Suspension of judgment?

I definitely agree with Lauren’s point about how it is the readers’ fault for falling into Bierce’s trap in “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge.” With all of the clues he gave within the story, we should have expected the surprise ending. (Note to self: Take everything we read in this class with a grain of salt). I believe that as readers we blatantly ignore the truth within a story. Samuel Taylor Coleridge once said that creative fiction requires a “willing suspension of disbelief” which basically means that we purposely suspended our judgments concerning any type of implausibility. Like Minou mentioned earlier, one of the most obvious hints was the repeated use of the color gray. Gray is an obvious symbol for ambiguity and unsureness; and yet, some of us didn't recognize the clue.

I think that we tend to overlook certain things so that the story is not “ruined” for us. For example, I know that the show Pretty Little Liars is horrible. However, I willingly chose to ignore its horrendous acting and plot holes, in order to engage fully with the story. Even movies with special effects and stunts, viewers chose to believe (for the most part) that it isn’t out of the ordinary that people with guns never seem to run out of ammo or that explosions are unnaturally fiery and large.

After Thursday’s discussion and reflecting more on “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” I take full responsibility for being so easily fooled. And the worst part is that I’ll probably continue to fall into more traps as the semester continues.

An Occurrence of Reality

In class today I found the conversation to be enthralling and fairly heated. There are so many things one could discuss in An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge. I found it particularly interesting when we were discussing what was a lie and whether it actually matters. The narrator steers this story and chooses what to portray to the readers, much like a newspaper journalist trying to have an article published. There are lies everywhere, which we are blissfully unaware of. However, especially after hearing the slight truth in everyone’s lies yesterday, there is some truth to most things if one looks deep enough. In the last line of the first part, we see the narrator’s control because Peyton Farquhar’s thoughts “were flashed into the doomed man's brain rather than evolved from it.” This should make the reader suspicious because there is no guarantee that Farquhar’s thoughts are his own. But it does not because we tend to skip over the details and when we are in for a story, even if it is a work of non-fiction in our daily paper, we believe every word because we want a story and want to trust the written word. This idea also made me think about not only about the truth and lies in writing but in photography as well. I’m an art major with a photo focus, so this is something that has recently come into my head since a photo out of context can easily be manipulated, just like a narrator can manipulate the unsuspected reader; but really reading any story takes the reader out of reality so they are just being set up to be manipulated.

We discussed in class that there is a thin line between what is real and what is imaginary. The third part of this story takes place in Farquhar’s head and we debated whether or not it was real. The reader was tricked into believing that the story was real and that Farquhar managed to escape from the Union Army. We debated about whether what happened was purely in his head or was just a projection of the narrator. Even if it was in his head, in my opinion it does not make the story any less real. In Farquhar’s mind he could see the intense details of the trees and the leaves, and even see the color of the general’s eyes.

The Omniscient Narrator

“An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bride” leaves the reader taken aback towards the end of the piece as it proclaims that Farquhar perished from the hanging and the acts of the entire third part can be considered void.
In class today we spent a large amount of time trying to deduce whether the events of the third part actually occurred inside the mind of Farquhar or whether the narrator simply conjured the thoughts out of thin air. This controversy provides an interesting example of the idea of the power that the narrator wields. Considering the narrator as omniscient, we can accurately believe that the narrator transcribed the thoughts as accurately as Farquhar himself imagined them to occur. These final, last minute, life-flashing before your eyes moments would then have existed inside the mind of Farquhar after all. Perhaps though, none of these events actually occurred and the author merely relayed a lie to us. Then we can assume that the narrator knows nothing about the true feelings of Farquhar and merely observes the actions of a doomed man.
Ultimately, the power does not lie in the hands of the narrator to relay the story to us. The act of interpretation comes down to the individual readers themselves. These readers are able to take either stance of the narrator and formulate their own feelings into the work. The beauty of literature can be seen in these individual responses to the work.
Personally, I believe it matters very little whether or not the events of the third part actually occurred inside the brain of Farquhar or not. Ultimately, the story comes down to the emotional connection between the audience and the idea of sympathy towards this civilian. If a Union soldier, acting as the narrator for the story, simply fabricated everything that Farquhar thought and the few lines of dialogue he had, the story still exists as a tremendous observation of the power of human sympathy. By avoiding the concept of Farquhar as a slaveowner and avoiding the harsh realities of what that consisted of, readers are more inclined to rally around Farquhar. Meanwhile, if the narrator spent the flashback brutally describing the ways Farquhar may have punished one of his slaves, the readers may not be as inclined to sympathize with his plight.

