Unreliable Narrators - Revision history

Admin at 18:06, 12 December 2013

2013-12-12T18:06:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:06, 12 December 2013
Line 7:		Line 7:
	}}		}}

	I watched Akira Kurosawa's ''Rashomon'' [http://www.hulu.com/watch/215845], a classic depiction of unreliable narrators, within two days of reading ''Turn of the Screw'' by Henry James [http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/209]. I noticed parallels between both when I realized, ~~during~~ ''Rashomon'', that I was ~~repeating the same process~~ of trying to figure out how to filter ~~out or transform~~ the information provided by the ~~narrator that~~ I had ~~applied~~ while reading ''Turn of the Screw''. The parallels between the two became most obvious during ''Rashomon'' when the medium channeled the spirit of the dead samurai to tell the dead samurai's version of events, invoking elements of the supernatural and begging the question of how far you can stretch your believability when watching a story.		I watched Akira Kurosawa's ''Rashomon'' [http://www.hulu.com/watch/215845], a classic depiction of unreliable narrators, within two days of reading ''Turn of the Screw'' by Henry James [http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/209]. I noticed parallels between both when I realized, while watching ''Rashomon'', that I was applying a familiar technique of trying to figure out how to filter the information provided by the narrators. It was a familiar technique, because I had been applying it two days earlier while reading ''Turn of the Screw''. The parallels between the two became most obvious during ''Rashomon'' when the medium channeled the spirit of the dead samurai to tell the dead samurai's version of events, invoking elements of the supernatural and begging the question of how far you can stretch your believability when watching a story.

	Both stories bring up an important question about the reader's or viewer's ability to filter information from unreliable narrators: if we know that ghosts are not real, can we, honestly, consider that a narrator who sees ghosts, or believes ghosts, or channels ghosts, can be telling the truth?		Both stories bring up an important question about the reader's or viewer's ability to filter information from unreliable narrators: if we know that ghosts are not real, can we, honestly, consider that a narrator who sees ghosts, or believes ghosts, or channels ghosts, can be telling the truth?

Admin at 06:38, 12 December 2013

2013-12-12T06:38:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:38, 12 December 2013
Line 41:		Line 41:
	''Turn of the Screw'' is a single story, and the "many eyes" that Nietzsche refers to are the many eyes of the readers. The ambiguity of ''Turn of the Screw'' is the ambiguity of our own world. It illustrates to us how we craft our own narrative from facts. Each reader has their own interpretation of the "truth" of the story. Many eyes, many truths, no truth.		''Turn of the Screw'' is a single story, and the "many eyes" that Nietzsche refers to are the many eyes of the readers. The ambiguity of ''Turn of the Screw'' is the ambiguity of our own world. It illustrates to us how we craft our own narrative from facts. Each reader has their own interpretation of the "truth" of the story. Many eyes, many truths, no truth.

	'''Rashomon'' explicitly shows us four eyes and four truths; ''Turn of the Screw'' implicitly shows us thousands of eyes and thousands of truths. But both illuminate the same idea - how we construct meaning if there is no truth - and turn a mirror on that process.		''Rashomon'' explicitly shows us four eyes and four truths; ''Turn of the Screw'' implicitly shows us thousands of eyes and thousands of truths. But both illuminate the same idea - how we construct meaning if there is no truth - and turn a mirror on that process.

	''Rashomon'' and ''Turn of the Screw'': two eyes, one idea.		''Rashomon'' and ''Turn of the Screw'': two eyes, one idea.

