The Function of Lies
Truth and Falsehood in Münchhausen: die Wahrheit übers Lügen
Rachel Houts
Abstract
This essay discusses the relationship between truth and fiction in Flix and Bernd Kissel’s graphic novel Münchhausen: die Wahrheit übers Lügen, which modernizes the tale of the historical Baron von Münchhausen of the 18th century. The graphic novel demonstrates the nature of truth in the real world through the protagonist’s struggle to extract the truth of his past from his own memory. The traumatic loss of the 20th century Münchhausen’s family early in life presents him with two versions of the truth: the truth as defined by those around him and the truth as he remembers it.
The tension between objective reality and Münchhausen’s fantasies stems from his attempt to exonerate himself of the guilt he feels surrounding the death of his family. Münchhausen overcomes his guilt through a truth defined without the influence of outside forces. The friction produced by the amalgamation of truth and falsehood creates a narrative that cannot be classified as either in the conventional sense. Rather, Münchhausen’s inventions muddle the objective truth of the story but produce nonetheless a type of truth. This truth greatly resembles the “story truth” found in Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried. Because Flix and Kissel included Sigmund Freud as a character in their graphic novel, the Freudian lens serves as an effective tool for analysis. Freud’s thoughts on lying in “Zwei Kinderlügen,” as well as his ideas on memory and denial (Richard Terdiman’s Memory: Histories, Theories, Debates) provide a foundation for this reading of the text.
Flix and Bernd Kissel’s graphic novel Münchhausen: die Wahrheit übers Lügen modernizes the legend of the Baron von Münchhausen; a historical figure in German history who became well-known for his tall tales after his time in the 18th century military. German author Rudolph Erich Raspe later adapted these stories into literary form (Olry 54-55). While Raspe’s work imagined the Baron as a fictional character, the graphic novel recounts the story of a British prisoner of war claiming to be the Baron in 1939. The British government attempts to interrogate their German prisoner to assuage their fears of espionage, but quickly classify their prisoner as a liar – albeit an earnest one. Fearing that “Münchhausen,” as the text refers to the prisoner, may possess information crucial to the war effort, the British government calls upon Sigmund Freud to help them discern how much of Münchhausen’s story is true. As Freud the character—Sigmund—attempts to piece together Münchhausen’s reality, fact and fiction intertwine, blurring the line between objective reality and Münchhausen’s lived experience. The commingling of truth and lie in Münchhausen’s tale creates “story truth” – a term coined by Tim O’Brien in his novel The Things They Carried. Story truth describes a specific type of truth found in fiction. Even a fictional story can impart truth through the reader’s experience of the characters’ struggles and emotions. This is the kind of truth Münchhausen presents to Sigmund. Throughout the novel, Sigmund attempts to help Münchhausen decipher his experience of reality and finally presents Münchhausen with a choice: he can either live in the reality imposed upon him or trust his own perception of reality. The dichotomy Sigmund presents to him is one often presented in the real world, and Münchhausen’s final decision to trust his memory of the past a powerful statement about the difficulties of defining objective truth.
Münchhausen and Sigmund meet during Münchhausen’s interrogation by British forces. Münchhausen claims that he travelled to the moon, picked strawberries, and returned to earth in a hot air balloon. The idea of lunar travel alarms the British government, but the story enrages the British agent conducting the interrogation, as the agent believes it to be an obvious lie. But Sigmund wonders, “warum ihm solch absonderliches enfiele, um [ihre] Aufmerksamkeit zu erlangen“ (Flix and Kissel 28). Sigmund’s statement proves characteristic of how he approaches his interactions with Münchhausen. Rather than condemn him outright for the lies, he indulges Münchhausen’s fantasies—to an extent—allowing the two men to engage in a more effective dialogue. Rather than concerning himself with the details of the supposed lie, Sigmund wonders why the lie was necessary. This leads Sigmund to examine Münchhausen’s past in greater detail.
