Losing yourself through time travel

“And I began to realize why Kevin and I had fitted so easily into this time. We weren’t really in. We were observers watching a show. We were watching history happen around us. And we were actors. While we waited to go home, we humored the people around us by pretending to be like them. But we were poor actors. We never really got into our roles. We never forgot that we were acting” (98).

I found this quote to be especially interesting because I feel that Dana is completely wrong in this respect. The reason she and Kevin fit in so well is because they have fully become integrated in their antebellum roles. There are numerous instances when we see how easy Dana seems to forget certain aspects about 1976. For example, when Nigel asks her to read she is completely caught off guard: “The request surprised me, then I was ashamed of my surprise. It seemed such a natural request” (98). It's evident that she is already forgetting typical behavior and questions that she would hear in 1976.

Additionally, when Dana returns to 1976 without Kevin, she finds it impossible to fully live her old life. During the eight days she spends home, her behavior implies that she is waiting to return to the South, rather than enjoying her last days of freedom before she returns back to the South. She has grown used to living in this world of cruelty. I think she’s conditioned herself to accept being treated as a slave and has forgotten certain behaviors from 1976. When she returns to California, she has a difficult time slipping back into her twentieth-century self.

A Balance of Truth and Lies

About a year or two ago, I started writing a fan fiction (insert a groan in here if you really must). This particular one involved two brothers whose lives altered after a chain of events, sending them on a path to grow up as assassins. The other most defining part about the story was that the older one could speak nothing but lies while the younger one could only speak the truth. Even in their thoughts they stuck to this pattern.

Then I stopped updating the story for a good number of months due to various reasons. Over the summer I picked it back up and I’m currently trying to end it. That’s when I noticed how hard it was to have the two maintain their pattern of speech and thought. The younger one couldn’t say anything sarcastic which limited how he responded to some people. His brother, on the other hand, was sarcastic twenty-four/seven or just said a lie in the wrong moment. It became an imbalance that only worked itself out when the two were together.

There is no real flaw for having the two set up that way (well, ignoring the fact that it is really hard for someone to keep that up all the time). However, I found it hard to separate the characters because they worked well together. This is like how truths and lies work together. One can rely completely on one or the other, but it’s hard just to survive on one. Pure truth can be harsh or bland, while lies deceive and often leave a bitter feeling. Most lies that people make up have some base in the truth, while many people would say that using a “white lie” once in a while isn’t that bad. Socially we understand that there is a balance between the two that we try to achieve to live happy lives.

Would speaking only one or the other destroy itself? Probably not, but it will make things a whole lot harder to communicate. It also would make the world a bit boring if you only write truths or lies. There’s a happy medium here, and we’re all pretty much living it.

The end of the story won’t allow the two to continue a polarized life: they will begin to speak with both truth and lies. They deserve a chance to express themselves fully. I hope they like the freedom of full expression.

Bringing Back Culture

In class we discussed the things Dana gets to carry with her when she moves from one time and place to another. One of the first things we mentioned was her bag with clothes and a knife, then we went on to add to that list her knowledge. In my opinion her culture is one of the most important things she maintains when traveling between the two drastically different time periods.

The discrimination she has experienced as a black woman in the 1970s added into the way race is discussed in her workplace form the ideals she maintains when she visits Rufus. In her life, her interracial marriage with her husband is considered controversial, or at the least uncommon. In her workplace terms that refer to racial relations and the slavery. Dana realizes that these words, while not meant in a literal manner, are unacceptable and when she travels to visit Rufus, she seems them used in a literal and very real manner. She tries to change the way Rufus views society and societal norms through her own perspective. This desire to inflict your own views onto another person is a rational idea, especially since your views stem from you wholeheartedly believing that you are right. This task, however, is much more difficult than it may seem at first. Dana is trying to impress upon a child ideals and values which, while applicable in the 1970s, are unfounded in the early 1800s. Everything she bases her opinion on does not hold true in the antebellum south. Rufus cannot understand why he is not allowed to use the word nigger because for him, it is simply what the slaves are called. As a child I don’t think he realizes the effect of that word. She also tries to impress upon him the importance of treating slaves in a dignified manner. This is an incredibly daunting task since he never sees anyone else with these same values. His parents treat slaves with disdain and the only person telling him to to break this tradition, is a salve herself.

