Truth Through the Goggles of Time

Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five is the perfect novel through which to explore the effects of truth on a work as it challenges readers to think long and hard about the role that the imagination plays in literature. As audiences struggle to keep their head above the tidal wave that is Billy Pilgrim’s story, they are forced to brand him either a maverick or a lunatic. Billy’s fantastic explorations through time and space are exciting despite their occurrence to such a dull man, yet it is this utterly uninteresting persona that makes the reader’s task so difficult. The character of Billy Pilgrim pathetic, bland and boring in every sense and that is what ultimately dissuades readers from attributing his experiences solely to insanity. In this novel, the truth isn’t something that is either given to, or kept away from readers, but rather a decision left to them upon receiving all the facts. Where science rules one head, Billy’s matter of fact testimonials sway many into considering the possibility of truth in his words, or at least believing that such things exist in Billy’s reality. What non-believers might not have considered is the extent to which truth carries into Billy’s ‘normal life,’ how much of this mundane existence is reality and to what degree has Vonnegut gone to distort the facts.

Beloved is the Truth

Though the topic of ‘truth’ is a fairly broad one, I find it difficult to discuss this theme in Toni Morrison’s Beloved. In a novel that candidly discusses the atrocities committed in the 1800’s lacks instances where something other than sincere accounts of situations are presented. This absence of deception is significant in and of itself as it reflects the extent to which Morrison can carry this story without embellishment. Morrison’s novel broaches the difficult reality of the inescapable nature of our pasts as the novel depicts characters such as Baby Suggs and Sethe as liberated without truly being free, going as far as manifesting Sethe’s past decisions in the form of a ghost. This ultimately physical representation of Sethe’s decisions solidifies a ball and chain motif shouldered by numerous characters. In summation, Beloved’s physical manifestation to Sethe is a beautiful demonstration of just how hard we endeavor to run from the past, only to unavoidably meet it head on with atonement.

Freedom Through Infallibility

Since I have chosen to write my blog on the perception and variations of truth there is no topic more fun to write about in Crime and Punishment than the superman theory. I love talking about this topic because there really is no way to prove or disprove the existence of a superman seeing as the crowning of such a title is completely based on opinion. In my opinion any man who decrees himself a superman is automatically an underman, if a true superman were to exist then they would have to be deemed extraordinary by others in order to avoid a conceited mindset. I believe the 'truth' of the superman theory is that no such being can exist, except of course Mr. Spock, because society will not allow for it, one man's decision to live above the law and by his own set of morales automatically puts him into conflict with nearly everyone else. As evident in C&P, truth is subjective. Sonya's truth was once an absolute statement that there was no way Rodya could have killed someone, yet the reader knows a different version of the truth. As a matter of fact, one may argue that 'truth' and 'opionion' could be synonyms of each other as there is currently no existence of a universal truth. Nothing like a bit of hardcore philosophy after finals to get ready for winter break!

The Good, The Blind and the Lear

Shakespeare’s King Lear  uses the motif of sight in order to divide the cast into three distinct groups who interact with catastrophic results. Regan, Edmund and Goneril represent evil and bed intentions, inherently villainous characters blinded by their quest for worldly power and blinded by ambition. These characters use their ‘sight’ to manipulate the ‘blind’. Edgar, King Lear and Glouster represent the three ‘blind’ characters, inherently noble yet unable to see those around them who act with malice. Cordelia, the Fool and Kent make up the final group, characters who possess innate sense of right as well as the ability to identify the characters with mal intent. These three ‘visual’ characters augment the play’s sense of an inability to control their own fate and the hopelessness of Shakespeare’s dramatic irony.

Regan, Goneril and Edmund each take advantage of their fathers utilizing the weakness of each as a means to stealthily bring about their deception and callous aspirations. Their lust for control blinds them from empathy even when pitted against their kin. With every culpable action these characters commit the reader is filled with empathy toward those who have been wronged, as the villains of this play they are easily ostracized.

Lear, Glouster and Edgar stumble blindly for most of the play, unable to recognize the inherit evil in their own kin. Only the clutches of insanity provide sight for King Lear, as his madness allows him to see his mistakes and the treachery committed right under his nose. Glouster is only gifted with sight after his actual vision is taken away from him, this symbolic clarity after the fact causes him to become despondent and turn to death rather than fixing his mistakes. Glouster is eventually led to enlightenment by the disguised Edgar. Despite the seemingly bleak outlook ahead, Edgar becomes a main source of hope in the novel. When betrayed by Edmund, Edgar chooses to offer forgiveness which severely contrasts with the three antagonists.

The clarity offered by  the characters of Cordelia, the Fool and Kent makes the dramatic irony of the play that much more evident, as they can each see the malevolence surrounding them yet they remain unable to stop it. For Cordelia, her father believes her to be the wrongdoer when she refuses to profess her love to him in a shallow display of affection. Lear instead chooses to be won over by Regan and Goneril’s superficial adoration, unknowing of its dishonest nature. Upon the realization of his mistake, Lear’s blindness is shed only to be replaced with lunacy. Both the Fool and Kent display loyalty throughout the play, each incessantly try to lead Lear to the truth. Shakespeare’s purpose for these three characters is to allow the audience to empathize and identify with them and ultimately draws them into the chaos experienced by each character.

The Thread of Truth in Oedipus

When one does a word search in the text Oedipus Rex they will find the word ‘truth’ is used eleven times throughout its entirety, upon reading the aforementioned text a realization is met that the term is used ironically and satirically. While Oedipus enjoys his lavish lifestyle handed to him through the murder of his biological father he finds that he can not rest until the murderer of the former King is found. All the while Oedipus never realizes that he himself is the culprit. The irony of the blind prophet who can ‘see’ more than Oedipus is that many people choose to see the truth that is most convenient for them, in essence all people are blind in some way even if they are able to ‘see’. Samuel Butler once said “"A blind man knows he cannot see and he that is blind in his understanding, which is the worst blindness of all, believes he sees as the best, and scorns a guide.” This quote relates to Oedipus’ inability to believe the words of the blind prophet despite all the facts pointing to the conclusion of Oedipus killing his own father. Oedipus’ desire to bend the truth to his own will reflects how his reality was contingent only on his own perceptions rather than truth.

How does perspective shape or alter truth?

The question is 'how does perspective shape or alter truth?'. I find this question intriguing because it allows me too respond in as many different ways as there are writers, every story is given a unique perspective because every writer is unique. This question hits close to home because I was very young when my parents got a divorce, not unlike the majority of children these days, at the time I understood that my parents were telling me it wasn't my fault but I couldn't comprehend why it was  happening anyway. At that age I believed the truth to be that the marital strife was temporary where the actual reality was much more serious, my perspective at the time allowed me to see and comprehend the situation in an adverse way to my parents, yet this didn't alter the 'truth' I saw in the situation.


This summer I read Atonement by Ian McEwan, I believe that novel is perfect for this big question because the conflict in the novel was spurred on by the incorrect perception by a young girl. In Atonement the young character of Birony was attempting to evolve into a more mature character, yet in her hurry to stand up for herself and her sister she accidentally convicts an innocent man of assault. Birony was not attempting to lie but rather her perception of the situation didn't reflect the same 'truth' the reader was granted by the author, despite being slightly hard to sit idly by and watch this unintentional issue play out, it was essential to the story because the reader was then shown how truth and fact are a motif in every day life. Without all the information in most situations it is incredibly easy for conflict to arise in even the most mundane of instances.

Atonement is the perfect novel to begin exploration of this big question due to the fact that without the variance of perspectives from its characters this book wouldn't have a storyline at all.