Philip K. Dick’s The Man in the High Castle is an exploration of the purpose and power of fiction. Fiction offers us an alternate reality where we can explore new possibilities and open our minds to more than one perspective that we would otherwise not consider.
The first alternate reality takes place fourteen years after World War II, where the Axis Powers are victorious. The Grasshopper Lies Heavy, the book-within-a-book, postulates yet another alternate reality, where the Axis Powers lose World War II to the Allies but with a different sequence of events. By showing that every character in the book is living a false reality, Dick brings forth the frightening concept that perhaps there does not exist a central “true” reality. Perhaps there are only several juxtaposed layers of alternate realities and we just happen to be living in one of them.
Another important point Dick makes is through the I-Ching, which symbolizes how reality is subjective and swayed by perspective. Regardless of what results the I-Ching produces, the terms we are left with (like “pleasure” and “clarity”) are so vague that they are ultimately left to our own personal interpretation. Consequently, there is no concrete answer or reality beyond our inner truth.
If we want to take this concept even further, since truth is based on perspective, we could say that truth could be everywhere. And if truth is everywhere, truth is also nowhere. And so we find ourselves back at square one asking ourselves what is truth? What is reality? Is there such a thing?
Perhaps if you know you are insane then you are note insane. Or are you becoming sane, finally. Waking up. I supposed only a few are aware of all this. Isolated persons here and there. But the broad masses…what do they think? […] Do they imagine that they live in a sane world? Or do they guess, glimpse, the truth…? (41)
Nice condensation of our discussion today! But I wonder about these two sentences: "It is far easier to escape into a fictional world, than to face reality. After all, truth hurts." Given all that you wrote above, these sentences strike me as irreconcilable to the rest of the post. How can we choose b/w "fiction" and "reality" if all is based on "perspective"? Moreover, how do "we" know that truth hurts necessarily if the notion of truth is itself a challenging concept? (Just some food for thought, as they say...)
ReplyDeleteI think this is a really intriguing point you made. But, I don’t think all truth can be based on perspective. I think there are some truths that are simply black and white and perception has no affect. A simple example might be, “the sky is blue.” There may be discrepancies on the shade of blue the sky looks like, but people can agree that the sky is some form of blue. However, if there are people who truly believe the sky is green, that doesn’t mean that the sky is not blue. I don’t believe that different perceptions on things can change the reality of truth.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, in The Man In The High Castle, the reality was that the Allies had won World War II against the Axis Powers. Although the characters in the book believed the opposite reality, the fact remains that the Allies won the war. Just because there is people chose to believe in something different, does not mean that the original perspective is not true.