Admin at 06:38, 12 December 2013

2013-12-12T06:38:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:38, 12 December 2013
Line 7:		Line 7:
	}}		}}

	I watched Akira Kurosawa's ''Rashomon'' [www.hulu.com/watch/215845], a classic depiction of unreliable narrators, within two days of reading ''Turn of the Screw'' by Henry James [http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/209]. I noticed parallels between both when I realized, during ''Rashomon'', that I was repeating the same process of trying to figure out how to filter out or transform the information provided by the narrator that I had applied while reading ''Turn of the Screw''. The parallels between the two became most obvious during ''Rashomon'' when the medium channeled the spirit of the dead samurai to tell the dead samurai's version of events, invoking elements of the supernatural and begging the question of how far you can stretch your believability when watching a story.		I watched Akira Kurosawa's ''Rashomon'' [http://www.hulu.com/watch/215845], a classic depiction of unreliable narrators, within two days of reading ''Turn of the Screw'' by Henry James [http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/209]. I noticed parallels between both when I realized, during ''Rashomon'', that I was repeating the same process of trying to figure out how to filter out or transform the information provided by the narrator that I had applied while reading ''Turn of the Screw''. The parallels between the two became most obvious during ''Rashomon'' when the medium channeled the spirit of the dead samurai to tell the dead samurai's version of events, invoking elements of the supernatural and begging the question of how far you can stretch your believability when watching a story.

	Both stories bring up an important question about the reader's or viewer's ability to filter information from unreliable narrators: if we know that ghosts are not real, can we, honestly, consider that a narrator who sees ghosts, or believes ghosts, or channels ghosts, can be telling the truth?		Both stories bring up an important question about the reader's or viewer's ability to filter information from unreliable narrators: if we know that ghosts are not real, can we, honestly, consider that a narrator who sees ghosts, or believes ghosts, or channels ghosts, can be telling the truth?

Admin at 06:37, 12 December 2013

2013-12-12T06:37:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:37, 12 December 2013
Line 7:		Line 7:
	}}		}}

	I watched Akira Kurosawa's ''Rashomon'', a classic depiction of unreliable narrators, within two days of reading ''Turn of the Screw'' by Henry James. I noticed parallels between both when I realized, during ''Rashomon'', that I was repeating the same process of trying to figure out how to filter out or transform the information provided by the narrator that I had applied while reading ''Turn of the Screw''. The parallels between the two became most obvious during ''Rashomon'' when the medium channeled the spirit of the dead samurai to tell the dead samurai's version of events, invoking elements of the supernatural and begging the question of how far you can stretch your believability when watching a story.		I watched Akira Kurosawa's ''Rashomon'' [www.hulu.com/watch/215845], a classic depiction of unreliable narrators, within two days of reading ''Turn of the Screw'' by Henry James [http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/209]. I noticed parallels between both when I realized, during ''Rashomon'', that I was repeating the same process of trying to figure out how to filter out or transform the information provided by the narrator that I had applied while reading ''Turn of the Screw''. The parallels between the two became most obvious during ''Rashomon'' when the medium channeled the spirit of the dead samurai to tell the dead samurai's version of events, invoking elements of the supernatural and begging the question of how far you can stretch your believability when watching a story.

	Both stories bring up an important question about the reader's or viewer's ability to filter information from unreliable narrators: if we know that ghosts are not real, can we, honestly, consider that a narrator who sees ghosts, or believes ghosts, or channels ghosts, can be telling the truth?		Both stories bring up an important question about the reader's or viewer's ability to filter information from unreliable narrators: if we know that ghosts are not real, can we, honestly, consider that a narrator who sees ghosts, or believes ghosts, or channels ghosts, can be telling the truth?
Line 35:		Line 35:
	''Rashomon'' is a movie that embodies this haunting quote. It forces us to face up to the fleeting nature of the truth in a world where all we can know is what we see and remember: faculties we know are fallible, unreliable, and subject to our wills. ("There are four eyes; and consequently there are four truths; and consequently there is no truth.")		''Rashomon'' is a movie that embodies this haunting quote. It forces us to face up to the fleeting nature of the truth in a world where all we can know is what we see and remember: faculties we know are fallible, unreliable, and subject to our wills. ("There are four eyes; and consequently there are four truths; and consequently there is no truth.")