I stumbled upon this gem the other day... Thought I might as well share it!

What is reality?

“Reality leaves a lot to the imagination” –John Lennon

This being “Truth, Lies, & Literature,” one would assume the point of this class is to find the truth and the lies in literature. However, it is not as black and white as one would hope. Once looked at more closely, it becomes clear (or rather unclear, really) that no one truly knows what the difference is to begin with. And after yesterday’s class, I was finally able to wrap my stubborn brain around the idea that the point is not to find where the truth lies (pun intended). In fact, it is far more interesting to notice the many shades of gray. Quite literally, that is. In Bierce’s “An Occurrence At Owl Creek Bridge,” the color gray is used throughout his descriptions to cloud the line between truth and lie.

Firstly, the Confederacy is illustrated in gray uniform. Thus, when the Northern Scout disguised in the enemy’s color approaches Farquhar and his wife, Farquhar falls into the trap, leading to his untimely death. In this case, the color gray becomes a distortion of the truth. Furthermore, Farquhar’s fantasized escape takes place under a gray sky. Gray is also the color of his eyes as well as the eyes of the sentinel who shoots at him from the bridge. The fact that both men have the same eye color further establishes a link between two opposing sides. The division between North and South, aggressor and victim, is collapsed.

Bierce shifted the focus away from the details and onto a blurred line between illusion and reality. So, with this in mind, is Farquhar an illusion or a reality? As a reader, there is an intrinsic trust when experiencing a story. Where there are holes in the plot, the reader inserts information. Where there are clues or ambiguous passages, the reader assumes. The reader wants to believe and hop on the imagination bandwagon. But what happens when the entire story turns out to be an illusion? Is Farquhar just a mechanism through which Bierce tells this fictional story? After all, there is no evidence that Farquhar was at all conscious during his imagined escape. Yes, he does feel a sharp pain in the back of his head, but who is to say that that is an indication of his death? So perhaps this is all orchestrated. Or perhaps this entire imaginary escape flashes before Farquhar’s eyes right before his final breath. Bierce could simply be narrating what went through Farquhar’s mind in his final moments as a third person omniscient narrator. When the ticking of the clock comes to a slow, is that symbolic of Farquhar’s heart slowing when he dies or an indication of time slowing while Farquhar’s imaginary escape flashes before his eyes.

No one ever likes to just accept that there will never be a clean-cut answer. But I’ve come to realize that, despite the headache that can sometimes cause, it only adds to the story’s captivating effect and draws the reader in deeper. As John Lennon once said, “Reality leaves a lot to the imagination.” After all, what is reality? I mean, really, who knows...

What We're Owed

An author is someone who writes a story. They build a world that they see in their minds, and lead readers through it. Anything they tell the reader is by their choice. Anything the readers’ assume afterwards is technically the readers’ fault. So… what does that make an author obligated to tell?

Let’s look at An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge for a second. There’s a lot of things that we are told and yet a lot of information that Bierce keeps from us. There is vibrant detail about the surroundings. Yet we lack in facts of defining what is real and what is not (although it certainly was hinted at). So, the second the story is done, we can’t help but wonder who made the illusion: the narrator or Farquhar? When did Farquhar actually die?

               Well, we’ll never really know. Bierce never gave away a single thing about the story afterwards. Then he disappeared in the mountains within Mexico over a century ago. Unless he is an immortal figure of some sort, we’ll never know. Instead our brains try to wrap themselves around the gaps of story and fill them in with our own thoughts. Maybe Farquhar died after hallucinating his own escape. Maybe the narrator was expanding upon Farquhar’s imagination. Maybe it’s just the narrator making things up. The bigger thing that comes up from it is the fact that the narrator strung us along the story thinking that Farquhar managed to escape, playing upon our sympathies and naïve ways. The reader holds the main fault for allowing themselves to believe such a thing (myself included). But then we all look at how much was withheld from us. Don’t we deserve to know more? In fact, don’t we deserve a reason for why we were deceived in such a way?

