Analysis Of What's 'True, Really True In Turn Of The Screw'

Stephanie Alvarez
Intro to Fiction
Final Essay
Is what’s True, Really True? In order to validate whether or not something is true, even if it’s not, we would have to understand what it means to be real. When something is actually existing as a thing and not artificial/fake is the meaning of something being real and something being true. The way we perceive something is what makes something true or not. Everyone has their own sense of interpreting information, whether it’d be pictures, colors, words, advice, conversations etc. Can something be true, even if it isn’t? Yes, something can be true even if it isn’t. In the “Turn of the Screw” the governess was witnessing paranormal/supernatural occurrences. She would see clear images of two
distinct people, who happened to formerly work at Bly. The governess had never met nor heard about these people, so there was no possibility of her describing them purposely for attention. There were instances where the governess was deemed insane, and crazy. No one believed her at all and thought she was an immature young woman with a fixation on her employer. An employer in which she had never met, and people thought that she might have been making these apparitions up just to have her employer finally make an appearance at Bly. The two children the governess was looking after would occasionally witness the apparitions but would not confirm that they did because they just wanted to get rid of the governess. “She’s there, She’s there”, “She’s there, you little unhappy thing—there, there, there, and you see her as well as you see me!” (p 70) This was a desperate cry out for attention and for agreement.
But Mrs. Grose and Flora cannot agree on something if they don’t see it. Even though the apparitions are not true to everyone else, they were very true to the governess. This makes the untrue, in fact true. “She isn’t there, little lady, and nobody’s there---and you never see nothing, my sweet! How can poor Miss Jessel---when poor Miss Jessel’s dead and buried? We know don’t we love?” “It’s all a mere mistake and a worry and a joke.” (p 71) Mrs. Grose assures the governess that what she is claiming to see is just in her head. It does not exist, and she just wants her to let up. What the governess sees and what Mrs. Grose doesn’t see are true factual instances. The governess could have the ability to witness the non living while Mrs. Grose does
not.
In “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” Iran perceives her husband in a way in which was not true to Deckard himself. “You’re a murderer hired by the cops” – Iran (p4) Whether or not Deckard had retired an android the night previous to that morning, Iran was constantly upset and disgusted with him. Either way she considered androids as a being human beings full of life, and she did not agree with her husband taking a life. However, short after that comment Deckard reassured her that he has never taken a life, a human one that is. “I’ve never killed a human being in my life.” – Deckard (p4). The empathy Iran had for those poor androids was basically what the Voigt- Kampff test was looking for in those specimens being tested. Androids are not able to display those true emotions. But they were able to display emotions, if they were learned.
In Iran’s eyes her husband was killing living things, so he was indeed a killer. It is true because that is how Iran perceives and processes her husbands’ actions. Deckard on the other hand, insisted he was not a killer. The androids were robots; he was not taking a life from the actual circle of life. He was getting rid of faulty technology. That is how he perceives his actions and that is true also.
The bounty hunters job and purpose of occupation was to retire those illegal androids to prevent a threat to humanity.
A test was used to distinguish the androids from humans. This test was called the Voigt-Kampff testing apparatus. Originally it would only take a few questions to be asked in order to determine whether or not it was an android. However, once the Nexus- 6 makers began to lose so many droids they felt it was necessary to prove the Voigt-Kampff test as a faulty test. The Rosen organization created these androids and gathered a group of them to be tested. One Android was tested and she passed as a human at first until Deckard asked a last question. Up until the very last question Rachel was real, she was true. She was able to function as a natural human being would be able to function. She was able to portray some types of emotions. Rachel was existent, if you touched her arm, it would feel like a human arm. Her identity would not have been discovered if it had not been for that
test.
Even though Rachel was not conceived by human beings, she was conceived by a man and a machine. A man created her with the use of a machine. Blood does not run through her blood but she considers herself real and as do other people as well. In reality, the actuality of Rachel being a living being is not true. However, to others her existence is perceived as being true. Deckard is not a murderer; he has never ended another human’s life. But to others his actions are perceived as a murderer’s so he is interpreted as a murderer. Even though the androids were created very life like, they are not true. Others consider them to be true.
In both books there were many things that were perceived in many different ways. The governess experienced supernatural/paranormal apparitions, everyone else experienced nothing. Deckard did not consider himself a killer but his wife did. In everyday life everyone could agree that cheese is existent. Bleu cheese is considered very tasty by some, but it is not true to others. Catholicism is considered to be the only true religion by Catholics but it is not true to everyone because there are so many different religions in the world. Something can be true to certain individuals while being false to everyone else. It is the matter in which we perceive the information that is provided to us in that moment. Another example that I would like to point out is not related to either books but it is the “black and blue/ white and gold dress.” Certain people were able to perceive a completely different color than the rest. It was the eyes ability to perceive certain colors. What others saw was true, they did not falsify what they saw, so it was true if they saw white and gold, even though the dress was in fact black and blue.