	''Turn of the Screw'', on the other hand, is less about showing the same story from "many" eyes, and more about focusing on the unreliability of eyes in general. To say that we can never know the "Truth-with-a-capital-T" (Kant's noumenon, or "~~thing~~-in-itself" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon]) because all of the human faculties and senses that lie between us and that Truth are fallible, is a nihilistic statement; and ''Turn of the Screw'' seems to shine the spotlight on this fact: the fact that ''we will never know the truth''. In the story, there is no single interpretation of events. The information we have is imperfect. The frame of the story casts doubt on every fact. The events may be read in virtually any manner the reader pleases. All that we are left with, in the end, is the uncertainty of interpretation that characterizes the story. This is what makes it so unlike other stories - ambiguity is baked into the story, such that we can't escape it. And this is a reflection of how we experience reality.		''Turn of the Screw'', on the other hand, is less about showing the same story from "many" eyes, and more about focusing on the unreliability of eyes in general. To say that we can never know the "Truth-with-a-capital-T" (Kant's noumenon, or "world-in-itself" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon]) because all of the human faculties and senses that lie between us and that Truth are fallible, is a nihilistic statement (one that Nietzsche would emphatically agree with); and ''Turn of the Screw'' seems to shine the spotlight on this fact: the fact that ''we will never know the truth''. In the story, there is no single interpretation of events. The information we have is imperfect. The frame of the story casts doubt on every fact. The events may be read in virtually any manner the reader pleases. All that we are left with, in the end, is the uncertainty of interpretation that characterizes the story. This is what makes it so unlike other stories - ambiguity is baked into the story, such that we can't escape it. And this is a reflection of how we experience reality.

	Often, the sweet syrup of story is created by boiling off the ambiguity from the mash of messy reality, which consists of disparate experiences, events, memories, and interpretations. But ''Turn of the Screw'' refuses to do that. It presents us with the ambiguous, raw narrative, without an interpretation, and leaves everything unfinished, unexplained, and open. It shows us, in how we respond to it, how we ourselves deal with ambiguity in our own reality, how we craft our own stories from tangled and uninterpreted events. It is a giant mirror reflecting our own desire to create a coherent narrative thread to pull events together.		Often, the sweet syrup of story is created by boiling off the ambiguity from the mash of messy reality, which consists of disparate experiences, events, memories, and interpretations. But ''Turn of the Screw'' refuses to do that. It presents us with the ambiguous, raw narrative, without an interpretation, and leaves everything unfinished, unexplained, and open. It shows us, in how we respond to it, how we ourselves deal with ambiguity in our own reality, how we craft our own stories from tangled and uninterpreted events. It is a giant mirror reflecting our own desire to create a coherent narrative thread to pull events together.

Admin at 06:34, 12 December 2013

2013-12-12T06:34:52Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:34, 12 December 2013
Line 33:		Line 33:
	}}		}}

	''Rashomon'' is~~, in a sense,~~ a movie ~~embodiment of~~ this haunting quote. It forces us to face up to the fleeting nature of the truth in a world where all we know is what we see and remember: faculties we know are fallible, unreliable, and subject to our wills. ("There are four eyes; and consequently there are four truths; and consequently there is no truth.")		''Rashomon'' is a movie that embodies this haunting quote. It forces us to face up to the fleeting nature of the truth in a world where all we can know is what we see and remember: faculties we know are fallible, unreliable, and subject to our wills. ("There are four eyes; and consequently there are four truths; and consequently there is no truth.")

