A Focus on Time and Trauma in Sci-Fi Television

               In his essay "Temporality and Trauma in American Sci-Fi Television," Aris Mousoutzanis notes that the use of temporality and trauma in television functions in a threefold way to emphasize not only the work that is using the temporal play/motif but also American television in general. His first point is that "structural equivalences between trauma and new media, whose ability to challenge conventional perceptions of time and space has been seen as similar to the structure of traumatic temporality" (97). In other words, Mousoutzanis is stating that like traumatic events' effects on the human mind, temporal play and trauma affect our understanding and the wavering, somewhat scattered events and structure within contemporary american television. I feel out of all three points he makes, this one is the most rigid and understandable, one that stands out and is scientifically accurate (and studied as such) in the understanding of trauma and the role it plays in the mind of any person. Dr. Robert Stolorow says it well in his post on Psychology Today: "Time does not heal the wounds of trauma... trauma devastatingly disrupts the ordinary linearity and unity of our experience of time, our sense of stretching-along from the past to an open future" ("Trauma and the Hourglass of Time"). In particular, our understanding of time, especially time in relation to our own lives, is often a long, "ordinary linearity" of "same stuff, different day" routines from birth to death. This linearity, however, is broken up and marred by those out of the ordinary, unique events that change our lives in dramatic ways (trauma). The major traumas in our lives often stick out sorely among the linearity of our lives, not unlike the nature of time and temporality in television. 
               One such example of this is the television show 24, which Mousoutzanis notes. In the first season, Jack Bauer (Kiefer Sutherland) becomes caught up in a plot to assassinate the fictional senator David Palmer, with each episode representing 1-hour segments of the same day in linear order following this main plot. However, throughout the main plot, multiple subplots begin appearing, including a mole in the agency, personal conflicts among Jack's family as well as David's marriage, professional conflicts (often arising from personal conflict) with Jack and the other members of his agency, and the kidnapping of Jack's wife and daughter. Although all of these subplots revolve around the main plot, each represents some form of trauma or dramatic shift in the narrative as a whole, all of which are culminating the final twist of the first season--the biggest trauma of them all. As the season concludes, (SPOILER ALERT) Jack is searching for his wife (who was kidnapped and held captive for over half the season), only to finally find her in a locked room, passed away from a gunshot wound.
               One thing that is so important and striking about this is the use of trauma in the narrative, both for the story and for the viewer. Most television series, even dramas focused on crime, death, and trauma, keep the characters that were introduced in the first season for longer than the first season at the very minimum (although [MORE SPOILERS] House of Cards makes a close call with this). Not only that, but oftentimes even minor characters (at least the good guys) aren't killed off in the first season, either (I've noticed them more often to be replaced rather than killed, such as in CSI or Criminal Minds). The writers' choice to kill Teri Bauer was impressive, from a television standpoint, but is also questioned by the fact there is an alternate ending in which she survives (albeit never aired that way originally). Going further, it is also important as a point in episodic narrative and trauma. The show, having Bauer searching for his wife for hours and hours (episode by episode, week by week for the viewers watching the original airing), concludes its season finale only to have Jack (and the audience) find Teri does not survive. The finale ends with the clock striking midnight, the start of a new day (and end of the old), with Jack holding Teri in his arms and the screen fades to black. For the audience, narratively, this is a major turning point as they are building their anticipations and anxiety up, hoping Jack will find a way to save the day. When the screen fades to black and seeing his failure on screen, the viewer is left with the trauma of what just happened with no way to express their discomfort, their hate, or their guilt with how they've felt about the show. Because social media wasn't booming yet (the show originally began in 2001, before Myspace in 2003, Facebook in 2004, and Twitter in 2006), viewers had no recourse for that trauma other than those who also viewed the show and were just as invested in the characters as they were. Although it was a "shared trauma" among viewers, there was little way to express it yet, so viewers were left to absorbing the traumatic event not unlike the events that happen(ed) in their own lives. And lastly, this goes directly with what Stolorow notes, that "trauma devastatingly disrupts the ordinary linearity and unity of our experience of time." The viewer has seen Jack Bauer routinely come to the rescue and find and fight his way out of every situation, but is struck down when he cannot save his wife. Stolorow continue, "Experiences of emotional trauma become freeze-framed into an eternal present in which we remain forever trapped." Much like what happens on an episode of a television show, the trauma the viewer experiences with characters they feel emotionally attached or invested in remains with the viewer long after the episode (or show) has ended, often associating itself with a period in one's own life where trauma of their own has occurred. Like the finale, the moment is now freeze-framed in the viewer's life in a way that cannot be removed or otherwise fixed or "made better;" the characters, episode, and show cannot change to reduce grief, much like trauma in our own life cannot be changed once it occurs.
Further in the essay, Mousoutzanis likens the use of temporality and trauma to that of Freud's essay Beyond the Pleasure Principal, noting specifically that it "[invokes] a metaphor of the human psyche as an amoeba-like organism coated with a 'protective shielding' that is pierced by an overwhelming incident" (104). He also quotes Žižek in reference to narratives that invoke a response not unlike post-9/11 trauma, stating, "We wanted to see it again and again; the same shots were repeated ad nauseam" (105). This idea, adapted to trauma in television programs, is not unlike Freud's idea of repetition compulsion. Freud describes our understanding and way of dealing with trauma in terms of repetitive exposure to trauma. Although the trauma continues to hurt or otherwise pierce our "linearity," as described previously, we continue to expose ourselves to repeated trauma in an attempt to overcome or otherwise facilitate our understanding of the trauma. This is not unlike the trauma that is involved and incorporated heavily into American television series year after year. Particularly in reference to post-9/11 narratives, Mousoutzanis notes television shows that either begin with or incorporate major traumas of plane crashes or terrorism (of varying types and degrees) such as Lost (which revolves entirely around a plane crash stranding people on an island) or the pilot to Fringe (both noted in his essay). Although not a terrorist incident, Lost particularly invokes the repetition of trauma of 9/11, having premiered in 2004, just three years after the attack (and merely 11 days after the anniversary that year). The pilot to Fringe begins with a plane flying through an electrical storm. The plane lands safely, albeit invoking memories of the attacks when all the passengers begin to spread a lethal contagion while in flight (reminiscent of bioterrorism). And Fringe isn't alone in its genre; other dramas, particularly crime dramas, focus heavily on the use and reuse of traumatic events throughout, drawing the viewer in with devastating or gripping scenarios of good and evil, life and death. Shows like CSI, Criminal Minds, NCIS, and other similar series (notice a pattern?) routinely use realistic depictions of crime in an attempt to impact the viewer with that same trauma. The viewer knows the show is real but still allows themselves to be sucked into the dangers the characters are put in and the events that occur within the shows. The events that occur are typically irrelevant between episodes but serve as that break from the linearity of the characters' storylines and development throughout. Oftentimes, the effects of trauma on the viewer may mirror the effects of trauma that happens to the characters within the show; but rather than being overwhelmed by the trauma they are watching, the viewer delves deeper and deeper, watching episode by episode week by week (or hour by hour, in the case of Netflix binging). They may be affected by the trauma, but they continue watching regardless. We tell ourselves that the show is fun or interesting, but Freud may tell us instead that we're doing so as a means to relive, understand, or overcome our trauma.

