experience. However, I believe that every historical fact ever told can only derive from a personal experience because, after all, a tale can only be told from that person's perspective, whether it is stating a fact or not.
I think the most interesting insight I gained from this is just reading all of the various perspectives that were obtained from critiquing and, rather, enjoying the The Things They Carried. It was simply cool to see that a single story could attribute to so much insight, and no two perspectives were ever even a slight match. The critics say that he keeps his faith to both the stories of Vietnam and to Vietam itself, and I agree with this because it wasn't all fluff and bunnies throughout the story. It was harsh and crude and a seemingly accurate portrayal of life during warfare, in my opinion.
The author does criticize O'Brien's lack of validity by saying, "For many critics, the war cannot be represented accurately through traditional literary modes..." He believes he has no place attempting to relay a message that can never be foretold to the extent that it needs to be in order to grasp the depth of the experience.