	''Turn of the Screw'', on the other hand, is less about showing the same story from "many" eyes, and more about focusing on the unreliability of eyes in general. To say that we can never know the "Truth-with-a-capital-T" (Kant's noumenon, or "thing-in-itself" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon]) because all of the human faculties and senses that lie between us and that Truth are fallible, is a nihilistic statement; and ''Turn of the Screw'' seems to shine the spotlight on this fact: the fact that ''we will never know the truth''. In the story, there is no single interpretation of events. The information we have is imperfect. The frame of the story casts doubt on every fact. The events may be read in virtually any manner the reader pleases. All that we are left with, in the end, is the uncertainty of interpretation that characterizes the story. This is what makes it so unlike other stories - ambiguity is baked into the story, such that we can't escape it. And this is a reflection of how we experience reality.		''Turn of the Screw'', on the other hand, is less about showing the same story from "many" eyes, and more about focusing on the unreliability of eyes in general. To say that we can never know the "Truth-with-a-capital-T" (Kant's noumenon, or "thing-in-itself" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon]) because all of the human faculties and senses that lie between us and that Truth are fallible, is a nihilistic statement; and ''Turn of the Screw'' seems to shine the spotlight on this fact: the fact that ''we will never know the truth''. In the story, there is no single interpretation of events. The information we have is imperfect. The frame of the story casts doubt on every fact. The events may be read in virtually any manner the reader pleases. All that we are left with, in the end, is the uncertainty of interpretation that characterizes the story. This is what makes it so unlike other stories - ambiguity is baked into the story, such that we can't escape it. And this is a reflection of how we experience reality.

Admin at 06:33, 12 December 2013

2013-12-12T06:33:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:33, 12 December 2013
Line 7:		Line 7:
	}}		}}

	I watched Kurosawa's ''Rashomon'', a classic depiction of unreliable narrators, within two days of reading ''Turn of the Screw'' by Henry James. I noticed parallels between both when I realized, during ''Rashomon'', that I was repeating the same process of trying to figure out how to filter out or transform the information provided by the narrator that I had applied while reading ''Turn of the Screw''. The parallels between the two became most obvious during ''Rashomon'' when the medium channeled the spirit of the dead samurai to tell the dead samurai's version of events, invoking elements of the supernatural and begging the question of how far you can stretch your believability when watching a story.		I watched Akira Kurosawa's ''Rashomon'', a classic depiction of unreliable narrators, within two days of reading ''Turn of the Screw'' by Henry James. I noticed parallels between both when I realized, during ''Rashomon'', that I was repeating the same process of trying to figure out how to filter out or transform the information provided by the narrator that I had applied while reading ''Turn of the Screw''. The parallels between the two became most obvious during ''Rashomon'' when the medium channeled the spirit of the dead samurai to tell the dead samurai's version of events, invoking elements of the supernatural and begging the question of how far you can stretch your believability when watching a story.

	Both stories bring up an important question about the reader's or viewer's ability to filter information from unreliable narrators: if we know that ghosts are not real, can we, honestly, consider that a narrator who sees ghosts, or believes ghosts, or channels ghosts, can be telling the truth?		Both stories bring up an important question about the reader's or viewer's ability to filter information from unreliable narrators: if we know that ghosts are not real, can we, honestly, consider that a narrator who sees ghosts, or believes ghosts, or channels ghosts, can be telling the truth?

Admin at 06:33, 12 December 2013

2013-12-12T06:33:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:33, 12 December 2013
Line 7:		Line 7:
	}}		}}

	I watched Kurosawa's ''Rashomon'', a classic depiction of unreliable narrators, within ~~about~~ two days of reading ''Turn of the Screw''. I noticed parallels between both when I realized, during ''Rashomon'', that I was repeating the same process of trying to figure out how to filter out or transform the information provided by the narrator that I had applied while reading ''Turn of the Screw''. The parallels between the two became most obvious during ''Rashomon'' when the medium channeled the spirit of the dead samurai to tell the dead samurai's version of events, invoking elements of the supernatural and begging the question of how far you can stretch your believability when watching a story.		I watched Kurosawa's ''Rashomon'', a classic depiction of unreliable narrators, within two days of reading ''Turn of the Screw'' by Henry James. I noticed parallels between both when I realized, during ''Rashomon'', that I was repeating the same process of trying to figure out how to filter out or transform the information provided by the narrator that I had applied while reading ''Turn of the Screw''. The parallels between the two became most obvious during ''Rashomon'' when the medium channeled the spirit of the dead samurai to tell the dead samurai's version of events, invoking elements of the supernatural and begging the question of how far you can stretch your believability when watching a story.

