Written by the Victors

There is a common saying that history is written by the victors, a saying used to warn of the bias that often accompanies history's re-tellings. What's more interesting about this phrase, however, is its suggestion that history is written thing, that it exists not because it consists of past events that actually occurred but because it was documented. So by this logic, does that mean that history does not exist unless it is written down? This might as well be true, since no living person can remember events from the 16^th century that were not somehow recorded. But if our only knowledge of these events is what we have learned about them from these recordings, then how do we know which parts of our history are true and which parts have been exaggerated, glossed over, or made up entirely?

It is in this disparity between what we know to be true and what we must believe to be true that the author of these recordings is given the upper hand. In this author-audience relationship, the author's purpose is to relay information to the reader, whether that be fictional or factual (or both), while the audience's purpose is to buy into the story—because without an accommodating audience, the story would inherently lose its value (think about the Supernatural episode in which Dean proposes that he and Sam can avoid their date with Lilleth by “going off-book;” the logic here is that the story cannot exist if the reader does not play along). So because of the author and audience's specific roles in their relationship, the author comes to rely on the audience to believe what he is writing and the audience on the author to pen the truth. Herein lies the major fault in this dynamic: because the reader must believe whatever the author puts forth, then the author is instantly able to manipulate their ready and waiting audience.

This manipulation can occur in a variety of forms, mainly by presenting dubious details or ideas as irrefutable facts and truths without any real validation. This tends to occur quite frequently in Cat's Cradle, where the narrator constantly uses phrases like “as she claimed” (20), “must have been” (11), and “I'm almost sure” (58). Is this information reliable? The reader has no way of knowing, but if they choose not to believe it, then they risk missing out on whatever the author intended to accomplish with those lies. So the savvy reader allows himself to be fed this information, yet he takes it with a grain of rice. It is in this way of picking and choosing what information to believe and how much stock to put into each piece of information, that the discerning reader instills the story with his own understanding of the circumstances. Thus, the truth of the story lies not in the tangible events that have taken place, but in the reader's perception of what is true.

In the end, I would make the argument that although history may be written by the victors, it is interpreted by the audience—and ultimately it is these diverse interpretations that give way to what we, collectively or individually, take to be true.