Prompt 3 #3
After reading John Treat’s Writing Ground Zero one can immediately begin to see the differences between truth and fact. Although Treat makes it extremely clear that the challenge of depicting truth and fact is not only a problem that is particular to atomic-bomb literature, it has long been a concern of modern writing (34) it is certainly interesting to consider truth and fact in atomic bomb literature. While making his main points about truth and fact on page 34, Treat references some atomic-bomb authors who have grappled with these themes in their works. Specifically, Treat references Toyoshima Yoshio and Ōta Yōko, author of City of Corpses in Hiroshima Three Witnesses, and their struggles to depict fact and truth in their works. Treat highlights Yōko’s attempt to address this problem in her preface to the second edition, which Yōko added during the books republishing in 1950. Yōko indicated in the preface that even though she experienced the bomb first hand, that she had “done some research” (147) and we see that research throughout the work in various forms (i.e. statistics, quotes from newspaper clippings, etc.). Although this is effective and certainly represents a mixture of fact and truth, Hayashi Kyōko’s Two Grave Markers in The Atomic Bomb: Voices from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, another piece of atomic-bomb literature, addresses fact and truth, in a different, but more effective manner than Yōko. Two Grave Markers is more effective since it explicitly makes the reader more attune to question whether fact or truth is being shared with them.
Instead of using the author’s introduction in order to make readers aware of areas of fact (research) and truth (first person accounts/hearsay stories) like in Yōko’s work, Kyōko employs the third person to tell Wakako’s survivor story of the atomic bombing of “city N.” Unlike Yōko Kyōko weaves seemingly unnecessary comments/side-bars into Wakako’s story to make the reader aware of truth and fact. The best example of this comes on pages 33 and 34. “I heard that a missionary school student tried to help a nun who was crushed under the church. When she ran toward the building, the nun chided the girl and said, Don’t come, it’s all right, run away quickly. The nun’s robe caught fire…and the girl ran away crying, they say” Later, Wakako mumbles to herself “that story is a fake.” This statement is followed with the claim that the “story was an embellished fabrication, not the truth” (34).
Wakko’s initial reaction and the following commentary serves as justification to why the missionary student story was a fabrication. “Those who lived had just barely managed to save their lives. Who would have deliberately run back to help others? There could not possibly have been time to worry about the others. The girl student who fled home probably fabricated the story when recounting her experiences to her parents, the image of the nun she had forsaken haunting her eyes. It must be that she wanted to believe in her own good will. The made-up story moved Obatachan, brought tears to Tsune’s eyes, and would do the same to many other well meaning people. As the days pass, the lie will penetrate the girl’s body and she herself will begin to believe it. For the first time, then, she will be liberated from the nun” (34).
It is obvious that anecdote about the missionary school student and the following quote are relatable to Wakako’s own experience and her difficulties with coming to terms with what not only the general events that occurred, but also the events that occurred between Wakako and her friend Yoko in “N city” on August 9th. However, this challenging of the anecdote serves as a clear example for the reader to question not only elements of the story and actions of Wakako, but all literature that encompasses first person and like first person accounts. Of course challenging elements of a text is something that all good readers do, but it is something that is often lacking when reading literature like City of Corpses and Two Grave Markers. The fact that Two Grave Markers gives an in depth example of challenging the authenticity of a story serves as a reminder to the reader that they should always be wary of personal accounts. Since some humans are the only things that survive atomic atrocities, they are a necessary aspect of knowing and understanding atomic atrocities. Therefore Hayashi Kyōko’s Two Grave Markers and its missionary school student anecdote plays an important role in reading similar literature for sifting through elements of fact and truth.
Sources:
“Introduction and Chapter 1.” Writing Ground Zero: Japanese Literature and the Atomic Bomb, by John Whittier Treat, The University of Chicago Press, 1995, pp. 1–45.
Minear, Richard H. Hiroshima: Three Witnesses. Princeton Univ. Press, 1990.
Selden, Kyoko Iriye, and Mark Selden. The Atomic Bomb: Voices from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. M.E. Sharpe, 1989.
Matt
I really liked your analysis of the factual accuracy of atomic bomb literature. You were able to connect Treat’s writing and “City of Corpses” and “Two Grave Markers”, as well as provide your own insight of truth and fact with atomic bomb literature. I would strongly agree that you must take caution with finding scientific and historical truths and facts in atomic bomb literature.
However, I think find any strong scientific facts in literature with at least a “grain of salt”. The official scientific knowledge of the atomic bomb blast produced by the government were hardly facts themselves. For example Dr. Fujiwara in “City of Corpses” on page 175 compares Madame Curie’s interactions while studying uranium to the atomic bomb fallout. “Madame Curie, the discoverer of uranium, died of primary radiation, but given proper treatment, people who survived the instant of the explosion I think will recover.” That is hardly a scientific fact or truth, which is relating two historic instants of exposure to uranium, while providing no means of how they will recover. I would also cite that the ability of authors to produce factual atomic bomb literature was difficult due to the Occupational censorship. Ota Yoko states how she had to abandon entire chapters due to the intelligence of both the Occupation and their own Army on page 142. “The threat of censorship had led to the deletion of the second chapter, ‘Expressionless Faces’.”
I think the immediate reactions and feelings towards the dropping of the atomic bombs is more important than factual truth-telling for the authors of atomic bomb literature. But they have shown determination in attempting to record facts and truths for the sake of their literature, which is always important for authors. While most of the facts and truths around the atomic bombs were scarce or incorrect, the literature provided an emotional sense of what the atomic bombs were like, while trying to convey their factual devastation as well.
Please excuse the typo in the first sentence of my second paragraph, it should instead read: However, I think one should take any strong scientific facts in literature with at least a “grain of salt.”