	Both stories bring up an important question about the reader's or viewer's ability to filter information from unreliable narrators: if we know that ghosts are not real, can we, honestly, consider that a narrator who sees ghosts, or believes ghosts, or channels ghosts, can be telling the truth?		Both stories bring up an important question about the reader's or viewer's ability to filter information from unreliable narrators: if we know that ghosts are not real, can we, honestly, consider that a narrator who sees ghosts, or believes ghosts, or channels ghosts, can be telling the truth?

Admin at 06:32, 12 December 2013

2013-12-12T06:32:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:32, 12 December 2013
Line 35:		Line 35:
	''Rashomon'' is, in a sense, a movie embodiment of this haunting quote. It forces us to face up to the fleeting nature of the truth in a world where all we know is what we see and remember: faculties we know are fallible, unreliable, and subject to our wills. ("There are four eyes; and consequently there are four truths; and consequently there is no truth.")		''Rashomon'' is, in a sense, a movie embodiment of this haunting quote. It forces us to face up to the fleeting nature of the truth in a world where all we know is what we see and remember: faculties we know are fallible, unreliable, and subject to our wills. ("There are four eyes; and consequently there are four truths; and consequently there is no truth.")

			''Turn of the Screw'', on the other hand, is less about showing the same story from "many" eyes, and more about focusing on the unreliability of eyes in general. To say that we can never know the "Truth-with-a-capital-T" (Kant's noumenon, or "thing-in-itself" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon]) because all of the human faculties and senses that lie between us and that Truth are fallible, is a nihilistic statement; and ''Turn of the Screw'' seems to shine the spotlight on this fact: the fact that ''we will never know the truth''. In the story, there is no single interpretation of events. The information we have is imperfect. The frame of the story casts doubt on every fact. The events may be read in virtually any manner the reader pleases. All that we are left with, in the end, is the uncertainty of interpretation that characterizes the story. This is what makes it so unlike other stories - ambiguity is baked into the story, such that we can't escape it. And this is a reflection of how we experience reality.

			Often, the sweet syrup of story is created by boiling off the ambiguity from the mash of messy reality, which consists of disparate experiences, events, memories, and interpretations. But ''Turn of the Screw'' refuses to do that. It presents us with the ambiguous, raw narrative, without an interpretation, and leaves everything unfinished, unexplained, and open. It shows us, in how we respond to it, how we ourselves deal with ambiguity in our own reality, how we craft our own stories from tangled and uninterpreted events. It is a giant mirror reflecting our own desire to create a coherent narrative thread to pull events together.

			''Turn of the Screw'' is a single story, and the "many eyes" that Nietzsche refers to are the many eyes of the readers. The ambiguity of ''Turn of the Screw'' is the ambiguity of our own world. It illustrates to us how we craft our own narrative from facts. Each reader has their own interpretation of the "truth" of the story. Many eyes, many truths, no truth.

			'''Rashomon'' explicitly shows us four eyes and four truths; ''Turn of the Screw'' implicitly shows us thousands of eyes and thousands of truths. But both illuminate the same idea - how we construct meaning if there is no truth - and turn a mirror on that process.

			''Rashomon'' and ''Turn of the Screw'': two eyes, one idea.