Her culture is also incredibly important to her because it is what keeps her from conforming to this new society into which she is thrown. When traveling back in forth, it can be dangerous to take things back and forth with you. This is Dana’s biggest fear as she worries that Kevin, who is already slightly conforming to the society of the antebellum south, will change too much.

Terminated

In class we spent a while talking about time-travel and it's place in the novel. I felt the same way and began to get engrossed in the conversation. I'm accepting the major plot twist of Dana actually being a terminator sent back in time to crush a leader of the human resistance. It seems to be a possibility at the very least. Or, perhaps she has been sent back in time by the human resistance to guard Rufus, a key leader in the movement against skynet.

Of course, I kid. What struck me in class on Thursday was the realization that we spent so much time talking about time-travel and yet ignored the horrors of slavery that existed on the pages before us.

In a very real sense, the ideas of time-travel allow us to ignore the very hard subject of actual slavery that is presented. Yet, we must consider the novel as essentially a tale of slavery with elements of science-fiction. Although the plot is built up by the elements of time-travel, what we are dealing with in the 1800's is not "science fiction." It is what occurred during the time in America. Slavery existed and is a factual part of the American history. Although time-travel might be a softer subject, I don't believe that we should focus on it reading Kindred. Instead, we should consider it as essentially a novel of mixing cultural values when people from a different time and place meet and become forced to experience the time.

The one thing that truly bothered me in the novel was a saying of Dana, "'People don't learn everything about the times that came before them...Why should they?'" This acceptance of ignorance strikes me as something truly shocking. Although I would assuredly agree that individuals don't know everything about the history that has come before them, this callous acceptance of shrugging off the past is upsetting. This knowledge is the collective history of all of mankind, what unites us and bonds us together. Ironically, Dana and Kevin abstain from mentioning to Rufus that in about fifty years, America will fight a war and finally emancipate the slaves. History, although perhaps not a measure of pride, consistently unites us together as it has formed our present and provides ample guidelines for the future. Just as Dana was relatively unaware of history, she is also unaware of her family history and genealogy. By learning more, she will begin to formulate and revise her own identity and the ideas of her origins.

Facing the Truth

All of us know that slavery happened. We can all agree that it is wrong to consider an entire race of people as inferior just because of the color of their skin; that it is wrong to consider people as property and treat them like animals or worse. We might even know the intricate details about how many slaves there were, how many plantations there were, details about what they had to go through. But is this facing the truth about slavery? What does it mean to face the truth about slavery?

Most people are ashamed that this happened in our country not so very long ago and would swear that if they had been there, they would not have stood for it. They would have helped free the slaves and would have condemned all those who accepted it as pure evil. This is easy for people to say because it is in the past. We did not have to live through it. Kindred shows us that it is not as simple as we think it is.

As we have learned in this class, the details about what happened does not communicate the whole truth. The truth is in the emotion. Kindred communicates the truth to us through emotions. We follow two people from near our own time and watch as they are exposed to slavery and racism in the 1800s. We are up close and personal to the violence, rape, whipping, foul language, manipulation, and mistreatment that goes along with it and are properly shocked and horrified. But we are also thrown into the culture of the time, the atmosphere, the daily life around the atrocities. We adjust as Kevin and Dana do. Dana is disturbed by how “easily [they] seemed to be acclimatize” (97). Kevin goes as far as to say “this could be a great time to live in” (97) and mentions that the plantation “isn’t what he would have imagined. No overseer. No more work than people can manage…” (100). Slavery is not as bad as he thought it would be.

We also come to realize that maybe a white plantation owner is more human than we think. We recognize Tom Weylin as a perpetrator of horrible atrocities to his slaves but we also catch glimpses of his morality when he disapproves of Kevin’s fake plan to betray Dana or when he allows Dana to stay so that she can help his son.

The truth that we are not facing normally, that Kindred helps us to face, is the fact that the people who lived with slavery were just as human as you and I. They were brought up in the culture and society of the time, and this is why they let it happen. We need to face this truth so that we can examine how we were brought up, how we are affected by our society, and make sure that we like who we have become.

