Truth Found In "Hey Nostradamus!"

"Hey Nostradamus!" written by Douglas Coupland, begins with one character account of her life and a tragic incident, a high school shooting. Cheryl happened to be in the cafeteria the day the shooting occurred, obtaining a first person account of the events which unfolded. Witnessing teenagers being killed in cold blood, for no apparent reason, just because the killers were unhappy, depressed, or had never fit in. Cheryl lived in every hour, minute, and second of this massacre. Being their, first hand gave her a real life, play-by-play, on the action that occurred within the cafeteria walls.
Is this account the truth? Does Cheryl manipulate information to fit her own individual view? Perhaps she does, because she is in the same room as many other teens who probably, if asked what they saw, would tell very different stories. Is it the shock that creates these fictional truths? Or, are the teenagers just interested in creating a larger shock factor to the public?

Shock does play a large part in the fiction that is created in situations where people are physically, mentally, and emotionally strained; however, I do not think many people would want to create more shock than necessary, due to the immense tragedy that they were forced to watch. Personally, I think that Cheryl does give a pretty general account of the attacks. Of course she probably misses some things other people may have witnessed, but by being in the middle of the cafeteria, she has a very broad, almost camera panning type view. Also, when Cheryl gives her account, she blatantly states that, she "can discuss the killings with the detachment I have from being in this new place" (14). Since Cheryl has passed away, it almost seems that she is giving an omniscient account of her memories from this day. Personally, I think that her being able to be detached, and stand back and look at this day with a different perspective, allows more truth to be told through Cheryl.
Tying Jason, Cheryl's husband, with his own unique account of the shootings into this thought, I can see that each person has a different view, mostly based on their whereabouts during the shooting, but since Cheryl has passed away, her account does not seem to hold as much emotion as Jason's does. Jason rushed into the cafeteria, after passing many fallen school members, like "Layla Warner...in a disjointed heap by the trophy case", to witness his wife murdered (57).
Jason viewed the cafeteria near the end of the killings. He never saw a person shot and killed in the school. He only viewed the product of the horrific scene, created by the three gunmen. Yes, he did kill one of the gunmen; however, Jason's account does differ significantly from Cheryl's. Cheryl was inside the cafeteria, but Jason shows less connection to the shootings and his surrounding environment, as he sits under the middle cafeteria table, after the gunmen have been killed, and holds his lifeless wife in his arms. Yes, Jason's account of the scene is valid, relating to what happened after the three gunmen were killed, and a short time before; however, Jason seems more focused on Cheryl than anything else. When reading Cheryl's account, it is evident that she pays much more attention to the details. Like when "Mark Something, came tottering in, his chest red and purple from what looked like really bad makeup...[and fell] like a bag of gym equipment" to the floor (14). There is a significant amount of detail shown in her memory recollection, which might be because she is disconnected from the living realm of the world.

Which account should be taken as truth then? How do we decide and differ? Personally, I think that both of these accounts are valid; however, since Cheryl was in the cafeteria the entire time, she expierenced more, therfore, she has a better idea of what actually happened.

A collection of essays by Mark Twain

This collection of essays at http://users.telerama.com/~joseph/wman.html is full of questions and answers about the varying concepts of truth and the formation of belief. Here is an example "I told you that there are none but temporary Truth-Seekers; that a permanent one is a human impossibility; that as soon as the seeker finds what he is thoroughly convinced is the Truth, he seeks no further, but gives the rest of his days to hunting junk to patch it and caulk it and prop it with, and make it weather proof and keep it from caving in on him. Hence the Presbyterian remains a Presbyterian, the Mohammedan a Mohammedan, the Spiritualist a Spiritualist, the Democrat a Democrat, the Republican a Republican, the Monarchist a Monarchist; and if the humble, earnest, and sincere Seeker after Truth should find it in the proposition that the moon is made of green cheese nothing could ever budge him from that position; for he is nothing but an automatic machine, and must obey the laws of his construction." This comment by Mark Twain can be applied to particular characters in Hey Nostradamus! For example, the Youth Alive members collectively held truths overshadowed and negated certain elements of the faith that they so staunchly espoused such as forgiveness, charity, and judgement. The same can be said for Reg whose strict adherence to the truth as he saw it was diametrically opposed to the very tenets he was upholding and in the process when adhering to a belief system or truth one can alienate oneself just as Reg did. Ascribing to an absolute truth has the effect of negating all other possibilities, leads to dogmatic thinking, and conflict. The majority of familial, personal relationship, academic, and global conflict is a derivative of this idea that Twain posits. I think?

