Composition - Interpret or Comment

In "Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter" by Tom Franklin, the complex relationship between Silas and Larry serves as a central theme. The quote, "We were friends. Weren't we, Silas?" and Larry's response, "You were, Larry. I don't know what I was," encapsulates the core of their friendship, its ambiguity, emotional distance, and underlying issues.

• Larry's proposition ("We were friends.") brings back memories of a time where he was desperately attempting to find at least one friend
• Larry's query ("Weren't we, Silas?") reveals his need for reassurance and demonstrates his uncertainty
• Silas’ response, („You were,“) reveals his exclusion of the friendship and underlines its one-sidedness
• the second part ("I don't know what I was") could be interpreted as an indirect admission of doubt
• in addition, it could be also interpreted as an indirect admission of guilt

• they are tied by a subconscious bond, possibly due to them being half-brothers
• similar life occasions (absent father / problematic father figure) caused them to understand each other to a certain extent
• they became close childhood friends and experience give-and-take situations (e.g. books, fishing, rifle...)
• they meet secretly against their parents' will
• due to their different backgrounds (e.g. growing up in Chicago vs. Chabot), they have little understanding of each others attitude

• Silas shows no loyalty and solidarity towards Larry (e.g. the Halloween party, situations at school or the fight over the riffle.)
• Larry insults Silas at the end of their fight as "nigger"

• Silas and Larry's relationship is embossed by childhood ties but also by disloyalty and betrayal
• thus the friendship can be interpreted as inconclusive and ambiguous

In the digital age, the concept of truth faces a paradox. The quote from "The Independent" on March 26, 2016, highlights the declining popularity of truth and the perception that it is demanding, costly, and unexciting compared to the allure of easy, cheap, and thrilling falsehoods. This analysis delves into the changing dynamics of truth and deception in today's information landscape.

• more expensive to procure
• well-researched evidence
• comprehensive
• can be complicated
• on expenses of others

• no evidence needed
• easy to procure and to understand
• simplistic
• can be used for embellishment

• the complexity of truths and lies have increased over the past years due to:
• the rise of populism
• alternative or fake facts
• seemingly easy answer
• easy access via social / digital media for all
• politicians question the role of journalists categorically

• committed to thorough research
• costly
• requires many resources
• despite the great number of alternative information sources which can be consumed through media, many individuals, organisations and, quality newspapers commit themselves vehemently to the truth (e.g. fighters for human rights, political bloggers...)

In a digital age fraught with information and misinformation, the analysis of truth versus falsehoods reveals a troubling paradox. As indicated in the quoted passage from "The Independent," truth is becoming less fashionable, seen as arduous and expensive compared to the allure of cheap, thrilling lies. This analysis has uncovered the changing landscape of truth and deception in contemporary society, emphasizes the need for critical thinking, integrity, and a commitment to preserving genuine information. Despite these challenges, it's essential to value and seek the truth in an era where it is at risk of being overshadowed.