Tralfamadore Transformations

Tralfamadore is real, at least through the eyes of Billy Pilgrim. In Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five, Billy’s perspective alters his view of true reality. When Billy becomes “unstuck in time”, his frequent visits to Tralfamadore become a part of his perceived reality. This “time-travel” includes re-visiting moments in his past as well as his future. Billy perceives these events as completely real, believing that he experienced them physically. While his stories seem crazy to those around him, Billy convinces himself that his “time-travel” experiences are much more than an alternate reality within his own mind. While Tralfamadore may only be a figment of Billy Pilgrim’s imagination, his “visits” with its inhabitants provide him with valuable insight into his own life. He escapes to Tralfamadore in order to cope with his real-life experience in the war. The Tralfamadorians help Billy understand that all moments in life are connected, blended, much like “beads on a string” or “a stretch of the Rocky Mountains”. We “Earthlings” often fail to see the whole picture. It is in our nature to focus on the here and the now. Billy Pilgrim may only travel through time in his mind, labeling him as crazy, but the knowledge he gains from his extraterrestrial friends places him light years ahead of his fellow human beings. While the idea of altering the truth is often viewed negatively, in Billy Pilgrim’s case, it was the best way to help him cope with his past experiences.

The Loving Murderer

Perspective is a major aspect of the slave era. From the
white master’s point of view, treating another human being like a possession and
an animal was completely justified. However, through the eyes of the slave,
their own identities and thoughts were being stripped away. Perspective also
affects the lives of Sethe and her family in Toni Morrison’s Beloved. The
controversial murder of Sethe’s baby causes the reader to question if
perspective is not the only cloud covering the truth, but if love too plays a
role in altering it. In the novel, Paul D accuses Sethe of “loving too thick”
when she impulsively kills one of her children to “protect” them from returning
to a life of slavery. Paul D views her actions as animalistic, reminding Sethe
that she “has two feet, not four”. However,
Sethe sees the murder differently. In her
mind, death was the only alternative to returning to slavery. She worked so
hard to run away with her children and when the schoolteacher showed up at 124,
she did what she thought was best. Her
barbaric act of love prevented three of her children from the slave life, but sacrificed
one. This is the common debate of perspective. Is it right for one so commit a
crime if it is justified by love? Or should morality always prevail?

Guilty by Perspective

In a court of law, the main objective is to uncover the truth. While the process may seem “fair” and “just” on paper, the perspectives of both the prosecution and the defense can sometimes cloud the judgment of the accused. Monsieur Meursault’s murder trial in Albert Camus’ The Stranger is a direct example of clouded perspective. The prosecutor in the trial directly links Meursault’s criminal actions to his lack of emotion regarding the recent passing of his mother. He “accuses [Meursault] of burying his mother with crime in his heart” suggesting that the murder was premeditated. Instead of trying Meursault solely on the evidence of his crime, the prosecutor’s perspective of his lack of emotion is what ultimately delivers a guilty verdict. By portraying Meursault as a flawed, “criminal soul”, the prosecutor supplements personal judgment for hard facts. It is easier for the jury to sentence a man of “doubtful morality” to death, especially if they believe he didn’t even care for his elderly mother. Reiterating the rather insignificant detail that Meursault failed to remember his mother’s age somehow further condemns a man who “doesn’t have a soul” and is unable to attain “the moral principles that govern men’s hearts”. While it is evident that Meursault truly was guilty, the infiltration of personal perspective by the prosecution creates a false impression of a man unjustly labeled “an abyss threatening to swallow up society”.

The Perspective of Crime

Crime, in many cases, is solely based the element of perspective. In Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment the murder of the pawnbroker is one of these instances. At first, Raskolnikov sees little harm in the murder. Based on his own perspective, he is benefitting society by sacrificing the life of one person for the good of the greater populace. An average person would view murder for what it truly is, a crime. Raskolnikov’s personal perspective influences his view of the situation. Based on his economic and social situation, he views the pawnbroker as a source of evil in society and makes it his own personal mission to eradicate this evil. I think perspective is extremely relevant when it comes to judging the crime. Raskolnikov’s mental, emotional, and economic state influences Porfiry’s treatment of him. Based on his situation, Porfiry feels sympathetic towards Raskolnikov and treats him differently than one would expect a criminal to be treated. In both cases of crime and the judgment of a crime, perspective factors into one’s definition of morality and the truth.