Heavy Boots and Heavy Hearts: How History Repeats Itself and How Time Does Not Always Heal

In Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer, he shows that trauma, and it’s various forms, affect people through both time and situations. To start with, the main character, Oskar, is going through the most recent trauma that people will remember: 9/11. Oskar, an 8 year old boy, loses his father during the attacks that took place in New York. The feelings directed towards him are heart-felt and tear jerking throughout the novel. He struggles with understanding what happened and why it happened to his father. The novel shifts a lot between Oskar, the letters his grandfather wrote to his father, and his grandmother. The plays with time are interesting, since we get a look at the trauma Oskar is going through, the trauma his grandfather experienced in Dresden during WWII, and the his grandmother’s in WWII and the present. The different time periods call on the fact that despite when in time someone lives in, there will always be trauma in someone’s life.

One of the first things I noticed, and found interesting, were the nods that were given to Slaughterhouse-Five. One of the big things that stood out was the repetition that of words that Oskar uses. Whenever he is baffled by something he says “What the.” If he is self-conscious or hurt, he says “Anyways.” The anyways being used felt the same as when Billy Pilgrim would say “So it goes.” These phrases, used continuously through both novels is a means in which the characters try to escape the trauma they experienced. By having a word or phrase that is dismissive of the situation at hand takes away from the trauma they’re experiencing. It helps the reader sympathize with the fact that these are leaving scars, or in Oskar’s case bruises, on our characters and they have to find a way to push through them.

