This is the thought that this class has left me with. After spending a semester analyzing the manipulation of authors and the truth in literature, I think it is quite safe to assume that truth has been broken down and shattered. After spending a semester in this class, the facts as it were seem to have lost all their power and a healthy dose of skepticism has grown inside me.
Should we expect it in literature? I would answer that question with a hearty "no." Analyzing literature in terms of its values of truth and fact immediately leads to several problems. When we leave literature's reality to topics as black and white as truth and lies, we inherently miss a great deal of knowledge. Analyzing literature for a larger truth that we might draw from it becomes a problem because our truth might be different than another readers truth. These larger portraits of truths become subjective based on the individual reader. Reading a text for one larger truth becomes inherently subjective. I would argue that if a certain text leads one reader to a larger portrait of truth, the work itself is simply not literature. These universal works that argue a point and impact the entire community of readers the same way would be a philosophical text.
Turning our attention to Memento, we witness a work that initially must be considered for its values of entertainment. Obviously, Memento with its plot twists and elements of action becomes an entertaining movie to watch that holds attention. Furthermore, it speaks on a larger number of themes including memory, vengeance, fact, and truth. This work becomes an example of something that has a variety of themes and ideas, not one larger truth. Even in the novel itself, one truth to describe Leonard's actions fails to hold true with the elements of memory. For instance, the idea that he knows he has a "condition" becomes problematic to a reader.
Taking Philosophy of Literature in conjunction with this class was one of the best decisions I could have done for all the inherent connections that came up time and time again between the two classes. Truth becomes a vital subject to discussions and its conditions for existence. Our preoccupation with the truth of situations becomes a characteristic that holds us back. Literature need not have the elements of truth and higher understanding.
Finally, is truth happiness? While ignorance may be happiness, it certainly does not facilitate knowledge. While truth may facilitate knowledge, oftentimes it may not lead to happiness (although it could). That seems to be the question for me. Would one rather be knowledgable with a harsher version of reality but understand or ignorant and blissfully unaware?
Your last line of this blog post is perfect to relate your post to The Man In The High Castle. At the end of the novel when Juliana is confronted with the alternate reality, she immediately embraces it. She is able to accept the fact that she has been living a lie and leaves her whole life behind to live in this new 'truth' she has found. The Abendsens,however, are not as willing, ready, or capable to accept this new reality. Instead they choose to live in ignorance, unaccepting of the fact that a new, alternative reality maybe exist. I am not surprised by Juliana's decision to accept this "harsh" knowledge that everything she has known is a lie, since her strong tone and attitude throughout the entire novel led me to expect just this. The tone of the other characters, however, was written in contrast to that of Juliana. This signified that when the time came, they would not choose to follow Juliana but would rather remain "blissfully unaware", as it was easier.
ReplyDelete