Progress Without Progressing

In class we talked about how we have the same issues today as we did “back then.” Butler uses the time travel to help make the similarities easier to see. For instance, in 1810 the attitudes regarding men vs women are very obvious and apparent and Butler exemplifies that through Mr and Mrs Weylin. In 1976, Kevin cant understand why Dana wont type up his novel for him. This encounter between Kevin and Dana resembles the same “men are greater than women” attitude as it was in 1810. Juxtaposing the two makes it more clear to us that we still have the same issues today as we did in the past, just with a new face.

I can somewhat agree with what the author is bringing to our attention. I think we, as a whole people, have come very very far in gender and race relations. But I also think that some of the same old ideals still exist. For example, even though title nine exists and therefore mens and womens college sports are to we equal, they still don’t get the same respect. We have made progress so that its accepted that women play sports but as of now they don’t get the same high regard as a male athlete does. This could be a stretch but it resembles how women weren’t allowed to own land or be educated “back in the day.” They weren’t as highly regarded as men back then. And clearly today some of that still lingers with us.

Reality

What I found very interesting in Kindred is the idea of a dominant reality. In the prologue, we’re brought into the story in 1976. I initially believed that 1976 was the “dominant” time period of the novel because it is introduced as the first setting, and also because we usually consider the more modern time period as the “actual” reality. As the story progresses however, it seems that 1976 serves merely as an anchor; a time period that the reader can always refer back to throughout the rest of the story, while the early 1800’s becomes Dana’s dominant reality.

When Dana is present in her 1976 reality, she seems mostly concerned with her reality in the 1800’s. And when she’s in the antebellum south, she does not seem to have any thoughts of necessary return back to the modern west coast. After her second trip to the south, Kevin assists her in preparing for her next disappearance; packing a bag of necessary survival items and a change of clothes. Her modern reality starts revolving around her reality in the south, as every waking moment she seems to have in 1976 is spent either discussing events she experienced in the south, or preparing for her next trip. Dana’s actions in 1976 are also dictated by this newfound ability to travel to the 1800’s. When Kevin tries to convince her to visit the hospital, or when he wants to go to the library to do research, she refuses to go because she is afraid that she may disappear while in a place less safe than her home. We see that as her capability of movement increases in her 1800’s reality, which in turn restricts her capabilities in 1976. (This is ironic that she is more restricted in a sense during a time period that is supposed to grant individual freedom). The reality of her life in the south then begins to dictate her action in the west, and the 1800’s emerge as her dominant reality.

The dominance of the southern reality also surfaces when both Kevin and Dana travel to the south together. Kevin proposes that he “scare [Dana] home,” (p. 84) although she refuses his offer, asking for six more weeks to “make a haven for [herself],” (p. 84). Dana seems to have no second thoughts about how six weeks will translate into lost time in 1976, and the word “haven” indicates a desire for permanent safety in the south, implying that she views it more of a permanent reality than her 1976 reality.

The prologue foreshadows the possibility that Dana’s dominant reality may shift again. Lying in the hospital in 1976, saying that she “lost about a year of [her] life,” (p. 9) she seems to be doing the opposite of what I noted above. She has left the safety of her home, and she has recognized losing time in 1976 by travelling to the south. Perhaps then her idea of a dominant reality will shift once again, and therefore change our idea as readers of dominant reality. We see that dominant reality is therefore something that can be chosen, or changed. Like in The Man In The High Castle, different people may have different perceptions of reality, shaped by their own beliefs or outside events. We can be a Mr. Tagomi, and try to ignore one reality and live only in the other, which Dana seems to start doing in the first ninety pages of the novel. Or we can be a Julianna and recognize both realities, and choose what to do following that recognition, which is what Dana could do at a later point in the story.

Time, Space, Time-Space, Oh My!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel

If you aren't in the mood to read a monstrously long wikipedia article, scroll down to "Ideas from Fiction" section for the little animations. I found it extremely helpful.

And on a side note, I don't like the new cover. In comparison to the older cover with a female in a white dress standing outlandishly in a field with a mixed expression, the new representation of Dana seems too passive and meek.

