Question of Destiny

If your entire life was written in a book, would you read the ending? This question has been posed many times, but however cliché, there is still truth to be taken from it. I think that the point of this question refers to the fact that if you knew when and how your life ended, would you live it any differently? Could you live it any differently, or is your fate already determined?

After watching the Supernatural episode “The Monster at the End of the Book”, I could not help but reconsider these questions. The episode deals with the complexity that comes along with trying to change ones destiny. It seemed as though every time Sam and Dean tried to rewrite their fate, they somehow always ended up doing exactly what it was they were trying to avoid. Whatever Chuck, the prophet, saw seemed to be absolute, and it appeared as though the two brothers did not have any free will to make their own decisions.

This idea of free will and destiny calls into question what role we play. Dean and Sam appear to be puppets in someone else’s grand plan. Therefore, are we all just pawns in a pre-established game made by a higher power than ourselves? People often say, “things happen for a reason,” but can we know for certain that they do? This episode made the viewer consider what role they play in their own life. Do we all have the power to make our own decisions, or are we somehow only living out what has already been decided for us?

This idea of fate and destiny is seen in many works of literature. Authors use this as a way to get the reader invested in the story. Even if the author sets up from the beginning how each character will end up, the reader will always try to change the characters destiny and root for the unexpected.

The Importance of Being in Ilium

Most readers of Vonnegut are familiar with the fictional city of Ilium, NY. The city appears in many of Vonnegut’s works including Slaughterhouse-Five, Cat’s Cradle, and Piano Player (among others). There are a few specific sites and buildings to which Vonnegut frequently refers including Ilium High School and the General Forge and Foundry Company. In Cat’s Cradle, Ilium, NY is the hometown and scientific playground of Dr. Hoenikker, the eccentric father of the atomic bomb. The Del Prada Hotel, the Cape Cod Room, the graveyard, Jack’s Hobby Shop, and the tombstone salesroom are introduced into Ilium’s vast collection of settings by this novel. It has been proposed that Ilium could actually be a simple pseudonym for either Troy, NY or Schenectady, NY, but this proposition lacks validity as both cities are described as explicitly separate from Ilium in Vonnegut’s Piano Player. However, descriptions of Ilium do suggest that the city is very much like Troy and Schenectady, and that it would be in a similar geographic area of the state were it real. This completely constructed setting allows Vonnegut to create a city as fanciful or mundane as he so chooses. It is true that Ilium is a common thread throughout Vonnegut’s repertoire, but the question that I have to ask is why does Vonnegut tie his characters and novels together with the use of this city? Why does Billy Pilgrim live in Ilium? Why Dr. Hoenikker? Why Kilgore Trout? One possible answer is very simple: by having one setting span a range of works, those works gain a level of perceived reality that the novels, were they all set in separate fictional locations, could never achieve. Although none of the works that involve Ilium belong to a series, they belong to the same universe by means of a common setting, and this adds an entirely new dimension of believability to Vonnegut’s works.

So let it be written...

In Supernatural, religion is viewed as an absolute truth. God creates the world, and as He does, it's written down by Chuck, a prophet. In the context of the series, these words are now destined to manifest themselves in "reality." That is, they are a complete certainty: none of the characters can escape their predicted fate. God's word is law, to the point that it takes away the most basic free will.

Cat's Cradle, in contrast, deals with the religion Bokononism, which is based on total lies. In fact, the founder of the religion is completely forthright with this information. The religion itself is transparent in the most basic sense, and its followers are encouraged to "live by the foma [harmless untruths] that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy" (Vonnegut vii). The entire belief system is a construction, manufactured in the mind of a fictional character...but is that really so bad? Personally, I think it's better to live by a doctrine that resonates with you (even if it is a lie) rather than live with fate looming overhead, inevitable. In the case of Cat's Cradle and Supernatural, lies create a lot more happiness than truth.

And what is "truth," anyway? In George Orwell's 1984, history changes on a daily basis because the government continually edits the nation's records, destroying evidence of the actual past. This means that, effectively, lots of real people and events never existed. History itself, the most basic truth, becomes a construction. And at the same time, there's no way to prove it's false when it's all that exists. Whether fact or fiction, the written word becomes reality. This is true in Supernatural, where prophetic stories will become gospel to future generations. And it is true in Cat's Cradle, where Bokononist lies will become truths to those who find meaning in them.

So let it be written, so let it be done.

