Dustin Johnson

07 March 2018
Brittany Stephenson
English 2600

Establishing Order amidst Chaos

A Psychological Critique of ‘Persistence of Vision’

In John Varley’s science-fiction piece ‘Persistence of Vision’, he invites us as readers to journey

away from our established notions of order, and into the abyss of chaos. Order can be understood as our

social context, our society’s rules and laws that keeps our behavior towards one another amiable and to

standards we have agreed is best. Our expectations are met by encounter others abiding these rules and

precepts, and we learn to navigate through society by means of these laws. When we encounter customs

that counter our previously agreed notions, we then encounter chaos. Chaos is what goes against our

expectations, when our reality no longer abides by our agreed upon precepts. Chaos is uncertainty, and

unpredictability; it is confusion, and disorder. John Varley invites us as readers to encounter a sense of

chaos through the perspective of his main character in ‘Persistence of Vision’. It is through this character

that we leave behind the order of our current society (as well as the protagonists’), and walk through the

gate of chaos into the predominantly deaf-blind commune of Keller. This character acts as both a buffer

and a mediator between three societies: the main character’s, our own as readers, and the residents of

Keller; and as readers, we are required to piece together a new order in order to understand the chaos this

unique community puts us through.

Interestingly enough, the order that the main character resides in is quite chaotic. There are food

riots back in Chicago (Varley 262), distrust that other people are “hunger-crazed potential mass

murderers” (Varley 262), and nuclear meltdown disasters (Varley 264). The main character wanders

aimlessly from commune to commune, experiencing new established social regimes, new definitions of

order. The author establishes him as open-minded through these encounters when the character states:
 I tried not to make judgements. These people were doing something important, all

of them. They were testing ways whereby people didn’t have to live in Chicago.

… I had thought Chicago was inevitable, like diarrhea (Varley 266).

Chicago became the understood order for the protagonist. Varley’s us of a non-judgemental

protagonist provides a buffer, as well as reservations for the reader to set aside judgments of new

regimes. It is as if the author is buffering our mental state to encounter what is to come, and it is

shortly after these statements are made by the protagonist, that we encounter a wall: the

separation between the town of Keller and us as readers. The division of known and unknown, a

wall that surrounds uncertainty and unpredictability.

After an exposition of the town by the protagonist, we step through the gates alongside

the protagonist. The mysterious unknown of this town is further heightened by the declarations

of the protagonist’s feelings: “I don’t know what I expected. I remember that everything was a

surprise” (Varley 276), “I struggled to understand, as I must if I was to stay even for a night”

(276), “I felt like a burglar” (277). There is not much about this town that conforms the

protagonist’s or our sense of order.

Even though the town does not conform to our sense of order as readers, since our

understanding of the world is predominately perceived through our sight and secondly through

our hearing, we are soon to experience the order that is the framework of Keller. What unifies

this town is their sense of touch, where the sense of touch is primary and the sense of taste is

secondary. As readers (according to the assumption we are sight readers and not touch readers),

we occupy an environment where sight provides the means of understanding. We travel by street

signs and visual cues, we know people by their facial features, and we can navigate around
obstacles that we can see. Our ability to see is how our society constructs order for the majority

of citizens to navigate through life. But for Keller, the author opens us up to the sense of touch,

because that it is the primary mode of understanding of this community. He has the protagonist

describe a woman’s hands as they touch him to get to know him, and even his visual description

take on a touch-like sense. “She smiled warmly at me… her hands were very delicate and

warm… they felt sensitive” (Varley 277). The author invites us to shed our visual senses and

enhance our understanding of touch and feel. Even when the protagonist begins to accustom

himself to these orders of communication, he still finds himself being shocked by his previous

notions of propriety. This occurs when he communicates with Pink, a thirteen year old girl who

he realizes can see amidst the new mode of touch-speak. He’s stunned by this realization because

he has a conflict of Keller’s new order in comparison to his previous order and even says, “The

touching, while something I could ignore for a deaf-blind girl, suddenly seemed out of place”

(Varley 279). Pink reassures him and us as a reader that if we “can’t stand touching, you’re not

going to like it here”(279).

The extent that touch is implemented in this community is where both the reader and the

protagonist have the greatest tension. This community does not exclude any body parts when

they communicate: hands, face, body, groin; all are acceptable and open means of

communication within Keller. The protagonist, when discovering this about the town, has

already established his open attitude about new cultural experiences. He recites the “when in

Rome” axiom and states “if you can’t adapt to it you shouldn’t go visiting” (Varley 284). This

openness of the protagonist provides distance between the reader and the character. Readers may

and do find themselves uncomfortable with the notions of sexuality dealt with when the
protagonist engages in this town’s customs--especially his relations as 47-year-old man with a

13-year-old girl. This and the other themes of sexuality is where most readers face the contention

of our understanding of order with this communities’ order. It becomes chaos for us to

encounter, and even the protagonist does not quite get Keller’s understanding of sexuality either,

but he persists when he states, “I really had to know. I had to find out ​what the hell I was in​”

(Varley 284). He is resolved to establish order in the chaos of his misunderstanding, just as we

have to deal with our conflicting views of sexual morality and this town’s primary mode of

communication.

Eventually the protagonist finds peace with what was once chaos, he understands the

order that governs the community. He understands that the nightly together--what we as

outsiders would perceive as a sexual orgy--was actually the maintenance of the entire community

itself. He understood that “everyone talked in a language that was incapable of falsehood. If

there was a problem brewing… it was solved almost automatically” (Varley 310). Keller’s order

slowly becomes the protagonist’s order, and he brings remnants of that back into the outside

world, finding purpose and meaning his life. As a reader, I felt the benefits of their society and

the failings of my own. We are all so spatially distant from one another, and we have ‘personal

bubbles’ that cause perturbations if infringed upon. As I confronted the chaos felt within Keller,

and later understood its order, I felt compelled to bring aspects of their world into my own

marital relationship. With our societies built upon our ability to see, and much of our culture

catering to such abilities, it is understood how such the innate sense of touch as a mode of

communication may be overlooked and stigmatised. However, “anything is moral under the right

circumstances. It all [has] to do with social context” (Varley 288). Social contexts create the
moral order for citizens to abide by, but when we encounter other social contexts, chaos can

either remain chaotic or we can strive to discover the underlying order--perhaps even learning

from it.
 Works Cited

Varley, John. “Persistence of Vision”. Dell Books. Scanned by Brittany Stephenson Nov. 2014.