More Meta-ness and multiple perspectives

Usually, the reader is a “Kevin.” At first, Kevin does not believe Dana’s time traveling story just as readers tend to discard fiction novels as a made up otherland. Going back to the beginning of the year when we read Bierce, most of the class questioned the veracity of Peyton’s escape and wrote it off as imagination. But, just how Kevin is forced to drop his disbelief about Dana by time traveling with her, the reader is forced to drop their disbelieves in order to learn from the text. We can write off Kindred as a science-fiction novel and focus on the time travel aspect, but we will not gain anything from the text if we do so (maybe some more theories on whether it is possible or not). We must drop our doubts of time travel and think, “Ok, Dana can time travel. So, what insight do we gain in going back in history and how does that influence our present?” This is when it is important that the novel is written in Dana’s perspective. As a reader we begin as Kevin, but the first person narration stylistically forces us to enter into Dana’s view point, which is how we learn about her situation and thus the themes of the novel, such as identity, race and the fragility of relationships.

Today we did our mid-year evaluation. I think one of the goals of the class is working towards is for us to move from “Kevin” to “Dana” readers. We are learning how to see the truth in fiction, even when its filled with lies as well, and how that truth exposes something in our reality. I think Kindred is a great reflection of where I am-although I still have some aspects of Kevin, I am willing to let that go and enter into Dana’s perspective only.

However, I do still think Dana can die in the 1800’s once Rufus and Alice procreate in the past.

Our Inability to Handle Change

Change does not sit well with people. Being put in a place or situation, in which we are unfamiliar with, causes us to have stress and anxiety beyond our normal levels. This is because we work throughout our life trying to becoming familiar with our surroundings, thus creating a place where we feel safe. I can remember when I first made it to Hamilton this summer. In my mind, next to meeting people, becoming familiar with my surroundings was the most important thing I needed to do. We work toward becoming familiar with whats around us and with what we experience in order to avoid the disturbance that change can cause.

We first saw this idea of change through the characters of Juliana, Mr. Tagomi and Frank Frink in The Man in the High Castle. Their realization of another reality, a reality in which the Allies win the war, causes them to be put into different states of depression, hysteria and blindness to thought. Through the iChing, Juliana is placed into a state of indifference to what she will do with her life. She just leaves the Abendsen household not really knowing where she was going or what was to become of her life. Through a piece of jewelry, Mr. Tagomi goes hysterical trying to comprehend the world that he is put in. A world where he is no longer of automatic higher class, and where his surroundings are unfamiliar. Eventually this leads to a heart attack. Frank Frink, through his release from prison, ends up in a world which he decides not to bother with. He doesn't understand this change and acts accordingly, by living life by "Working and not thinking" (241). In each case, the change in reality, in a familiar setting, causes the characters problems in their life and in their ability to function. This change is obviously very upsetting.

We see this idea of the disturbance of change in Kindred. Dana is thrown into the world of a boy, Rufus, during the 1800's, nearly 160 years back in time. She is unexpectedly through back and forth between the two worlds without explanation or even the idea of how this was possible. This change, or shift, in her reality and world, causes her to go into a frightening state of fear and loneliness. She even compares it to the feeling one has after being raped or robbed, a feeling that she "doesn't feel safe anymore" (17). The absence of facts causes her to be put into a state of unfamiliarity, similar to that of the characters in The Man in the High Castle.

Regardless of what we may do to try and avoid situation that involve unfamiliarity, it is something we can never avoid. All we can really do is open ourself to whatever happens and make the best of the situation. Change will continue to hit us on some level, whether its life changing or minuscule, we can only choose to react with optimism or pessimism.

Disguises

In The Man in the High Castle there is an element that connects all characters, if they all believed in Bokonon they would be considered as in a group. All of these characters live their lives under a permanant disguise, even if they don't even realize it. These disguises is even exemplified through the items mentioned throughout the novel. Philip Dick writes this entire novel with the idea that nothing is as it seems. I could go on listing multiple examples of this; some of which include Frank Frink, Joe Cinnadella, the .44 colt, etc... In order for each character to successfully live their lives they must live a lie or sacrifice themselves to being a part of a lie. In fact if you ponder it anyone who lays their fate in the I Ching can be included in this group. This idea of everything and everyone having a false front tells me in a world ruled by violence and secrecy nothing may ever be what it seems. That in order to succeed one must risk everything. However that false fronts that are smeared on every characters face is what must be true in order for their cause to be successful.