               Like I’ve mentioned before, it is technically our fault to some extent. We let ourselves believe it. The author told us what he wanted to, and we followed it with our own thoughts going on. We try to make some kind of sense out of the story. Whether it’s a survival skill or just because we want logic within doesn’t really matter. We feel within that trap of trying to make sense of it. All Bierce had to do was withhold information from us. We manipulated ourselves for the rest of it. It’s our own thoughts and ideas, and therefore our own fault, for going along that line of thought. The author just laid down the story in his words. He owed us nothing more: no explanation, no sequel, nothing.

Now I’m jumping over to the other side of the story: the author’s. There is a story that I have been writing and posting online. Purposely, I’ve been withholding several important pieces of information from the readers. Some of my reviewers have mentioned their own theories about what I’ve been withholding. Most recently, there had been an ongoing idea that a character’s true identity was a certain woman. However that woman they thought it was has been dead for months. Once I revealed that fact, one reviewer asks plainly “Who is she?” Another one just states she doesn’t understand anything because I have yet to reveal all of the backstory for it. She requests that I do a flashback and explain it all for convenience of understanding everything going on.

               Despite both reviews, I have no plans of answering either until I feel that the time is right to do so. I am not going to simply rush the revelations of certain facts. It is my story at the end of the day. While I try to be kind to all of those who have read my stuff, I am not willing to sacrifice the point of my ways to satisfy their curiosity. To some level, I enjoy people speculating what is to happen while knowing fully well what will. I do not owe them any sort of explanation within the story of what is going to happen. For me, part of the reader’s journey is to try to guess at everything.

               I personally enjoyed the manipulation that Bierce accomplished in An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge. While it does make one feel slightly idiotic for not catching it sooner, it just shows how our world is so interesting by simply withholding of facts. And as this manipulation was not harmful, it was fun. All of the unanswered questions that came from that manipulation? We can interpret them all we want. Bierce owes us nothing more.

Lies of Conforts

I must say the short story “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” by Ambrose Bierce was thought provoking to say the least. Peyton Farquhar, a southern gentleman and loyal to the South, was misled into death by his urge of adventure. In his last moments where he stood with his captives, when the roped was tied around his neck, he knew a miracle was his only option for survival. When that rope tightened around his neck, was it the lack of air and his strong desire to see his family that created his dramatic escape?

The story left me in awe because now I wonder if it is our minds that answer to the heart. I took, or at least tried to take, an existentialist point of view while reading this story. I could relate it to “The Wall” by John-Paul Sartre because both protagonists are to be executed by their military capturers and both their bodies react in an unusual manner. Peyton’s imagines an escape to have some comfort on his final breath. Sartre’s character’s body responds in massive sweat from the unknown fear of death.

The difference between both characters is that Peyton’s body is trying to shelter him from his cruel fate. His mind showed him what his heart desired the most. It was in this moment of death that Peyton knew what he wanted because in the face of death he was free of the lies in the world. All he knew was that being with his family again would content him.

How can we know our hearts have not become polluted by desires that are guided by greed, lust or power? I have come to the resolution that our hearts can be truly pure on two types of occasions. One of them is when we are young, when beauty to us is not corrupted by others’ standards and when true joy can come from our imagination before the appetite for a new toy overcomes us.

The second is when death is creeping on us, when we have those last moments to reflect on how we got there. Just like Peyton, in his last moments he wanted to see and be with his family above all. His desire was so pure that his mind sheltered him and created illusions to comfort him, at least until reality snapped his neck.

La Rivière du hibou (Owl River)

TWILIGHT ZONE EPISODE 142
(I think a Twilight Zone marathon would be perfect for this class, but that's just me)

1962
French
Directed by Robert Enrico

Is My Interpretation Better Than Yours?

Looking back to my initial read of An Occurrence Owl Creek Bridge I realized that I picked up on some pretty small details, but totally missed others. As we spoke about in class the line, “As these thoughts, which have here to be set down in words, were flashed into the doomed man's brain rather than evolved from it” flew right over my head. My eyes read right over it so fast, and even though I had no idea what it meant, I didn’t bother to go over it again. From that you would suspect that I fell for the authors trap, but you’d be wrong. The line that followed gave it away for me, “the sergent stepped aside.” So maybe that’s why I didn’t care what the previous sentence meant?