Admin at 06:16, 12 December 2013

2013-12-12T06:16:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:16, 12 December 2013
Line 7:		Line 7:
	}}		}}

	I watched Kurosawa's ''Rashomon'', ~~which is~~ a classic depiction of unreliable narrators, ~~shortly after finishing~~ reading ''Turn of the Screw''. I noticed parallels between both when I realized, during ''Rashomon'', that I was repeating the same process of trying to figure out how to filter out or transform the information provided by the narrator that I had ~~been doing~~ while reading ''Turn of the Screw''. The parallels between the two became most obvious during ''Rashomon'' when the medium ~~channels~~ the spirit of the dead samurai to tell ~~his~~ version of ~~the story~~, invoking elements of the supernatural.		I watched Kurosawa's ''Rashomon'', a classic depiction of unreliable narrators, within about two days of reading ''Turn of the Screw''. I noticed parallels between both when I realized, during ''Rashomon'', that I was repeating the same process of trying to figure out how to filter out or transform the information provided by the narrator that I had applied while reading ''Turn of the Screw''. The parallels between the two became most obvious during ''Rashomon'' when the medium channeled the spirit of the dead samurai to tell the dead samurai's version of events, invoking elements of the supernatural and begging the question of how far you can stretch your believability when watching a story.

	Both stories bring up an important question about the reader's or viewer's ability to filter information from unreliable narrators: if we know that ghosts are not real, can we, honestly, consider that a narrator who sees ghosts, or believes ghosts, or channels ghosts, can be telling the truth?		Both stories bring up an important question about the reader's or viewer's ability to filter information from unreliable narrators: if we know that ghosts are not real, can we, honestly, consider that a narrator who sees ghosts, or believes ghosts, or channels ghosts, can be telling the truth?
Line 19:		Line 19:
	Both ''Turn of the Screw'' and ''Rashomon'' stage the stories they tell as narratives within narratives, a useful mechanism for creating elements of ambiguity and unreliability. But creating this frame also allows the storyteller to establish "ground rules" more clearly. I think establishment of ground rules is important to stories, particularly stories that take grosser liberties with our willing suspension of disbelief. For example, fairy tales usually begin with "Once upon a time...", and this way of beginning a story cues in the audience to the fact that the story they are about to hear will be a fairy tale, with all the liberties with reality that fairy tales are wont to take. A Tom Clancy-style novel whose narrator suddenly begins to talk about fairies, on the other hand, is a cue that the narrator has lost all their marbles.		Both ''Turn of the Screw'' and ''Rashomon'' stage the stories they tell as narratives within narratives, a useful mechanism for creating elements of ambiguity and unreliability. But creating this frame also allows the storyteller to establish "ground rules" more clearly. I think establishment of ground rules is important to stories, particularly stories that take grosser liberties with our willing suspension of disbelief. For example, fairy tales usually begin with "Once upon a time...", and this way of beginning a story cues in the audience to the fact that the story they are about to hear will be a fairy tale, with all the liberties with reality that fairy tales are wont to take. A Tom Clancy-style novel whose narrator suddenly begins to talk about fairies, on the other hand, is a cue that the narrator has lost all their marbles.

	Stories don't just suspend our disbelief - they suspend our disbelief ''in a certain way''. The context of how you are supposed to suspend your disbelief, what the storyteller is supposed to do or not supposed to do in the course of telling the story, is a very complicated epistemological question. It's possible for us to do~~, mainly~~ because stories are never told in a vacuum - even the simplest story is laden with context, expectations, and patterns~~, which all form our canvas, onto which~~ the story is ~~then deposited. And much like a piece of modern art, the stories~~ told ~~in ''Rashomon'' and ''Turn of~~ the ~~Screw'' call attention~~ to ~~the canvas itself: they are paintings that say, "Look at me! I'm a painting! Notice the texture of the canvas. Look at the painting closely. See how it's actually just a bunch of colored dots~~?"		Stories don't just suspend our disbelief - they suspend our disbelief ''in a certain way''. The context of how you are supposed to suspend your disbelief, what the storyteller is supposed to do or not supposed to do in the course of telling the story, is a very complicated epistemological question. Untangling this is a difficult task, but one that even children can do with ease. It's possible for us to do in large part because stories are never told in a vacuum - even the simplest story is laden with context, expectations, and patterns. Who is telling the story? What kind of story is it? What have we been told about the story to prepare us?