Social Norms

If I were just sitting on a couch one day and suddenly was ripped away from my normal environment and life and thrown into another time period to a place where I would be constantly in great danger, I’m pretty sure I would have a nervous breakdown. The shock of time travel, combined with the terror of living in a place where people can beat and control me, would definitely be enough to send me “over the edge”. Dana, remarkably, is not only able to control her panic, but she is also able to concentrate and think through her actions enough so that she manages to protect herself and her identity from harm.

Aside from the fact that she is forced to think clearly at all times in antebellum south in order to survive, Dana also adjusts quickly to her environment under the pressures of social norms. As the story progresses, Dana assimilates more into the life of a true slave. It seems to me that she willingly makes these accommodations, in order to be accepted by the other slaves of the household. There is clearly a clique of slaves, and Dana must abide by certain social norms in order to fit in with this group. Indeed, at first, she faces immediate judgment by other slaves for her unusual clothes and educated speaking ability. While hints of her former personality occasionally shine through her new “slave” self, Dana struggles to keep herself very similar to the other slaves. Dana wants to stay sleeping in the attic with the other slaves. She accepts the demeaning role as Kevin’s “personal” slave. She eats and does chores with the rest of the slaves. Dana has no reason to please her co-workers, yet she changes herself under the pressures of social norms to fit in with the rest of her apparent class in this society.

The power of social norms influences all of us, all the time. Kindred is an extreme example of a person acting under societal pressures, yet its extremity is what renders us able to view this pressure so clearly. Butler has managed to take a woman from one reality and place her into an entirely different reality, while having her “fit in” with both realities. Because the realities are quite contrasting, in order for Dana to live comfortably in both, Dana must be the one to change herself to fit with reality. How she changes herself is clearly dictated by the unspoken rules of society, which shows the undue pressure people are burdened with by social norms.

Defining Reality

In the middle of the night, as you stare into the darkness of your room and hover on the edge of dreaming, it may seem plausible enough that your world is an illusion. Overly philosophical minds might even take that into their daylight hours in conversation with friends or park-bench poetry. When the moment stops being right, however, it is an idea from which is easy to walk away.

So I'm going to take a moment to discuss some "real-life" instances where reality has been shaped by the people in power. I will do this with ideas blatantly ripped from discussions in my sociology class!

Have you ever heard of the term 'reification'? It means thinking of something as a concrete object that really isn't a concrete object. Like 'society'. I've heard people say that "society tells us to do" this or that, even though it doesn't really. Our parents tell us to do this or that, or we figure it out by watching specific people in our daily lives. There is no such thing as 'society'. It is just a term used to abstract the way things currently are. Making it into a concrete thing, though, makes it seem a lot more unchangeable than it really is.

When we reify things like occupational positions, it can have severe impacts on the identities of individuals. As Randall Collins says in his 1979 essay "The Political Economy of Culture", 'the term position is only a metaphor (although it is widely accepted and taken for granted) for the seemingly object-like immutability of a collection of behavioural patterns'. A doctor has a particular set of duties, but those duties don't always have to be grouped together into one occupation. And who decides what credentials you need to be a doctor, in any case?

Things aren't the way they are just because things happen that way. At some point, someone had to define what a doctor was. How they are defined, and what credentials you need, and how the financial system works in relation to your job, keep some people out of the occupation and make it easier for others to get in. Things like this create some of the class identities and individual identities that sometimes we consider unchangeable.

All you have to do is look at different places around the world to see that these identities don't have to be one way or another. The powerful are powerful because they have "the capacity to form alliances and to impress others with a given definition of reality" (Collins) that favors themselves.

If you think about it, various 'cultures' themselves are different ways that reality can play out. Yet we take cultural constructs for granted as if they were unchangeable, taking the words of 'society', of those parents and individuals I mentioned earlier who say this or that.

