The story you watched was meant to be that explanation. By the examples of the characters in the narrative. The criticism it's getting (and has always gotten, before it being turned into a movie) is that the characters themselves are also examples of that kind of shorthand.
Now, as far as writing a story goes I get this. It's tough to write something decent. We simplify characters that are real and we invent imaginary characters where a real character (or the real character of a real person) doesn't suit the narrative purpose. That the authors characters are cutouts is a given.
- but since the narrative thrust of the entire work was to explain his discomfort (with a culture he believes to be in decline), perhaps it would have been better to do it a better way.
Vance was never shy about discrepancies between his own recollection of events and others - ton of good jokes about it on interviews when he was shopping the book around. This isn't a problem for his story - I only mentioned it because you suggested that the truth of the story was relevant to why it was offensive. Beyond any criticism of the book (or the movie) I can only suggest that the contents could very well be true and meaningfully enough based on his own real experiences. The extent to which his experience is representative of the culture which he sought to address, rather than the political ideology he'd used it to disseminate..is dubious.
Now, as far as writing a story goes I get this. It's tough to write something decent. We simplify characters that are real and we invent imaginary characters where a real character (or the real character of a real person) doesn't suit the narrative purpose. That the authors characters are cutouts is a given.
- but since the narrative thrust of the entire work was to explain his discomfort (with a culture he believes to be in decline), perhaps it would have been better to do it a better way.
Vance was never shy about discrepancies between his own recollection of events and others - ton of good jokes about it on interviews when he was shopping the book around. This isn't a problem for his story - I only mentioned it because you suggested that the truth of the story was relevant to why it was offensive. Beyond any criticism of the book (or the movie) I can only suggest that the contents could very well be true and meaningfully enough based on his own real experiences. The extent to which his experience is representative of the culture which he sought to address, rather than the political ideology he'd used it to disseminate..is dubious.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
