Mike Bliley: Till We Have Faces 1

Seen and the Unseen in Till We Have Faces

            What is the difference between seeing and knowing? Where is the line between seeing and not seeing? This is one of the difficult philosophical questions Lewis poses in Till We Have Faces.  By retelling the myth of Cupid and Psyche with an invisible castle, Lewis has created an interesting dynamic to the story.

            When she is down by the river, Orual can see the palace for a very brief time. The experience is so ethereal, in fact, that Orual cannot tell whether the event even happened, or if it was all in her imagination. I think Lewis does this to define the boundary of seeing and knowing, seeing and not seeing, as Orual is right at that line. She has both seen and not seen the palace; her visual cues have been piqued, but although he she has perceived the palace, she cannot actively perceive it. In much the same manner, she has seen the palace but cannot know the palace. Knowing the palace is the struggle that she has and, in this way, Lewis has placed Orual right in between the two ends.

Interestingly enough, when told that the sisters in the Priest’s tale had seen the palace, her response is simply “how could and mortal have known of that palace at all?”  To Orual, knowing and seeing are inextricably linked. It is because of this disconnect between the two that she is so traumatized by the event. It honestly reminds me about studies of the subliminal. In psychology, a stimulus is considered subliminal if it is perceive less than 50% of the time. Reports indicate that an individual can know the stimulus without actually seeing it.