What do you believe O'Brien means when he says in "Good Form" that there is "story-truth" and "happening truth"?

What do you believe O'Brien means when he says in "Good Form" that there is "story-truth" and "happening truth"? Do you agree with him? Do you think there is even such a thing as a true war story? Do you think truth can evolve over time, or is it fixed and absolute?

I would imagine that story-truth is the best way to tell what happened that an average person might be able to comprehend and the happening-truth would have elements that the average person would think were exaggerations the soldier inserted to enhance the experience. But the happening truth happened.

As O'Brien explains it, the listener can tell a true war story by "its absolute and uncompromising allegiance to obscenity and evil." If a war story seems moral, of instructs, or seems virtuous, it almost assuredly is not true.

I recently saw a quote from Neil Gaiman: "Fiction is a lie that tells us true things, over and over." And I think that's what's going on here. O'Brien may have fictionalized a lot of the book, but I think there's an underlying basis of fact there - the "happening truth" - that if reported completely factually wouldn't have conveyed the intensity of what actually happened.

Sometimes happening truth is so powerful that it can't be written in story truth. Sometimes happening truth is so abhorrent, it can only be written down as story truth.

Sometimes happening truth is so powerful that it can't be written in story truth. Sometimes happening truth is so abhorrent, it can only be written down as story truth.

I think the happening truth is sometimes too hard for us to handle, so the author resorts to story truth which may be more palatable for us to accept.