The Hegelian concept that no conflict is ever right against wrong, but right against right, is a mainstay of any freshman philosophy class, and maybe 19-year-old me would have had my mind blown by this novel. As it was, it came across as an overlong explanation of the point that any view can be right or wrong depending on the way you frame it, and the ability to sympathize with individuals on either side is the key to seeing both viewpoints. If this point had been the basis of a more interesting plot -- it REALLY dragged in the middle -- or characters I actually cared about, maybe I would have liked it better. The story up until they leave Saigon is fascinating, and setting the novel entirely in Vietnam would have been a better choice. I also found the prose and lack of quotation marks (yes, I know that's the popular thing now) exhausting. Obviously I'm missing whatever the Pulitzer committee saw in it, but I wouldn't recommend it.