Truth in a lab coat

The men of science, Darwin, Einstein, and Freud personify the idea that the legitimizing of truth resides in those who wear a lab coat. These authorized theories are collectively thought of as truth, especially within the hallowed halls of academia. I find this to be an interesting fact as all three of these theorists rely on methods a writer of fiction or a dare I say it a conspiracist might employ such as observation, speculation, imagination, conjecture, hypothesis, thought experiments, induction, and in Freud's case themes in Greek tragedy. The processes of the writer and the scientists are similar in that they are posing questions and theorizing about potentialities based on perceived and observed actualities. When juxtaposed the words theory and fiction are more congruous than are theory and fact, or theory and truth. Theory is speculative, as is fiction. Theories are not facts, they are a particular arrangement of facts that are so aligned as to the whimsy of the theorist, which is similar to the process involved in the production of fiction. If potential purveyors of truth wish to be taken seriously, the lab coat is the necessary accessory.

What defines truth?

Truth, what is it?

The dictionary states that truth is "the true or actual state of a matter"; however, when we obtain a said 'truth' from a newspaper article, television broadcast, or magazine, how are we to be sure it is the definite actualities of the event? Several news broadcasts discriminate, leave out important information, are extremely biased, and can create information for a theatrical response from their viewers. While watching tonight's nightly broadcast, are you sure you are getting the full story with all the relevant information and facts? The truth is...your not. What gives these people the right to feed information into society without telling the whole story? Perhaps I cannot blame the news broadcasters, producers, etc.; however, today people need to be extremely careful when deciding what to believe. As humans, should we not want the world to understand earth shaking incidents?
Evidently, it seems that Hollywood has found its way into the news world and created a more candid version that is exciting and contains suspense, but is also untrue. Then again, what do many people in society feed off of?Celebrity gossip runs the life of many tabloid mongers. Walking into a grocery store or standing in line at a gas station, one can not help but look at the magazines with their fluorescent headlines using words like 'sex, drugs, and murder' to catch interest. Is this fair? That information published in these magazines is utter garbage? What happened to humans wanting to tell the truth? Gossip in these magazines is just another incident where fiction overshadows the truth. Flipping through these issues and reading the text is just another form of news that lies to its readers. Also, how degrading is this for the people who are actually written about within these pages? Oh, but we don't have to worry about them they are multi-millionaires, remember? How vile has the human race become that lies sell more than truth? Then again, how can we discern between truth and fiction anymore?
Personally, I find it disgusting how the truth can be hidden and manipulated just to make it not look as boring? What sells more, a story about a celebrity having a child or a story about said celebrity having an illegitimate child along with a love affair on the side? You do the math! It is just the same in the news. Who wants to hear about soldiers being sent to the Middle East for no reason? No, there must be a search for nuclear warheads that have not been found, yes that's it, that will help sales and keep people reading!
How sad have we as humans become? Are we really that dull that we need excitement in every bit of news we read? I would like to say no, but evidence shows that we are a little too into the fiction we are fed.
I guess this leaves me back at my original question, 'what defines truth?’ I find it hard to decide what does, do you?

Moon Landing?

In the late 50's, the Russian satellite Sputnik, launched humanity into the Space Age. The Cold War competition between the ideological systems of capitalism and communism involving the United States of America and Russia created a space race intent on sending humans to the moon. Whoever arrived first could claim superiority thereby adding legitimacy to the ideology and system of government. By juxtaposing certain facts of the American Apollo missions of the late 60's early 70's with the present Space Shuttle program there is a compelling argument for the existence of a collectively held truth being in fact a fiction. Almost 4 decades ago the Apollo program posited astronauts 375000 kilometers from the earths surface into lunar orbit 14 times of which 6 of these excursions landed astronauts onto the lunar surface once with a 500 pound jeep. Each time returning the astronauts safely to earth in an aluminum pod that has a surface thickness of only 1 centimeter. Conversely, the Space Shuttle program has posited astronauts only 380 kilometers from the earths surface into orbit and in the process 14 astronauts have lost their lives in 2 seperate accidents. Could the fictional film Capricorn One about a faked moon landing really be based on truth? Incidentally, Peter Hyams who before writing and directing the film had a history as a war correspondent during the Vietnam War and also as a documentary filmaker, both of which are occupations that lay claim to reporting and representing the truth. Was this film really a former reporters attempt to wrap his unbelievable true story within the bounds of fiction?