You know why doctors are the way they are? Because that's how lots of people define a doctor now. We uphold culture. We create reality. It doesn't have to be as disorienting as Inception. Everyday, we are being manipulated into thinking of something as 'normal' that doesn't necessarily have to be that way.

Want to be powerful? "Form alliances" and then form your own "given definition of reality". The possibility to change things is a lot more plausible than we often think.

More about Authenticity

There has been much talk in class and on the blog of authenticity and how we measure it. Some have proposed levels of authenticity, others have found certain standards for authenticity or reached the conclusion that no one object or idea may be more authentic than another. Personally, I believe our quest for authenticity closely parallels our probing for absolute truth. I think were better off accepting that we not going to find anything of the sort in the near or distant future. In The Man in the High Castle, Tagomi shares a thought that efficiently argues the point I want to make. “We really do see astigmatically, in fundamental sense: our space and our time creations of our own psyche” (233). Its all about perception. Whats authentic to one person is not neccesarily authentic to another. Take Tagomi's Colt .44 for example. He fires it and kills several members of the SD. I think this is enough to warrant its authenticity, no matter its date of manufacture or “historicity”. Interpreting this quote more broadly, the malleability of reality allows us as readers to understand how several narratives in this novel that contradict each other can simultaneously exist. The end of the novel reveals the truth of The Grasshopper Lies Heavy as a distinct facet of the reality of the novel but we must not discount the initial reality we are introduced to. We know from Tagomi's experience with the piece of jewelry that he can move from two very different reality. Which one is true? That's really not important nor is it possible to answer. I guess there both a little true and a little false. What's important is that they seem to exist in the novel and that's enough to satisfy me.

Inspired Authenticity

When Ed McCarthy brought a collection of EdFrank jewelries to Childan, Childan thought to himself, “With these there is no problem of authenticity.” (147) At this point, Childan was dubious as to whether any of the artifacts he previously owned was indeed historically significant as they claimed to be or was a mere imitation. So, it would be proper to think that EdFrank jewelries were authentic since they didn’t claim to be what they were not. However, we know that both Frank and Ed were previously employed by W-M Corporation, the same company that was shipping imitations of Americana to Childan’s store. In that sense, the jewelries that they made were produced by hands that had become skilled at replicating art. Their creation of art must have been inspired by the art that they had been imitating for so long. So, I could not help but be a little skeptical when Paul said, “It is authentically a new thing on the face of the world.” (176)

That line of thought, in turn, made me question the authenticity of just any piece of art. Can we ever really create something entirely original? Every artist learns art from older pieces of art; most artists name a role model they look up to. Even a simple blog post we write is inspired by the books we read or the authors we like (or by the models decided upon by our education system and style guides). So, can anything ever be entirely new and authentic? And if it is not entirely authentic, is it fake? Does that suggest a scale for authenticity? For example, if I write a story that sounds a lot like something written by my favorite author, it might be considered less authentic than one that doesn’t sound so familiar. So, could there be different levels of authenticity? Like different layers of reality?

Once again, it is up to us to decide our own standards for authenticity, or to decide that there is perhaps no absolute authenticity. Either way, we all choose, consciously or unconsciously, our own personal truth about authenticity.

Alternative Reality

In the Man in the High Castle we see the thin line between supposed-reality and true-reality and how closely related the two can be. When we first started reading the novel we thought it was effective because the alternative reality was so similar to our reality. There were cars, adequate technology for the time period and the fundamentals were the same it was just the social and cultural difference that we really picked up on. What really made this novel uncomfortable and eerie was the fact that we were able to connect more so with the alternative reality within the novel. Because of this, we are sent into a tizzy about what to believe. Which is were the central theme of authenticity once again comes into play. We do not know which life is truly authentic; whether it is the world where the axis won the war or the allies. Both are legitimate in our minds because of their similarities, but because of their differences we are able to stay at a distance and not shy away from the novel. For Juliana and Mr. Tagomi the world in which the allies win the war becomes authentic because they witness it .