Don’t get me wrong though, I was not completely onto the author’s tricks. I knew Farquhar was dead but I had no idea why he was telling us more about him. At first, I thought part II was a flashback of the story behind why he was being hanged. As part II went on I found myself more and more confused and second guessing my previous implication that Farquhar was indeed dead. So, being the literary soldier that I am, I continued to read but instead of reading to find the meaning behind the madness, I just plain read with blind hope that the fog would clear by the end of the short story (but mostly because I was too confused to even slightly understand what the hell was going on, one minute he’s dead and another he’s dodging bullets? What?)

To tie my previous paragraphs back to something relevant, my reading experience is just another example of how people perceive things differently. I read the story thinking that Farquhar was dead the whole time past part I and because of that, I still think he was dead and the rest was just plain made up. But that doesn’t mean that if the people who were arguing that part II was his life flashing before his eyes before he died are wrong.

Saw It Coming... sort of

It seems I am in the minority when I say that I was skeptical of Farquhar's escape almost from the moment it began in the story. When he fell into the water, my first thought was, 'I bet he's dead, and this is what death feels like to him.' Then, as he continued to struggle and eventually succeeded to break free, I second guessed my intuition. As I read on, I continued to vacillate between whether or not I thought he was dead, with different passages convincing me of each outcome. The point where I knew for certain that Farquhar had died was the last paragraph on page 7, "His neck was in pain and lifting his hand to it found it horribly swollen . . . His eyes felt congested; he could no longer close them. His tongue was swollen with thirst . . ." I could not help but picture these gruesome symptoms of hanging and suffocation, and I was sure that this was their cause.

That said, I can easily understand how a reader could be deceived into thinking that Farquhar was indeed alive, until the final sentence of a story. I tend to search for unexpected twists in most short stories that I read, and am often disappointed by the lack thereof. This habit probably stems from my own partiality toward surprise endings in the stories that I write, and so I look for my own style in the works of other authors. Subconsciously I think, 'if I were writing this story, how would I end it?' In this case, Bierce's decision to announce the shocking death of Farquhar almost parallels what I had had in mind as I read the story.

But, as I mentioned before, I could not fully convince myself that Farquhar was dead throughout most of part III. I wanted Farquhar to escape just as much as I wanted the story to end in a twist, so as I read I tried to find evidence to support both outcomes. The desire to believe the story conflicted with the desire to be skeptical, and I am sure that Bierce was consciously manipulating both of those desires when he wrote An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?”

Originally I planned to write my blog post about something different entirely, but after the discussion in class today I changed my mind. When I read An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge I did not think that either side of the story was a lie. I believed that the narrator’s straightforward view of the hanging and the vision in Farquhar’s head both happened as described. Neither perspective was a lie; nor do I actually think Bierce lied to the readers, he just mislead us to make the story more interesting.

As I mentioned in class today, the narrator told us the truth in the last sentence of the first section; Farquhar’s idea of escaping death and being reunited with his family was never materialized. However the first time I read this line, I just kind of passed it by. I wanted to know Farquhar’s backstory and since the second section flashed backward in time, it didn’t seem too fishy that the story could continue after Farquhar had (almost certainly) died. By the time I finished reading the second section I was distracted by how Farquhar was deceived by the Union soldier and I had almost completely forgotten about the line in the first section where the story had essentially ended.

But really, the story did not end immediately after the soldier stepped aside and let Farquhar fall to his death. Farquhar probably did not die instantaneously from the hanging; it took a few seconds for him to actually die. In those few seconds it is my opinion that the story the narrator conveys in section three actually did happen in Farquhar’s mind. These few seconds felt like a day to Farquhar, and I think that neither Farquhar nor the narrator lied to us in section three. The events in this section happened…in Farquhar’s mind. His thrilling escape and journey home were true, to Farquhar. Time slowed down for him and his last few seconds of life were actually a day, to him. So in my view, the narrator was not lying when he/she conveyed the events Farquhar believed were happening, the narrator was just conveying the truths as Farquhar saw them.

I know in class today we discussed whether we thought the narrator just made up Farquhar’s thoughts, whether the narrator was actually omniscient or not. But that would just mean that there is a story inside of a story and if we questioned if every story we read was real or not, reading fiction would not be interesting. If I asked myself if all of the events in Harry Potter were really just made up by a sad little orphan living in a little cupboard under the stairs, what fun would that be? We know that fiction is not real to begin with, so if we question every character, every line of text, we might lose the experience of being drawn into a story. Sure Bierce could have been trying to trick us by having the narrator fabricate a story, but why does that make the story any less significant? It is still just a story created by someone, whether it is the narrator or Bierce himself. It is still technically not “true” any way you look at it. We could say that Farquhar never existed, that no one actually died at Owl Creek Bridge, that maybe the narrator fabricated the entire story. But I just don’t see the point; I don’t think it really matters whether Farquhar or the narrator actually created the events in section three. We have to believe something or there is no point in reading a work of fiction.

