Truth vs. Reality

The main difference from truth and reality is that reality is confinement; it is only what one sees. Truth, however, is open to interpretation. Truth cannot be seen and that is what makes it strange.  Like Glaucon says, we are “strange prisoners” and given the choice to seek truth. It is up to us to seize the opportunities that allow us to see beyond reality. Originally we as prisoners see “the truth… [as] literally nothing but the shadows of images”. Shadows give false impressions of truth.  It is interesting that the prisoners name these shadows because this process of labeling is human nature. We all feel driven to question and define things, but only seekers of truth can withstand not having a direct answer.  

The prisoner’s passage into the “upper world” mirrors the journey of seekers of truth or philosophers.  Socrates calls this journey having one’s “eye fixed” on the truth. The prisoner had to see the whole picture in order to come to the conclusion that the only one who has the absolute truth is the creator or “he who gives the seasons and the years”. Even Socrates, one of the most famous lovers of wisdom, admits that only “God knows”. Amusingly, the enlightened prisoner actually pities the other prisoners, who are still in the dark or ignorant. And yet the other prisoners degrade the enlightened prisoner because of his open-minded perspective. The enlightened prisoner has no desire to be honored by the others because he has realized that there is a greater reason for reality and the world.

Liberty Hall by Ring Lardner

 

          I recently read Liberty Hall, a short story satire by Ring Lardner. The story’s setting (New York, 1920s) and diction is similar to F. Scot Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. This is no surprise since Lardner and Fitzgerald were supposedly friends though. As expected from a satire, Liberty Hall was amusing because of the ironic themes and details. The funniest parts were when the narrator (Mrs. Drake) writes that she feels oblige to accept her husband’s fan’s invitations.  Ninety two years after Liberty Hall was written, men are still “whipped” and women are still their husband’s secretaries. In the story two adults learn the “you can’t have your cake and eat it too” lesson. For example, the Drakes actually enjoy the company of the Buckleys. But after staying at the Buckley’s uncomfortable home, the Drakes never speak to the couple again. Then the Drakes meet the Thayers. Once the Drakes embark on “the visit to end all visits” with the Thayers, the Drakes decide that they don’t like the Thayers, but enjoy their comfortable home. Mr. Drake works so hard to avoid invitations from other couples, that he develops a system, “what he calls his emergency exit.” Every time Mrs. Drake schedules a visit to a fan’s home, Mr. Drake writes himself a telegram, signs it with a pseudonym, and gives it to an assistant at his company. The assistant is told to send the telegram to Mr. Drake after twenty-four hours.  Mr. Drake will either leave with the telegram as an excuse or stay if he is enjoying his visit. The title is ironic because the Drakes never feel free when they visit with people. Both the host and the guest try to appease each other, when ironically they are just discomforting each other.

War's Tragedy

In 1925, Ernest Hemingway wrote about the long term consequences of war, which continue today, in “Soldier’s Home”.  War obviously takes many casualties, but the most silent consequence of war is the mental health issues that some veterans face, or post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Many soldiers return home only to remove themselves from society due to physical brain injury during the war or mental stress. Harold Krebs, plagued by his experiences in the war, does exactly this. After reading “Soldier’s Home” I began to wonder where a soldier’s home is. Harold certainly does not feel comfortable or “at home**” when he returns to a loving family. Hemingway first informs the reader that Harold returns after all the “war hype”. It’s no wonder why Harold suffered from PTSD (referred to as shell shock or battle fatigue at the time), he had no one to share his war stories with. After all it is human nature that tells us to “get things off our chests”. Harold avoids attention and communication, because he is constantly searching for the feeling he once knew. He searches for the feeling of home. Eventually, Harold realizes that he can’t return home, because he grew out of his childhood home. Similar to a walking corpse, he is empty. Even when Harold’s mother tells him that she loves him, Harold cannot find similar feelings to embrace his mother with. ‘"Don't you love your mother, dear boy?" "No," Krebs said. His mother looked at him across the table. Her eyes were shiny. She started crying."I don't love anybody," Krebs said. It wasn't any good. He couldn't tell her, he couldn't make her see it.’ War is a tragedy because it takes casualties in the present and future. 

