Saving Ourselves

While formulating my thesis statement and my response I discovered that I’m not sure which elements of each text to compare. With O’Brien it was pretty clear what made me question my own understanding of truth. His inability to accept his own truth manipulates the reader to question whether I am aware of my own reality. With Vonnegut however, I am having more trouble. I’ve chosen to discuss the comparison between religious and scientific truths because in the story, I noticed many of the characters turning to either science or religion to help them understand reality. As the audience I immediately noticed how flawed these understandings were, but I also identified with the characters for simply trying to survive in this chaotic world we live in.

I often question my perspective on reality. I recently declared as an environmental studies major concentrating in (most likely) ecology. After making this distinction I wondered: is this was my new lens? One full of science and facts, no room for ethical questions or debate. I wonder if I’ve lost my ability to create and imagine, as if the world around me has become concrete and full of logical explanations. Okay this is a bit dramatic, but I typically over think things. Anyway, what if I am similar to Frank Hoenikker and am searching for a scientific explanation for what I don’t understand?

            Both books have made me question whether I am answering life’s persistent questions by seeking out someone else’s explanation and avoiding my own truth. Maybe that's the point though. It's human to be uncertain of oneself, and it's healthy that I'm trying to figure it out. Hopefully by analyzing the methods Vonnegut and O’Brien use to manipulate the reader into questioning his or her own perception of reality will help me find an explanation of my own.