Going back to the idea that trauma goes through most of time and is experienced by everyone, one of the characters that shows one aspect is Oskar’s Grandpa. His grandfather loses his ability to speak, so much so that he has to have “yes” and “no” tattooed on his hand. He’s forced to carry empty books with him in order to communicate. And who can blame him? He loses not only the love of his life in the Dresden bombings, but also his unborn child and family. He’s forced to murder innocent animals at the zoo to keep them from attacking people. He sees the horror of the fire that was unleashed on them and is forced to live on as a witness. In this regards, it makes sense that he can no longer speak; if he were, he’d have to share these things and that pain is too much to bear. When he finally gets together and marries Oskar’s grandmother, she too, is scarred. Instead of losing her voice though, she ends up needing rules with him in order to live a “normal” life. The house has “nothing” and “something” zones, areas in which they can escape when they need to. Oskar’s grandpa accepts these things, and lives with them until it’s too much to bare. He leaves her and doesn’t come back until he loses the son he never met. He tries to get close to Oskar but eventually leaves that idea as well. The trauma he experienced has left him broken, he can no longer get close in fear of losing the others again.

Within the family is also the devastation that Oskar’s grandma has experienced. Her final revelation is that Oskar needs to say that he loves someone, no matter how trivial it may be. However, throughout the novel, she warns in her letters that he must not love anything as much as she loves him. This warning rings true not just because of the loss of her son during the terrorist attacks, but because of WWII and the loss of her family, and the loss of her husband. For her, her trauma is the constant loss of things she loves through time. She loses her family to the fire bombings in Dresden and regrets not being able to tell her family how much she loves them. She can’t remember the last thing her father said to her. She meant to tell her sister how much she loved her the night before she died and didn’t. She constantly talks about her relationship with his grandfather, and how they could never find a way to say they love each other. Her trauma isn’t so much of what she’s seen but what she’s experienced. She loses everyone she loves, which instills fear in her of losing Oskar. In one scene in the novel, Oskar hides from her in the park and sets her in a panic. He follows her from a distance watching her, enjoying the love she emits for him by searching frantically for him. When she finally gives up and heads home, he races ahead and tries to joke with her at her apartment, but fails. She is forced back into the traumas of her past, forced to live with the idea that she lost yet another person she truly loves.

Oskar himself and his journey to meet others is filled with different traumas throughout other characters lives, as well as his own. Despite the fact that he lost his father, he goes on a quest to try and find out why his Dad had a key to a lockbox. Each person he meets, however, seems to be dealing with their own problems. Abigail Black, for example, is going through a messy part of her marriage, which eventually leads to divorce. Mr. Black that lived above Oskar has given up on the world. He chose travelling and war over his wife. When he returned, he only had a few months with her before he passed away. Despite this, and others that Oskar encounters, he is able to help them overcome their trauma or at least bring some joy into their life. The irony is not loss on this situation though. As Oskar helps these people, he is still weighed down, or as he says “has heavy boots” by their sadness. He deals with his sadness by trying to cheering them up and making them happy. By doing so, he takes on their burdens, whether or not these characters realize it.

Throughout the novel, it shows the reader that trauma not only exists through various times in people’s lives, but also different ways it affects them. Foer does a great job at executing this example by having the letters Oskar’s grandparents write for him available to the reader. Each one shows the extent of damage they have and the future it may present for Oskar. Despite his coping, or somewhat lack of, the reader is left to question how Oskar will fair down the road? Will he be like his grandfather and lose his voice? Will he be wary of love like his grandmother? The novel shows the breakdowns people have and various ways of coping over time, and has the reader think about the future. And isn’t that something everyone should prepare for?

Dealing With Trauma in Time

Within Kurt Vonnegut’s text for SlaughterHouse-Five is a temporal play on time which is used significantly to help deal with trauma. The main character, the narrator, writes a book about the events that happened in WW II. The trick that the narrator does though is to tell the story through a somewhat goofy, if not crazy character named Billy. While the story plays out, our narrator does his best to describe what happened in the war through the lens of a man who can travel through time at a whim and was kidnapped by aliens.