As Dumbledore said to Harry in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, “Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” What Farquhar did in his last few moments of life may have been inside his head or maybe just inside the mind of the narrator, but that doesn’t make it any less real.

How many times? How many lies?

Straying from the ‘distorted truth’ versions of lies that we observed in class, I tried to concoct an outright lie for the assignment ‘your history.’ However, I had a hard time doing this, mostly because of how unconvinced I was of my own lies. Most of them sounded absurd in my head and I would just scratch them off, convinced that “No one is going to buy THAT,” or “There’s no way I’ll be able to say this with a straight face.” It took me a while to reason that the audience this was intended for barely knew me. I realized it would be easy to make something up about my life back in Nepal because I suspected anyone in my class knew much about this land so isolated from the US, both physically and culturally. I decided to make up a story about my family owning a guesthouse on the trail up to Mount Everest. I actually knew very little about the trail and when I started reading my notes out loud to the class, I felt completely transparent. So, I was immensely surprised when I saw that most of the class had bought my lie.

This made me think about how the efficacy of lie hinges not only upon the author but also upon the audience. I know that if I’d spun such a story back in Nepal, it would be an utter failure. My appearance would be dead giveaway to begin with, but in a country halfway across the globe, the fact that those high altitudes of Nepal are inhabited by indigenous groups of people called Sherpas is no common knowledge. Similarly, only a few years back I would have blindly believed a nice old man if he’d said “I was born and raised in New York,” in a deep Southern accent.

I read Dan Brown’s novel ‘The Da Vinci Code’ some time back during its yielding days of heightened controversy. The book tweaks some deeply ingrained beliefs of Christianity and although it is a work of fiction, historical facts have been used to prop up the plot. I have always been drawn to mystery novels and this book made me awestruck. It was befuddling because of how Brown meshed what he claimed to be fact with pure fiction. Even when the book ended, all the puzzles fit into place and Brown had laid out all that he had to say, I was left wondering what I was supposed to believe. I was tempted to believe most of it and even share my newfound knowledge with whoever was willing to pay heed. Brought up in a largely Hindu community, I was oblivious to many facts of Christianity. Regardless, I am pretty confident the book was able to puzzle people of a more Christian background too. It wasn’t until I came across some documentaries and readings on the Internet by religious scholars that I came to know that most seemingly factual information in the book were inaccurate. In some way, this made me admire the author even more because of how astute he was in convincing his readers of his lies. In fact I became an ardent fan, and went on to read his other works. I was drawn by how the revelations in the end always took me off guard. However, by the fourth book I think, he had become almost predictable. It reminded me of the time when I obsessively read Sidney Sheldon mystery novels until I reached the point when I could foresee the end by putting together some elements I knew he always used to manipulate the reader.

So, I guess you really can’t fool all the people all the time and at the receiving end, it all comes down to how well you can resonate with your "liar."

An Occurence at Owl Creek Bridge

I would like to take this opportunity to make a comparison between this story and the epic movie entitled Gladiator. Towards the very conclusion of this story the author describes Mr. Farquhar as traveling along a dark deserted path until he reaches his true happiness at the end. His true happiness lies in the form of his untarnished home and beautiful wife. She is waiting for him as he approaches but as he reaches to feel what he struggles to believe is real he experiences true dissatisfaction; he reaches the end of his rope and his glorious dream comes to an abrupt end. The same approach is used in the film Gladiator when Maximus envisions his wife, beckoning home, and young boy as he slips closer towards his ultimate demise. At the conclusion when he is finally in reach of these beautiful memories he passes on and will ever remain just footsteps away from happiness. This common approach gives us, the readers and viewers, the idea that when faced with certain death one will vividly imagine, so much so as to truly believe it is real, our deepest desire and true happiness. The idea behind this that strikes me as most compelling is that the means of survival is not the initial thought in the face of death, but the initial thought is of what one knows will be lost forever.

