Paper

the truth is a complicated thing, and sometimes frightening in its undeninable honesty. it is a human instinct to try and hide yourself from the sometimes inevitable brutality of facts that can't be ignored. but the question is, how far will we go to hide the truth from ourselves? what will we do to create a habitable false reality for our self-protection? the entire concept of truth vs. false reality is prominent in plato's "allegory of a cave." in this story, there are people chained to the floor of a cave. they know only what they are told, and believe in the shadows cast on the wall by puppets and flames as if they are definitive, solid concepts. they know nothing but darkness and ignorance. this is a common theme, explored throughout many works, where the characters are struggling to either hide from or embrace the truth -- to shrink into or step out of the shadows.

in "the love-song of j. alfred prufrock", T.S. eliot expores truth vs. false reality in terms of social classes and elitists: "in the room the women come and go / Talking of Michelangelo." this quote discusses women who talk of michelangelo, but are they showing sincere appreciation, or simply showing off their knowledge of an artist who happens to be accepted by their elite group? this brings up the question whether everyone puts on a show to impress others, to an extent. is anyone ever completely honest with others, or is there something we are always holding back or suppressing? we guard our secret selves; sometimes the only thing we hold sacred.

the concept of protecting our secret selves is questioned in the short story "this blessed house" in "the interpreter of maladies", by jhumpa lahiri. one of the protagonists of the story wonders, "why does it matter so much what other people think"? (pg. 147). this woman is creating a shrine to christianity, using objects found in her new house. her husband is ashamed of her enthusiastic display of a religion they don't practice and constantly wonders how other people will react. why does he care so much? it's almost like he's afraid to have people accept his wife's quirky personality and open mind. he keeps his secret, protected self under lock and key, like much of us. we are afraid of being rejected. he's afraid. all of us are afraid. if our favorite part of ourselves is held unacceptable by people or societal expectations, we feel like we have nothing left to offer and close our minds to any thought of being accepted. this is essentially creating a false reality – we sacrifice ourselves to be noticed, appreciated, or loved, and push the truths of our identities and self-worth, to the back of our minds, where they lose their meanings and gather dust.

sacrificing our identities is an idea used in “a doll’s house” by henrik ibsen. after the blackmail being held against nora is revealed, nora and her husband torvald have a particularly painful exchange. due to some fortunate circumstances, things are resolved through torvald’s eyes, but nora still remains unhappy. the truth about a financial situation she had held from torvald uncovered her true feelings about her marriage: nora: "that's right. now it is all over. i have put the keys here. the maids know all about everything in the house - better than i do. tomorrow, after i have left her, christine will come here and pack up my own things that i brought with me from home. i will have them sent after me." / torvald: "all over! all over! nora, shall you never think of me again?" / nora: "i know i shall often think of you and the children and this house." / torvald: "may I write to you, nora?" / nora: "no - never. you must not do that." / torvald: "but at least let me send you - nora: "nothing - nothing." / torvald: "let me help you if you are in want.” / nora: "no. I can receive nothing from a stranger" (pg. 71). nora had trapped herself in a glass box of societal expectations – a picture-perfect marriage; children; a wife with a passive disposition, eager to please her superior despite their marriage pledge of equality. how far will we go to conform to societal expectations? to fit in with the “normal”, what everyone desires to achieve? we are willing to dispel truths to create a false reality, a matrimonial paradise. nora sacrificed her self-worth and any sense of individuality to suffer in an oppressive household. she stepped outside herself and realized she had to get out immediately, but so few of us have the courage to do so…to get out and live on our own, away from what we considered to be true.

an idealistic false paradise is also created in the play "a streetcar named desire" by tennesee williams. the main character, blanche, is slowly losing her mind. she has been ostracized by the town where she used to live, and by her very own family. in this exchange between blanche's brother-in-law, stanley and herself, blanche's delusions are uncovered. she had invented a millionaire who was coming to save her. this was her last attempt at creating a perfect life, where she is appreciated and wanted and loved. stanley calls her out on this fantasy, and she can't defend herself any longer. stanley: "there isn't no millionaire! and mitch didn't come back with roses 'cause I know where he is -" / blanche: "oh!" / stanley: "there isn't a goddamn thing but imagination!" / blanche: "oh!" / stanley: "and lies and conceit and tricks!" / blanche: "oh!"/ stanley: "and look at yourself! take a look at yourself in that worn-out mardi gras outfit, rented for fifty cents from some ragpicker! and with the crazy crown on! what queen do you think you are?" (pg. 127). this addresses an important question: it okay, or socially acceptable, to invent new personas and identities as a form of self-protection? or is it healthier to face the facts, no matter how terrible they may be -- shielding yourselves from truths and blissfully inhabiting a false reality?

the concept of living in a false reality is also used in the movie "memento." the main character lenny has developed short-term memory loss after a tragic occurence. in this quote,
is explaining how he will continually lie to himself to prevent lifelong bitterness and unhappiness. "i'm not a killer. i'm just someone who wanted to make things right. can't i just let myself forget what you've told me? can't i just let myself forget what you've made me do. you think i just want another puzzle to solve? another john g. to look for? you're john g. so you can be my john g...will i lie to myself to be happy? in your case teddy...yes i will." is it justifiable to redefine your surroundings to remain in a suspended state of ignorant bliss? does wanting to be happy give you the right to abandon the concepts of truth and honesty? does anyone have the right to carefuly construct a false reality, to hide and remain shielded from all unpredictable outside factors?

it is a human desire to hide from the truth, in a perfected, pretend paradise. in this false reality, we are capable of hiding from social classes; our secret selves; struggling marriages and social expectations; families; mental illnesses; and unhappiness. this concept of concealment is shown in plato's "allegory of a cave", where the people trapped in the cave know nothing but ignorance and the absence of light. the truth ominously awaits them outside of their constraints -- the darkest shadow of all. if they choose to seek the truth, it will be painful and unlike they have ever experienced, because once the truth is faced, everything you've ever known or thought to be true is completely redefined or restructured. for some, it is so much easier to hide from the unknown -- safety is infinitely preferable to shaky possibilities. they will remain forever trapped in their solitude, shielded from the shadows.