Sigmund engages the anxious Münchhausen in conversation, who insists that he must travel to the Kaiser—Wilhelm der Zweite, in this case. This cements the imprisoned Münchhausen’s confusion but prompts Sigmund to wonder why Münchhausen is desperate to see the Kaiser. Sigmund asks the other man to recount his story, and Münchhausen begins with an anecdote from his childhood: a hunting trip with his elder brother. Within the anecdote, a young Münchhausen claims he “hat einen Hirsch…mit einem Kirschkern…getroffen” (Flix and Kissel 40-41). His older brother disbelieves him, reminding the young boy of other preposterous lies in the past (Flix and Kissel 41). Münchhausen’s declaration characterizes the type of lies he tells. They are always ridiculous and self-aggrandizing, painting Münchhausen as the perpetual hero. Freud’s theory of lying as described in „Zwei Kinderlügen” proposes a reason for this pattern.
Freud the historical figure writes, “daß Kinder lügen, wenn sie damit die Lügen der Erwachsenen nachahmen” (Freud 430). This suggests that Münchhausen uses the stories his brother mentions as a means of imitating a parent or parental figure in his life. It is difficult to define from the text who Münchhausen imitates, but the illustrations present his older brother as the most likely candidate. The comic portrays the brother as a confident young man at least ten years older than Münchhausen. Throughout the scenes with his elder brother, Münchhausen trails after the man, dressed in a child-sized version of his brother’s coat, belt, and boots, attempting to walk where his brother walks and imitate his stride (Flix and Kissel 41). The illustrations demonstrate what the dialogue does not: Münchhausen’s complete idolization of his older brother. Münchhausen, like many younger siblings, wants nothing more than to embody the magnetism he perceives in his elder sibling. But, lacking achievements of his own, he seeks to improve his brother’s opinion of him through fabricated adventures, likely imitating exploits recounted by his brother.
But, as Münchhausen describes for Sigmund, his older brother reacts harshly to his tale of shooting a buck with a cherry pit. When Münchhausen insists on his honesty, his older brother slaps him, exhorting him to promise “nie wieder [zu] lügen” (Flix and Kissel 45). Before the confrontation can come to any semblance of conclusion, however, a buck leaps out of the brush and fatally wounds Münchhausen’s older brother. This injury eventually leads to his brother’s death.
Witnessing this accident devastates Münchhausen, as evidenced by his decision to begin the relation of the journey bringing him to incarceration in Britain with the death of his brother. He perceives his brother’s injury as a turning point in his life. Münchhausen’s fixation on this event reflects both the trauma of witnessing the near death of someone close to him and the pain of the relationship between the brothers ending before the resolution of an argument. This lack of resolution provides an explanation, through a Freudian lens, for Münchhausen’s compulsive desire to be believed. Freud postulates that lies become catastrophic for children “wenn sie ein Mißverständnis zwischen dem Kinde und der von ihm geliebten Person herbeiführen” (Freud 430). Münchhausen’s brother dies before the two reconcile properly, meaning their relationship must remain unmended. In Freud’s terms, the brother’s death exacerbates the misunderstanding between them. As a result, Münchhausen perceives the brother’s death as a severe form of punishment. The severity of the punishment, coupled with the trauma of the event, creates an aversion to similar situations, especially in a child so young. Freud observes this even with far more lenient punishments. The behavior preceding the punishment (in Freud’s studies, lying) becomes reprehensible to the patient (Freud 431-432). However, in Münchhausen’s case, lying does not become the object of aversion. Münchhausen maintains the truth of his far-fetched tale, though neither the text nor the illustrations of the comic clarify the objective truth for the reader. Nonetheless, Münchhausen’s belief in his own narrative transforms the “lesson” he learns from his brother’s death. Münchhausen directs his aversion towards the behavior immediately preceding his brother’s death: recanting a lie. Subconsciously, Münchhausen decides if he cannot sell his story, disastrous consequences will follow.