Windows of Perception

If something is false, does our perception matter? If we are unaware of the falsity of something, is it true until our perception changes? If we are told that something is false, can it never be true? In the episode of TV series Supernatural entitled “The Monster at the End of this Book,” the main characters, Sam and Dean, discover books that perfectly describe every detail of their lives. After finding the author of said books, Chuck, they immediately assume he is nothing more than a psychic; someone who can see the brothers’ actions before they actually happen. Over the course of the episode, however, Sam and Dean find that Chuck holds a lot more power. He is a prophet, and is transcribing the word of God. With this realization, the brothers discover the “truth;” that they have no free will. However, minutes before this discovery, they believe they are making their own decisions, and creating their own path in life. Does this realization change Sam and Dean’s reality? Nothing, aside from their perception, has actually changed. So, did Sam and Dean ever have free will? If you think about it literally, they didn’t. Their actions were always predetermined, whether or not they knew about it. However, prior to meeting Chuck, their personal truths were different than this truth. They believed in their own ability to make decisions, and so, for them, wouldn’t this belief be considered the “truth?”

         When we were discussing “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” in class, we talked about the idea of reality being equal to truth. While reading this short story, our idea of the main character’s “reality” is constantly changing. We follow him through a long adventure; only to find out he was dead before the second part of the story. Does this mean, if reality and truth are synonymous, that the truth is changing? Is it possible that truth is not concrete? For both the brothers in Supernatural, and the reader of “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge,” the end of the episode/story provides an explanation of the truth about the situation. However, I believe, when we are making our own reality out of what we see through our windows of perception, the truth can be something very different.

Count the passes!

Perspective vs. Truth.

The introduction to Cat’s Cradle says, “ nothing in this book is true.” So I asked myself, does this mean that it’s all lies? As I read on, ‘Jonah’ tells the readers, “all of these true things I am about to tell you are shameless lies.” (pg.5) But how can true things be lies? What if a truth is not the opposite of a lie? Perception and perspective make all of this possible.

As I began reading the book, I expected everything to be untrue. I questioned whether the members of his ‘karass’ were ‘real’, whether Dr. Hoenikker even existed, and frankly, whether his name was even Jonah. After discussing what ‘real’ meant in class, I reconsidered how I linked the terms ‘real’ and ‘true’.

 Just like in ‘The Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge’, the story in Cat’s Cradle does not exist off of the page; we accept this because we are told that nothing in the book is ‘true’. However, in Cat’s Cradle, we are taken into different levels of truth and lies due to multiple characters perspectives and perceptions. As we move passed (and almost forget) about the untruthful nature of the Cat’s Cradle story, we move into the story that Jonah is trying to tell. A story within a story – sort of like Inception! With multiple secondary sources, I found myself getting lost and confused trying to figure out what was ‘true’ and what was ‘untrue’ regarding Dr. Hoenikker’s story. Each new source of information would contaminate the previous account. This is prevalent every time someone talks about Frank. Marvin Breed adored Frank while Newt portrayed him as a misfit. Similarly with Dr.Hoenikker; Marvin Breed says that he is “a queer son of a bitch,’ (pg.64) while Knowles says, ‘(..) he aint dead.’ (pg.60) This comes down to perspective and opinion- neither of them is telling the ‘truth’ nor telling a ‘lie’.

Finally, we are introduced to two opposing views regarding ‘truth’. Dr. Breed says, ‘The more truth we have to work with, the richer we become.” (pg.41) Meanwhile, Miss Faust says, “ I have trouble understanding how truth, all by itself, could be enough for a person.” (pg54)First of all, we must question whether these statements are a ‘true’ reflection of the individuals’ beliefs. Then, from these two statements, we are given more evidence that people view the concept of ‘truth’ differently. Within the recollection of events, in order to sound more interesting, there is a great possibility that these character fabricated events. Are these stories the shameless lies? How much of these stories does Jonah believe? How much should the readers believe?

In this novel that is said to be untrue, is there such thing as a lie? Or is it all just a story?

Fate and Truth

In the episode “The Monster at the End of this Book” in the show Supernatural the idea of fate is brought into play.  It seems that Sam and Dean have no problem with free will in the episode, but it also seems that their fate is already decided for them.  Sam and Dean have the power to make their own decisions and try to alter their fate, but they continue to stay on the set path that is designed for them.  After the episode I wondered if free will is really that free and if your fate is already decided for you.  What is the point of making decisions when the results are already determined?  I also wondered what was the point of having Sam and Dean live their lives when God was just having Chuck, the prophet, write everything out in his books.  People only believe the history that is written down because if it is not written down then it is just a myth.  God should just have someone write the books because eventually people will not remember Sam and Dean and just depend on what is written down. 

These ideas also cause me to question a lot of the reading done in class.  Authors use the idea that people believe things better when it is written down to their advantage and try to manipulate people when writing.  The reader will sometimes get lost in the reading and forget what is true and what is false.  It is important for readers not to believe everything the author writes. 