**I recommend this interesting article for info on PTSD. Caroline Alexander connects PTSD to "The Odyssey".

Pepé's Flight

Foreshadows Pepe's long yet manly death " 'When did Pepe come to be a man?' Emilio asked.  'Last night', said Rosy.  'Last night in Monterey.' The ocean clouds turned red with the sun" (Flight).

Reminds me of the comfort I felt while
at Redwood National Park" Once Pepe
was among the trees, the sun was lost.
 A perfumed and purple light lay in the
 pale green of the underbrush. Goseberry
bushes and  blackberries and tall ferns
lined the stream, and overhead the
 branches of the redwoods met
and cut off the sky."

       When I expressed my esteem for John Steinbeck, I knew that I was inevitably provoking my sister.  (My oldest sister and I get along very well despite having polar opposite personalities.) Just as I expect, she immediately advises me that Steinbeck is too descriptive and boring. Even though I completely disagree with her, I let her continue her spiel because it’s pretty funny to watch her argue. Later, I realized that my sister’s desire to defend her opinion is similar to Pepé’s aspiration in Steinbeck’s Flight. The main difference being that my sister established her argument with words whereas Pepé proved his manliness with a knife. I can’t help but feel bad for Pepé though. Steinbeck’s use of non-omniscient third person narrative makes it clear that the Torres family is impoverished and uneducated. Pepé is not taught to articulate his feelings through words. However he is taught to defend his family and he does so by killing the man who dishonors him. More importantly, Steinbeck uses this technique to address the oppression of migrant laborers in California during the 1930s. The Torres are the stereotypical Mexican Indian family, struggling to survive on barren property. Naturally the Torres family needs Pepé, the oldest child, to provide for the family after the death of their father.
                One of the reasons I enjoy reading Steinbeck’s literature is because he often uses non-omniscient third person narrative. This type of narrative makes me feel apart of the story. I think some people may dislike Steinbeck because of his bleak descriptions. In my opinion Steinbeck provides just enough details, allowing me to gradually form a picture in my mind. Then Steinbeck says one vivid word (such as glinting, sloshed or gnawing) which completes the image. The story feels real because Steinbeck’s descriptions depict the harsh reality to life. I can picture myself with Pepé, traveling to Monterey “the white light beat on the rocks and reflected from them and rose up quivering from the earth again, and the rocks and bushes seemed to quiver behind the air”. I enjoy the challenge that I can’t tell what Pepé is thinking. I can only try to understand   him through the ten lines he speaks throughout the whole story. To me this makes Flight all the more real.

The Power of the Chalice

       Lately, I have associated The Power and The Glory (1939) with The Silver Chalice (1952). (I have not read The Silver Chalice since 2008, so if anyone notices any mistakes please correct me!) I am not exactly sure why I immediately correlate these unlike stories. Part of me wonders if Graham Greene and Thomas B. Costain were prompted by similar historical events, to write similar themes. Maybe Greene and Costain created stories that surround faith because of the effects Communism had on the world at that time. Regardless, each story involves the epic journey of the main character. Society labels the Whiskey priest and Basil (sculptor and former slave) sinners, because the priest and Basil’s flaws are easily recognized. Yet both are given the responsibility to carry chalices, symbols of the Catholic faith.

      The Whiskey priest carts one of the only chalices left in Mexico, allowing him to secretly say mass. And Basil carries the cup or the Holy Grail, one of the last objects that represent Jesus existence. I think the Whiskey Priest and Basil are more than worthy of carrying such responsibilities because they utilize the grace that is associated with the objects. On the outside both characters appear to be undeserving, but in reality these characters are more humble than those who surround them. Both character's are put under a large amount of pressure and gracefully accomplish their responsibilities.