The dramatic tale of this death blends seamlessly into the death of the remainder of Münchhausen’s family. In this case, the reader knows even less about the events physically taking place. In Münchhausen’s recollection, his mother sends him to town to find a doctor for his wounded brother. By the time he returns, the house is ablaze and his family trapped inside (Flix and Kissel 49-50). The government charges Münchhausen with their murders (Flix and Kissel 54). At this point, it becomes unclear whether or not Münchhausen killed his family. The governing body of his town attempts to execute him for their murders, motivating Münchhausen’s flight to the Kaiser. The reader cannot discern the truth because the book represents Münchhausen’s perspective both verbally and visually. But memory alters his perspective.
For Freud, memory is a “paradox,” capable of “heal[ing] the same traumas whose capacity for disrupting our existence memory itself perversely sustains” (Terdiman 96). The lack of clarity in Münchhausen’s thought mirrors this paradox. The death of his brother and, subsequently, the rest of his family leaves a strong impression and a clear sense of their absence, but the events leading up to their deaths remain unclear. The act of forgetting is never accidental for Freud, but always serves a purpose (Terdiman 97). Münchhausen’s memory preserves the impact of the events themselves but blocks out more traumatic actions—actions for which Münchhausen could be responsible. He vehemently denies the charges laid against him, but all the adults around him are convinced of his guilt (Flix and Kissel 54-55). While adults normally represent figures of authority and truth a child such as Münchhausen, he now experiences their fallibility. This experience disturbs him and leads him to impose his fantasies on reality.
According to Münchhausen, he escapes the authorities now attempting to execute him for the murder of his family by pulling himself and his horse up through the roof of the barn by the nape of his neck (Flix and Kissel 58-59). Sigmund offers Münchhausen a way to recant, even slightly, by referring to the lie as a metaphor. Münchhausen, however, insists on the objective truth of his tale (Flix and Kissel 60-61). His insistence demonstrates the coping mechanism that defines Münchhausen’s reality. He uses bombastic narratives to explain traumatic events and believes in these stories whole-heartedly. He remembers the past he wishes he lived.
The reader faces ambiguity when attempting to determine the graphic novel’s objective reality due to Münchhausen’s variability and the limitations the illustrations impose on the reader’s knowledge of the narrative. While the images prove useful for elucidating more about Münchhausen’s perceptions of people and events, the anecdotes from his past portray only his perspective. For example, Münchhausen later claims he had the opportunity to prevent the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, which even Sigmund finds preposterous (Flix and Kissel 118-119). However, Sigmund later discovers the story is true (Flix and Kissel 126). The discovery of objective truth in Münchhausen’s tale upends the reader’s perception of the entire narrative. But, accurately relegating individual events to truth and to lie is impossible. This closely resembles the effect of reading Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried.
O’Brien’s work of fiction discusses the Vietnam War, a war in which O’Brien himself fought. At first, the book seems to be a collection of wartime vignettes centered on a character named Tim O’Brien who shares many characteristics with the author. However, approximately halfway through the novel, O’Brien interjects with a meditation describing the process of telling true war stories. “All you can do,” he writes, “is tell [the story] one more time…adding and subtracting, making up a few things to get at the real truth” (O’Brien 91). When it comes to storytelling, truth has less to do with objective reality and more to do with the result one creates. When people undergo trauma, their memory reacts in a way that shields them from the exact events that have taken place. The question then becomes how to talk about trauma without precise memory? O’Brien’s answer is “story truth.” Story truth may not reflect objective reality, but nevertheless imparts truth about objective reality though the emotions it creates. Story truth expands the reader’s experience of the world. This is the kind of truth easily identifiable in Münchhausen’s tale. The doubt and anguish he experiences following his family’s death and his impending trial is true, even if the details surrounding it are not.
