Constantly throughout Lincoln in the Bardo, I found myself noticing a overarching theme; the effect of perspective on a human's truthfulness. Both in the "ghost" sections, and the historical sections of this book, differing perspectives brought about statements that contradicted or did not line up with other statements/ happenings from within the book. The most blatant and confusing example of this occurred on page 19, when party goers where talking about the moon. One guest recalled "The full moon that night was yellow-red" (Saunders, 19), but another recollection of the same night stated "There was no moon that night and the sky was heavy with clouds" (Saunders, 19). No matter how basic and trivial this is, I believe Saunders is attempting to teach a lesson regarding how much value we can place on others memories/recollections. The moon is not something typically seen as a subjective matter, but by including these lines, Saunders proves that anything can become subjective when a human is involved. Another smaller moment similar to the priorly described incident was when several differing accounts of President Lincoln's appearance were presented.
To my best knowledge, I feel that a fictional account of an event occurs later in the book when Reverend Thomas fails to understand why he was not let into heaven and is not able to recall a single serious wrong doing in his lifetime. This has led me to believe that he was jaded by his own desire to not have committed any sins in his lifetime. A reverend would not be denied entry to heaven for any minor transgressions, and the life he should have lived would have virtually guaranteed his entry. Saunders pushes his point even deeper here, illustrating that you can not even trust your memories to be objective. Your memories are formed by your altered perspective on events that have occurred (a perspective by which you only desire to see yourself in a positive light). It is natural for a human, myself included, to prefer only my good qualities and to brush my transgressions under a quasi memory rug. Does this introduce an idea that we should not blindly trust historical perspectives and recollections? Ironically, this is a question that essentially cannot be answered because history is history for a reason; it has already happened. There is no way to know exactly what did/did not happen but leaves us with a valuable lesson to constantly be diligent whenever human memories are involved.
The ability for humans to change their perspective on the truth is vital towards understanding the deeper insinuations of the novel. By understanding the ultimate fault of man, Saunders provides an explanation as to why the ghosts are forced to exist in the bardo. Had the ghosts accepted their fate instead of trying to ignore their death, they may have been able to accept the rewards that the man that had been judged as pure of heart had been given. This is apparent when Lincoln visits Willie the last time and the ghosts go forth and appear to have “abandoned any pretext of speaking one at a time, many calling out desperately from where they stood, others darting… to shout their story in” (Saunders 205). Is this really the actions expected of a satisfied ghost? If someone were pleased with their behavior, they would not be attempting to desperately partake in an event where the living interact almost directly with the dead. The pages following the return of Abraham Lincoln to Willie’s grave recount details from the ghosts’ personal lives, including intent, such as “[I] need to collect what Dougherty owes me,” and secrets, as represented by vesper johannes’ tale about sexual assault by a neighbor, which had never been spoken of prior (Saunders 207). These actions show an underlying selfish impulse to only reveal what is needed at the current time to present the most beneficial results, and is a trick employed by reverend thomas when he is judged by the “Christ emissary” (Saunders 191).
ReplyDeleteI agree with both interpretations regarding truthfulness and perspective; Saunders deliberately included contradicting historical (or possibly fictitious, do we really know?) sources, and Reverend Thomas refuses to accept his former sins. However, an important nuance separates these two claims. The portion recounting the moon's appearance addresses subjective, differing perspectives, and the segment about Reverend Thomas instead represents the theme of denial. Anyone can build their own truth through perspective, yet denial often involves an absolute element of truth. Though slight, the difference between truthfulness through perspective and truthfulness through denial is a crucial division of Lincoln in the Bardo. For example, throughout most of the novel, we questioned the ghosts’ knowledge of their deaths. While Reverend Thomas “knew very well what he was” (Saunders 187), he “[refrains] from speaking of any of this, to anyone” (Saunders 193). Demonstrating defiance and liberation, Reverend Thomas tells the truth to Willie Lincoln. Then, in perhaps the most chaotic scene, Willie reveals the often untimely and unfortunate deaths that plagued the ghosts. Yet before Willie said anything, “many [ghosts] were now attempting to flee” (Saunders 196) and Mr. Vollman pleaded to him saying, “Please stop. For the good of all” (Saunders 196). The other ghosts’ reaction to Willie, not even announcing, yet pre-announcing the truth suggests a sense of understanding. Most people would have listened to the beloved and seemingly harmless Willie. Somewhere in their memories, the ghosts comprehend their deaths and choose to deny them in the bardo. In fact, their reactions reflect the moment Reverend Thomas was damned: “[He] turned and ran” (Saunders 192). Here, Reverend Thomas denies his former life, as the ghosts in the bardo do as well. They may be able to change perspective on the effectiveness of World War II or what the moon looked like, but none can change the truth of their former lives.
ReplyDeleteSaunders certainly highlights the importance of perspective throughout the novel through both the opinions of the ghosts and the historical approaches. I also like how you bring up the case of Reverend Thomas, because it brings up a very interesting case where I believe Saunders is actually incredibly hypocritical. A theme of the book certainly seems to be the subjectivity of human truths. However, the fact that there is a higher entity of sorts who is capable of judging all seems to undermine this theme. For instance, you mentioned how Thomas thinks he should get into heaven because he thinks he has done nothing wrong. However, he is judged as having done something wrong enough to damn him to Hell. This means that the spirits perspective certainly doesn’t come from Thomas’s brain which begs the question how do the spirits know Thomas has done something wrong? This of course implies omniscience. However, if omniscience is possible even in a non-human being then there must be a correct point of view. After all something that is all knowing would be able to see what each point of view was and the information from behind said point of view. The omniscient one would then be able to decide the most logical point of view from all the information provided. This would of course imply that there are distinct objective human truths even though one cannot know if his or her viewpoint is the correct one. In my opinion this contradiction is a major weakness of the novel.
ReplyDelete