Angles of Vision

Two of our authors, Dickinson and Gaiman's definition of truth are more consistent with the correspondence definition of truth which can be defined as for something to be true, it has to agree with factual reality. Our other two authors, O'Brien and Anderson, seemed to have a post modern definition of truth which can best be described as, the truth is what I say it is.
In Emily Dickinson's poems, Dickinson's main point's about truth are that first, she believes that truth is absolute and never changes. In this belief, she comes the closest to having a correspondence definition of truth. She seems to be saying that truth is objective, "It is what it is." In Truth is as Old as God, Dickinson compares truth to the oldest things she can think of, God, and states it will endure as long. Ironically, in comparing truth to God she compares truth to something people have been searching for the truth about for a very long time.
Also, Dickinson sees the truth as very powerful, and best served slowly or it may cause damage. We see this in Tell All the Truth. I see this as somewhat of contradictory between her other point on truth, if truth is what it is and has always been, what do we have to fear from it, why can't we just accept it?
In Anderson's I Know the Moon, all the animals have their own concept of the moon, and even when they approach the wisest among them, they can't agree on what the moon is. Anderson seems to be saying that there may be more than one true answer to a question and that perhaps, we can learn something from trying to see points of view other than our own. While I agree that we should take other points of views into consideration, I think this concept is best utilized when we are discussing an issue such as, should we travel to the moon? For a question like what the moon is, I think Anderson is practicing realitivism, where the truth is deemed dependent upon the person, in this case, the animals holding the belief which means it probably is not true at all. Certainly, this differs from Dickinson's poems, where she says truth never changes, it is always the same. I agree with Dickinson that there can only be one truth as to what the moon is. Yes, Anderson is right that some questions can have more than one answer, but we call those answers opinions, not truth.
In Gaiman's, Wolves in the Walls, I believe Gaiman is trying to show us what truth is not as much as he is trying to explain what truth is. Gaiman seems to be saying just because someone, (everyone) says something is true doesnt make it so, " Everyone know it's all over if the wolves come out of the wall." Lucy was told this by her mother, father, and brother, they didn't know why it was so or who said it was so, but they believed it. This is similar to the belief that almost everyone shared hundred years ago about the world being flat, nobody knew who came up with the idea, nobody knew why people accepted it to be true but they did. Gaiman's main point about truth seems to be that we should not accept what someone says with blind faith, we should really question whether it is true.
In Tim O'Brien's chapter entitled, How to Tell A True War Story, O'Brien's main point about truth is that if a war story has a moral then its not true. If a war story makes you feel good then it can't be true. It seems at first look O'Brien is saying what Dickinson is saying in one of her poems that the truth is what it is, but really O'Brien sees the truth as a tool to get his point across. What is true, what is not true doesn't matter, what matters is the opinion about the war.
I do see some similarities between the authors. Certainly, Anderson, and O'Brien have a very broad definition of truth. They both see, truth, as a tool to achieve some greater good. Anderson wants to prove people can disagree and work out their differences, O'Brien wants to show war is evil. On the other hand, Dickinson and Gaiman seemed to have a more restricted definition of truth. Dickinson essentially says truth is always the same, and can't change, and Gaiman says don't accept things true because people tell you they are. Interestinly, both Dickinson and Gaiman also seem to agree that the truth can be strong and painful. "Truth must dazzle gradually of every man be blind," and Gaiman, when Lucy asked her pig puppet, "Should we tell them we have elephants in the walls?" And the puppet said "I am sure they will find out soon enough."
My favorite piece of literature is The Wolves in the Wall. Gaiman as I said, is making the point we should not accept something as true just because people tell us, we should question why, we should challenge people to explain their positions, challenge there conclusions. We now know the earth is not flat because people refused to simply believe what they were told. Individually, and as a society, we will be better off if we question the truth.