One of the first things to consider when reading this is the discussion of how reliable our narrator is through the text. The parts that are based around the war seem somewhat true, at least when it gets to the point where Billy is brought in with the other 100 Americans that were captured. This seems to be the case due to the fact that the narrator interjects himself in the text, stating that “he was there,” or referring to a certain soldier and saying “that was me.” With the narrator interjecting himself into the story, it at least gives the reader a somewhat reliable presence, at least to the events in Dresden. The rest of the novel, however, is very much up in the air. With Billy’s trips to Tralfamadore and his time travel, the reliability of how much truth Billy is actually telling is in serious doubt. It feels almost as though the narrator has to say he was there for the story to be believable.

However, looking at the space travel first, it makes perfect sense on why the author chose to use this. One of the biggest problems that face many people that have suffered through traumatic events is dealing with what happened. By using Billy as a space traveler, who conveniently is captured by aliens that can see into the fourth dimension and therefore all of time and space simultaneously, they can help Billy come to terms with what has happened to him and where he sould go from there. The Tralfamadorians possess what seems to be an infinite knowledge due to how they interact with both time and space. When Billy interacts with them, they seem to be able to bring him peace that he wasn’t able to gain on Earth. They assure him that the violence that happens on Earth is universal and nothing can be done about it. They also reassure them that, despite the massive amounts of violence, it won’t be humanity that brings an end to the universe. By imparting their wisdom on him, such as telling him to just view universally happy moments in his life, he can live in peace. They almost feel like a counselor that the narrator may have seen that helped give him the wisdom he needed to go on. It is either that, or much like how Billy’s aliens line up closely to what Kilgore Trout writes about in one of his novels, may be simply the author respecting the ideas another writer had and using them to help console himself.

It’s also worth addressing the time travel that the narrator uses throughout most of his piece. Within the text, the story often jumps from time period to time period, all within areas of Billy’s life. His ability to jump in time and space makes the story feel like at first that it’s a bit scatter brained. With closer examination though, that isn’t the case. The jumps in time make it so Billy can tell his story without having to suffer through the more traumatic times he had during the war. Several times, when things seem or feel like they’re going to get gruesome, Billy jumps in time to a happier moment. This seems to mirror what the Tralfamadorians tell Billy to do. Whether or not they secretly give him this ability or not remains untold, but it feels like it may be likely so that he may no longer have to suffer.

There are a few other areas in Billy’s life as well that seem curious as to whether or not they were real for the narrator or not and how reliable Billy really is. For example, towards the end of the book, he was in a plane crash where everyone but himself and one other person survived. He ends up losing his wife in the process, and is seen to potentially become a vegetable. During his time in there, the man sharing the room with him openly admits that he wish they would just let Billy die. This felt as though it was a contrast to the time Billy had spent in World War II. When he was in the war, he often tried to let himself die, only to be saved. Now that he is saved, he isn’t willing to just let himself die, even when someone else wants him to. It feels as though Billy may have made this section up and was having a more internal thought than actually listening to someone else in the room. Although I have no proof to back this claim, I find it hard to believe that through most of the novel Billy is indifferent to life or death, and here when a man is finally saying that he wants Billy to die, he instead chooses to talk to him about Dresden later on.

The character that is written, Billy, also seems to be a ploy used to help deal with the trauma of the war. Billy’s character is rather goofy, ill-equipped, and it seems to be that he is not well liked. It felt as though this was another area that the author was trying to mask through Billy. He says at the beginning of the novel that he promises to write this as a children’s crusade over making the novel seem like a bunch of heroic men doing  honorable deeds to defend the nation. This rings true with how Billy is portrayed throughout the novel. He is often bumbling through the war, not sure what to do or say and often gives up. He has to have others take care of him, although many of them are just as young and foolish and playing grown-up. It’s Billy that dresses in absurd clothes and often gets mocked or treated poorly. When he jumps in time to when he’s older, the damage of the war shows through in how he acts and talks with other people. The author used Billy as the true way to show the trauma the war had on children. Having him time travel between the war and his future allows for the reader to truly understand what the war did to not just Billy, but every kid that was forced to serve and how their life would play out after.

The temporal play in Slaughterhouse-Five is a great way of showing a means to deal with trauma and teach others about the effects. Vonnegut does a great job of having Billy show these things to the reader in different aspects of his life through different moments in time and space.