A Man More Mentally Blind Than Mad

Like in Oedipus, blindness is a major motif found in King Lear. The most poignant example of this blindness is Gloucester. At the beginning of the play, Gloucester is blind to the deceiving ways of his illegitimate son, Edmund. He fails to recognize Edmund’s manipulation of him in his devious plot in pursuit of power. Then, Gloucester is literally blinded. Ironically enough, this physically blinding is a result of his “blindness” to Edmund’s plan. Gloucester’s other son, Edgar, helps Gloucester to “regain his sight” when he stages a suicide. This “suicide” provides Gloucester with a new view of his world, even if he is unable to physically see what is around him. King Lear is another victim to blindness. When Cordelia refuses to outwardly proclaim her love for her father in order to earn a part of his kingdom, Lear is blinded by her true intentions. Cordelia says, “Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave my heart into my mouth.” King Lear interprets her words to say that she does not love him. Lear is blinded by his pride. For a long time, the King has always had power and pride at his fingertips. Since he now must hand his power over to his daughters, Lear is attempting to preserve what he has left, which is his pride. In order to maintain his pride, he needs reaffirmation of his daughters’ love for him. He is blinded by the true meaning of Cordelia’s actions. King Lear is also blind to the state of his kingdom. The storm scene is the first time where he truly sees the conditions his subjects are enduring . This scene is the first time that Lear genuinely reflects on his actions as King and accepts the truth. In a sense, each character apart of this play is blind to something. In turn, they all have misconceived notions of “the truth”.

Blinded by the Truth

The motif of blindness is a major one in Oedipus. Oedipus is blind to his true identity .When attempting to locate Laius’ murderer, Oedipus consults Tiresias, the blind prophet. Although Tiresias is blind, he sees more than others do. When he names Oedipus as the murderer, Oedipus begins to mock the old man. During the confrontation, Tiresias replies, “You mock my blindness do you? But I say that you, with both your eyes are blind”. Oedipus and Tiresias are opposites of one another. Although Tiresias is physically blind, he sees the truth and while Oedipus still has his eyesight, he is blind to the truth. This quotation proves ironic at the end of the play when Oedipus really does blind himself upon discovering that his wife and the mother of his children, Jocasta, is also his own mother. Originally, Oedipus is viewed as very insightful, intelligent and reliable by his people. The Thebans trust his word more than anyone else’s. However Oedipus’ blindness to the truth shows that human knowledge can only go so far. Not only was Oedipus blind to his true identity, he was blind to Tiresias’ efforts to inform him of the truth. Looking at the juxtaposition of Tiresias’ and Oedipus’ characters, as human beings, are we all essentially “blind” in one way or another?

The Truth Is...

How does perspective shape or alter the truth?

Do different viewpoints provide insight into what is “true” and what is “false”? This question interests me because I often feel that the divide between the truth and a lie is a complete gray area. What may seem “true” to one may seem completely false to another. It often depends on the person. I feel people often “see” what they want to see, rather than what is standing right in front of them. Personally, I’ve witnessed perspective interfere with judgment of “the truth” in my own life; whether with friends, family, sports, or education.

As human beings, do we truly “see” the truth or do we simply engineer our own versions of it? How do we let our own experiences and judgments influence our understanding of the truth?

I read Atonement by Ian McEwan over the summer. This novel strongly connects to my “Big Question”. In a way, Briony creates her own truth. She lets her jealousy, her imagination, and her constant pursuit of attention dictate what she perceives to be “the truth”. She lets her emotions get in the way of her judgment and misperceives an encounter between her older sister, Cecilia, and the housekeeper’s son, Robbie. Her misinterpretation of “the truth” creates a mistake that changes the lives of many. In this case Briony’s perspective completely transforms the truth into a dramatic, over the top fabrication that one would expect to read in one of her childhood plays.