Using Truth to Create a Lie

Admittedly, I read through An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge with skepticism. I was prepared for a lie because of the nature of this class. However I would not say that it ruined the story for me. It just made me more aware and able to search for the clues signaling its falsehood.

Near the end of the first part, Farquhar hears a loud ticking noise whose frequency appears to be slowing down. The ticking is revealed to be his watch and represents time slowing down in Farquhar’s perception. This gives his mind the time to develop the elaborate story of his escape which you will notice he plans out in the next paragraph.

As we lied in class, Farquhar’s mind lies to Farquhar. As Kurt Minges mentioned, Farquhar lies to himself to combat the pain of fear and grief. Like many of us used reality to make lying easier in class, Farquhar’s mind uses his reality.

What Farquhar’s mind creates is a version of what could happen if he had A LOT of luck. Potentially, the rope could break, he could free himself from his bonds, he could dodge the bullets of an entire company of infantry, and he could make it to the bank, loose his pursuers, and walk the entire way home. From this narrow possibility and the setting around him, Farquhar’s mind creates an intricate lie. However even Farquhar realizes how unlikely this is at times. He notes how surprising it is that even the most skilled marksman missed him. When he declares that he will not be able to dodge the next shot, the next cannon blast, the oncoming volley of shots from the entire company of soldiers, his mind solves that issue too. A conveniently placed vortex throws Farquhar onto the shore at a spot where he is completely safe.

However this is the beginning of the end. As Farquhar moves away from the original setting, his fake reality begins to fall apart. He does not recognize the forest he is in or the constellations in the night sky, despite the fact that he lives in the region. He travels through the seemingly never-ending forest and finds a nondescript road. The entire time he sees no sign of human life. His imagination is losing its vivid details, so it fast forwards to his home-coming and tries to justify it by telling him that he must have sleepwalked all the way home.

Despite the hints, Farquhar believes to the end that he managed to escape, that he made it home. Part of what made the lie work was his willingness to believe it. It was like a good dream from which the sleeper never wants to wake.

Reality and Perception

After reading An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, I was quite interested by the idea that reality can be easily influenced by perception. Throughout the story, the author, Ambrose Bierce, presents two versions of reality. Despite the idea that reality consists of only the truth, Bierce’s narration illustrates to me how easily any truth can be manipulated by perception. The execution scene at the bridge can be observed through two vastly different viewpoints. Farquhar’s viewpoint is veiled with the emotional frenzy that (I suppose) comes with a feeling of imminent death. The contrasting viewpoint of the executioners’ consists of a purposeful void of emotion, perhaps in an effort to not dwell on the impending execution that might forever weigh on their shoulders.

I believe Bierce eases the reader into Farquhar’s altered perception of reality by describing Farquhar hear his watch tick like a loud hammer that bangs at an excruciatingly slow pace. It is generally accepted that a watch does not tick especially loudly or slowly; therefore, at this point in the story, Farquhar’s perception of reality begins to differ drastically from that of his executioners. Bierce’s writing about Farquhar’s break from reality makes me realize that it is not uncommon to view reality in a distorted perspective.

We all experience different shades of reality. Every truth is different to every person depending on his or her perception of it. Often, a friend and I will argue about political issues. Both of us will have legitimate reasons for our beliefs. We can never come to an agreement though. While we are living in the same world, with the same citizens and the same politicians, our values color our views on how Congress is doing, how the presidential election is progressing, etc. Due to our differing values, we essentially perceive two different realities in the same political world.

I think individuals can experience two different versions of the same reality on a personal level, as well. Often, we let our emotions manipulate the reality of a situation, and then, once we view the same situation at a different time, when we are not in an emotional state, we see it in an entirely different way. For example, I always experience an immediate feeling of doom when a professor returns to me a test marked with a bad grade. That same day, I always seem to let this sense of failure color my vision about my academic future, getting a job and becoming successful. After about a week, however, I look back on the test and see it for all it was worth: just a percent, a number. It will, most likely, have no real impact on my life. In reality, nothing actually changed between the day I received the test and a week later. However, I changed the way I perceived the impact of the test from an emotional to a practical viewpoint.

We, as humans, are not perfect. We let values, emotions and many other elements of life alter the way we see certain situations, ourselves and our lives. Because of this human error, reality never entirely consists of the truth; reality must always be a combination of the truth and the way we perceive it.