Then, the world that Childan and all of the other characters live in is just as real, and since only two characters truly saw the “real” world and are not blinded by this “alternative reality” how can we say which one is reality and which is the alternative? If this was a majority wins situation, the axis power’s rule should be “reality” for this novel. But this pushes the idea of what reality is and if there can be two separate realities operating simultaneously. How can this be? Well, we cannot prove that it cannot happen. And its important because we can study both of these simultaneous realities to gain more knowledge. It allows us to understand and think critically about history and what could have been. This kind of knowledge or understanding can aid decisions in the future and allow us to see things from other perspectives. One thing we can take out of this novel and all the other ones that we have read is a base understanding and acceptance of multiple perspectives.

The Placebo Effect

I wrote my last blog post on the issue of authenticity and “historicity” and this post deals with the same topic because I feel that it is extremely important throughout the entirety of The Man in the High Castle. As I was reading the novel and thinking about historicity and authenticity, a scene from Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince popped into my head. The morning before the first Quidditch match of the year Ron was extremely nervous. Harry, who had won a bottle of Felix Felicis (liquid luck), saw how nervous Ron was and decided that he needed to do something about it. He pretended to slip some of the Felix Felicis into Ron’s drink and Hermione saw and thought that Harry had poured in some of the real thing. Hermione proceeded to tell Ron not to drink it, but of course, Ron did anyway. Ron, believing that he had liquid luck on his side, performed extremely well during the match and Gryffindor won. Harry did not tell Ron and Hermione until later on that he had not actually given Ron any of his Felix Felicis; Ron had played extremely well all on his own.

It was due to the placebo effect that Ron had been able to build up his confidence enough to play as well as he did. Ron believed that there was “authentic” Felix Felicis in his drink and therefore he benefited from its effects although it wasn’t really there. The placebo effect is an interesting way to look at authenticity. If we believe something is real, then to us, it is. This effect has been shown to have validity outside the realm fiction as well, especially in the field of medicine. Many times, to conduct research on the effects of a drug, a control group will be given a placebo pill and told that they are taking the real thing. Often this group will benefit from some of the positive effects of the drug although they aren’t actually taking it. Just because the control group believes that the medication is authentic, they actually get authentic effects from the placebo medication. This shows the extreme power of the human mind to control how we feel both physically and mentally.

It seems that the placebo effect can be applied to anything that we believe is authentic, but that actually isn’t. Just as in that case when people believe that a medication is real when it actually isn’t and therefore still experience the effects of the actual medication, we can believe that an object is historically authentic and then to us, it is. Everything always comes back to this idea of perspective. Everyone has a different idea of what is authentic and different things will be authentic to different people.

Even the fake is real

This afternoon I boarded the Amtrak bound for Utica. I have made this trip before, as well as many others on the train and never have I had a conversation like I did today. It was just a “how small can the world be?” type of moments, like seeing a someone you know on vacation half way around the world. Thinking that the reading assignment for Kindred was due by Tuesday, I got a head start on the reading the first few sections. As I pulled the book out of my backpack the guy sitting next to me immediately asked, “How far into the book are you?” No other questions asked. I told him that I haven’t started yet and he said he just finished it for a literature class he was currently taking at University of Buffalo. He happened to be a sophomore enrolled in an English 101 course, and I told him that I was taking a comparative literature course currently focusing on the truth and lies in stories and the authentic and fake. He found it so interesting, and seemed almost jealous that I had the ability to take a course like that.

I asked him what the story was about, and he said, “I did not end up finishing it, but I had no idea what was going on, what was real and what wasn’t, so that would be a perfect read for your class.” I have not read far enough to make conclusions, but so far it seems as if it is comparable to The Man in the High Castle in a sense that towards the end of the book the reader’s interpretation could have been flipped and reversed the plot. What if the Grasshopper Lies Heavy story was the truth in the story? And the lives the characters were living was the fiction in the story. It is interesting to think about, and I am excited to see if Kindred evolves as a story in the same way Man in the High Castle does.

In regards to the authentic and the fake. It seems as if people want to have the authentic because the way they feel while having it, or wearing it. A sense of confidence. For example, somebody wearing a fake is probably the only person aware that it is fake because an observer would not notice on the street that a watch is not authentic. Fakes are so "real" looking today that even the fakes seem real.