	That the human brain ~~has been~~ capable of handling the epistemological tangle of layered truth that stories present to us for thousands of years is nothing short of astounding. We know, from the time we are very young, how to perform the complicated task of listening to a story, and how to distinguish the different layers of truth, and how to sort the information in a story into separate bins corresponding to different kinds of knowledge.		Each of these elements (the context, our expectations, the story's patterns) in turn form an internal mental canvas, onto which the story is then deposited. And much like a piece of modern art, the stories told in ''Rashomon'' and ''Turn of the Screw'' (and stories with unreliable narrators in general) call attention to the canvas itself: they are paintings that say, "Look at me! I'm a painting! Did you notice the texture of the canvas? Did you notice that I'm actually just a bunch of dabs of colored paint?" Just as a canvas covered entirely with one color forces us to think about what a painting fundamentally ''is'', the stories in ''Rashomon'' and ''Turn of the Screw'', by toying with our notions of truth within stories, force us to think about what a story fundamentally is.

			That the human brain is capable of handling the epistemological tangle of layered truth that stories present to us, and that it has been capable of doing so for literally thousands of years, is nothing short of astounding. We know, from the time we are very young, how to perform the complicated task of listening to a story, and how to distinguish the different layers of truth, and how to sort the information in a story into separate bins corresponding to different kinds of knowledge. (In fact, the complexities of truth in storytelling are reflective of the deeper tangle of truths inherent in language. One can use language to construct statements, ideas, and experiences that do not correspond to reality, but nevertheless carry some meaning.)

	This is what epistemology is all about - what is truth, what is reality, and how do we come to know them? How do we translate experience and knowledge from one mind to another? Nietzsche, in ''Will to Power'', writes:		This is what epistemology is all about - what is truth, what is reality, and how do we come to know them? How do we translate experience and knowledge from one mind to another? Nietzsche, in ''Will to Power'', writes:
Line 31:		Line 33:
	}}		}}

	''Rashomon'' is, in a sense, a movie embodiment of this haunting quote. It forces us to face up to the fleeting nature of the truth in a world where all we know is what we see and remember: faculties we know are fallible, unreliable, and subject to our wills.		''Rashomon'' is, in a sense, a movie embodiment of this haunting quote. It forces us to face up to the fleeting nature of the truth in a world where all we know is what we see and remember: faculties we know are fallible, unreliable, and subject to our wills. ("There are four eyes; and consequently there are four truths; and consequently there is no truth.")







	[[Category:Writing]]		[[Category:Writing]]

Admin at 05:59, 12 December 2013

2013-12-12T05:59:49Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[File:Rashomon.jpg|frame|Rashomon]]
 I watched Kurosawa's ''Rashomon'', which is a classic depiction of unreliable narrators, shortly after finishing reading ''Turn of the Screw''. I noticed parallels between both when I realized, during ''Rashomon'', that I was repeating the same process of trying to figure out how to filter out or transform the information provided by the narrator that I had been doing while reading ''Turn of the Screw''. The parallels between the two became most obvious during ''Rashomon'' when the medium channels the spirit of the dead samurai to tell his version of the story, invoking elements of the supernatural.
@@ Line 12: / Line 18: @@
 Both ''Turn of the Screw'' and ''Rashomon'' stage the stories they tell as narratives within narratives, a useful mechanism for creating elements of ambiguity and unreliability. But creating this frame also allows the storyteller to establish "ground rules" more clearly. I think establishment of ground rules is important to stories, particularly stories that take grosser liberties with our willing suspension of disbelief. For example, fairy tales usually begin with "Once upon a time...", and this way of beginning a story cues in the audience to the fact that the story they are about to hear will be a fairy tale, with all the liberties with reality that fairy tales are wont to take. A Tom Clancy-style novel whose narrator suddenly begins to talk about fairies, on the other hand, is a cue that the narrator has lost all their marbles.
 [[Category:Writing]]