Over the course of the graphic novel, Münchhausen’s lies become bigger and more complex. They grow ever more absurd, until he rides into the mouth of a whale on the back of a seahorse (Flix and Kissel 148-149). However, he seems subconsciously aware of some guilt, regardless of the insanity of his anecdotes. Münchhausen claims that the whale blew him through its spout, catapulting him up to the moon (Flix and Kissel 151). As he reaches the moon, the graphic novel, with its illustrations previously confined to a black and white palette, suddenly bursts into vivid color and Münchhausen transforms into a much younger man. On the moon, he reconnects with a friend he believed to be dead. This friend shows him life on the moon and tells him all the dead from earth live on the moon (Flix and Kissel 156). The beauty and joy of this experience is interrupted by the spirit of Münchhausen’s brother. The spirit confronts him, insisting that Münchhausen bears the responsibility for his death. Following his brother’s accusation, the rest of the family and everyone else Münchhausen feels he has wronged appears, seeming to challenge him with a similar indictment. This causes him to flee, and the comic fades back to black and white as Münchhausen ages and falls back to Earth (Flix and Kissel 158-159).
Though Münchhausen’s version of events makes little logical sense, it most likely emanates from a real experience. Something in his life required that he face his painful memories surrounding death, especially that of his brother. After living the “truth” of the guilt imposed upon him, Münchhausen can no longer face the objective facts of the losses he has suffered, instead viewing the upsetting circumstances through a fantastical lens he feels he can understand. Because Münchhausen cannot forgive himself, the ghosts appear harsh and accusatory. However, through Münchhausen’s dialogue with Sigmund, he does confront his guilt. Sigmund charges him not to let outside influence—in this case, the government authorities—dictate the reality Münchhausen lives (Flix and Kissel 167). Sigmund puts his faith in Münchhausen—Sigmund trusts him, telling him “Ich weiss, dass sie kein Lügner sind” (Flix and Kissel 170). None of the authority figures in Münchhausen’s life ever trust him, until Sigmund. This trust emboldens Müchhausen to assert what he struggled to believe himself: the truth of his innocence. Münchhausen’s return to the moon reflects this change. No longer are the ghosts of his past hostile. Instead, he and his brother embrace and reconcile (Flix and Kissel 190).
Although separating truth from lie presents no small difficulty, the final product of the story is truer than any individual event in the book. Life introduces the same challenge, and faultless knowledge of truth and falsehood is impossible. “Story truth” allows the author to engage with the reader in a way that reflects the human experience while still relating something true. Individuals must decide who determines the truth; the people around them, or their experience, and which truths are most important? This difficulty does not negate the existence of objective truth, but rather questions whether objective truth is in every situation necessary or helpful. For Münchhausen, the most important truth was one within him: his innocence. This was his necessary truth, and he ultimately bore the consequences for his decision. It became unnecessary for the world to believe him, so long as he believed himself.
Works Cited
Flix; Kissel, Bernd. Münchhausen: die Wahrheit übers Lügen. Carlsen Verlag, 2016, Hamburg.
Freud, Sigmund. “Zwei Kinderlügen.” Gesammelte Werke, vol. VIII. Imago Publishing, 1955, London, pp. 430–32.
O’Brien, Tim. The Things They Carried. Mariner Books, 2009, Boston.
Olry, Régis. "Baron Munchhausen and the syndrome which bears his name: history of an endearing personage and of a strange mental disorder." Vesalius 8, no. 1, 2002, pp. 53–7.
Terdiman, Richard, Memory: Histories, Theories, Debates. Fordham University Press, 2010, Bronx.
Rachel Houts is is a recent graduate of Hillsdale College with a double major in Chemistry and German. She’s currently pursuing a career in compliance and regulatory affairs in the biomedical industry.
Picture: “Münchhausen Herrfurth. German Postcard.” 1900-1930. From Picryl. This image is in the Public Domain.