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.

A Million Little Lies

In class last Thursday we talked about the "memoir" A Million Little Pieces." The half fiction/half nonfiction book is about a 23 year old alcoholic and drug addict. As we said in class the author James Fray was interviewed on Oprah and his book became extremely popular. However, when word got out that many of the events in the story were highly exaggerated, the American public was outraged. Oprah stated that Fray "betrayed millions of readers." She later commented "what mattered was not the truth of Frey's book, but its value as a therapeutic tool for addicts." She later went back on this remark and apologized because she "left the impression that the truth is not important” (Wikipedia).

What I found interesting about this “argument” was that people got so caught up in the debate about whether this memoir was true or not that they failed to take away any real inspiration from the story. When we read books, whether they are fiction or non-fiction, we are allowing the author to take over our minds when we read. As readers, we become submissive, and generally “agree” to absorb what he or she is saying to us on the pages.

On one hand, readers could feel betrayed because they put some sort of superficial trust into Fray. Secrets bring people close, and because he was sharing his deepest and darkest secrets in his book, the readers most likely felt connected and close to him, making the read that much more emotional, and making them feel betrayed when they learned his events weren’t all true. On the other hand, the memoir, whether true or false was very influential. If Fray had published it as a fiction novel would it not have been featured on Oprah? Would it not have been a best seller on Amazon if people realized many of the events were made up? Although humans tend to identify more closely with events that are fictional, I think this argument got way too out-of-hand. The memoir was clearly moving and probably extremely influential for many readers. Debating about the credibility of his anecdotes just drew away from the inspiration of his story. 

Prefacing Truth and Snapple Caps

Many years ago, I got a Snapple cap that read "43% of these facts are false." It has haunted me to this day. I remember my 12 year old self thinking, "wow what have I been believing? but also "well is this cap in the 43% percent that is false?" But if if that is false then how many caps are actually false...etc.  I found myself in a deadly circle and mind-bending riddle that occurs when someone (in many cases an author) prefaces if something is going to be true or false. When an author explicitly states that the upcoming text is false, how do you know what to believe, or furthermore, believe that that statement is real?

Since my mysterious cap,  I have taken these prefaces with a grain of salt, and they are especially relevant in this course as shown through An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge as well as Cat's Cradle. In Occurrence we discussed the many clues that Bierce includes to give clues to the reader that what we are reading is untrue. But we are left with the questions of how much is untrue? Is it the side stories? The story in itself? Or the entire thing? Are we the "doomed man" that Bierce speaks of when he writes, "these thoughts, which have here to be set down in words, [are] flashed into the doomed man's brain...(Bierce, I). Once again, we are trapped in this deadly circle. 

These mind games, I have noticed, are also beginning to be played in Cat's Cradle. At the beginning of the book, our narrator states, "The first sentence in the Books of Bokonon is this: 'All of the true things I am about to tell you are shameless lies" (Vonnegut, 5). How can true things be lies? Is this foreshadowing the book as a whole? This makes me question everything I am reading now, which I assume is Vonnegut's purpose. It's like the snapple cap brain teaser with even more complex levels...and I still can't figure that one out. 

Difference Between "Real" and "True"?

The suggestion that Farquhar’s story was not “real” blew my mind, and sent me thinking what it meant to be “real” in fiction, which, by definition, is not true.  What is the definition of “real”? We know fiction is false, yet we allow ourselves to be absorbed into the world the author creates, believing it all happened in this “unreal” place.  If we can buy into it then and consider it real, why can’t we buy into Bierce’s world of Farquhar?  Is it one step too far from reality?  One level too deep into what is “unreal”?

By making Farquhar’s story seem impossible, Bierce hints that the reader is not supposed to believe him “real” in this fiction.  For example, the unlikelihood that all of those bullets and cannons continued to miss him, as well as the pure improbable fact that he is still alive are two examples of Bierce giving the reader reason for suspicion.  Also, after Farquhar supposedly falls from the bridge, his senses become “preternaturally keen and alert.”  He starts to see microscopic details like the multicolored dew on the blades of grass, and he starts to hear the inaudible like the beating of dragonfly wings. The idea of “preternatural” senses makes him seem more like a spirit or superhero, someone beyond human life (beyond as in already dead? Unknown.). 

However, even with all of this said, it is obvious Bierce goes through great effort to make his readers get swept up in the penultimate moments of this doomed man’s life.  Why hint that it is not real, yet make the hints so difficult to find?  Maybe he is questioning what is real as opposed to what is true.  It never happened so it isn’t true, but now told, is it “real”?