Blah, blah, blah . . . either you know the drill and will respond in a timely fashion or you're not going to bother at all and when you stare at the great big F on your grade report you'll look to the heavens and beg: "Why?!?!? If only someone told me that I was supposed to be making final observations posts! If only there were more grading opportunities!! If only I had bothered to read the books!!!"
Towards the conclusion of the novel (in the last chapter, to be exact), we see Mary Kathleen as her life is about to come to an end. As she and Walter share one final conversation, they begin reminiscing upon things that have happened between them in the past. “I remember you said you loved me. No man had ever said that to me before,” Mary Kathleen explained to Walter (Vonnegut 283). After she explained to him that she was aware of the fact that he did not mean what he had told her, he counteracted her statement by saying that he most definitely had meant what he told her. In retort, she told him “It’s all right, you couldn’t help it that you were born without a heart” (Vonnegut 283). After she passes, present within the epilogue, we are exposed to the fact that not only was there no funeral for Mary Kathleen, but Walter himself did not even escort her casket to its final resting place. Was it fitting of Vonnegut, or more specifically to Walter’s character, for him to not accompany Mary Kathleen one last time to her grave? Based off of how Mary Kathleen felt in regards to Walter being heartless, in my opinion, regardless of how cruel it may be, it seemed suitable for his character to simply abandon her one last time, despite the fact that she was one of the only four women that he had ever loved.
ReplyDeleteKelsie Wilson
In Jailbird we see a returning innocence and perhaps obviousness and naivety. O’Looney wants for all the money RAMJAC has to be returned to the people. We saw a similar naïve conscious of money in Elliot Rosewater. Both see it as an unfortunate factor to society but they don’t seem to grasp that it is unfortunate and also key (to others). Elliot grew up in extreme wealth and Mary was brought into the world of wealth very early into her adulthood via the marriage of her husband. Both have not forgotten they are rich but seem to be disenchanted to the poverty of those they are trying to connect with. Mary becomes a shopping bag lady- as an escape. But what of all the other people she wants to help? Never in her life time did she set up a foundation or benefit (that we readers know of). It is only in her death and in the final pages of “God Bless You Mr. Rosewater” does Elliot really touch upon something with a broader canvas, even then it’s only 53 children. The point is, that neither of these characters seem to have the strength or courage to connect with the different class they are trying to help. Is this another off handed slam on Vonnegut’s part? Is this detachment akin to his passive aggressive sentence regarding the Clewes’ “Much of their money goes to the Foster Parents Program, a scheme that allows them to support individual children in unfortunate circumstances around the world” (273). Is Vonnegut criticizing those who give money but don’t really connect with those in need?
ReplyDeleteI think the title of the book says much more than first meets the eye. "Jailbird" is usually cleped to those Ulysses Everett McGill types; those rough hewn gopher eating vagabond types who just can't keep benignly out of the joint. At least that's what I think of when I think of the term. And here you have the term applied to spot-handed old politicians, each with a cache of money saved up for when he gets out and connections enough on the outside to ruin a man even from a cell. It's a mockery of the Jailbird's good name. It's a mockery of what constitutes a criminal in America. And of course, how criminals are constituted in America is a strong parallel to the values the country has at the same time. Who really benefitted and lost from the Watergate scandal? The McGills of the nation? No, only rich white men who lived in a rich white house. And yet here is Vonnegut applying that notion of jailbird-ism to them. It ties in along the lines of O'Looney's desire to liquify the RAMJAC and deposit it into the hands of the people. It's a silly dream. Just like "jailbird" is a silly thing to call Emil Larkin.
ReplyDeleteAs i begin to see religion in yet another one of Vonnegut's novels it brings a few ideas to mind. First, I see religion, through Vonnegut's perspective, as another controlling mechanism in corporate America. Although at certain times it seems as if Vonnegut is poking or making fun of religion, i think the main idea is that he is trying to get people to think on their own. To make decisions and believe in a persons free will seems to be advice from Vonnegut. Yes, he is an atheist, but i'm wondering the significance of the part of the novel where Jesus/ Christianity are being mocked. Does this poke a the idea of religion and faith, or perhaps mocking a controlling mechanism? The page is 85 in Jailbird, it reads, "If you're going to make fun of Jesus, maybe you should not talk about Him at all" says Larkin. "Fine...you brought him up" says Walter....
ReplyDeleteIn the prologue of Jailbird Vonnegut states that in Heaven he chose to be the ripe age of 44. I find it interesting that Starbuck wanted to badly to be rid of his old age and to be young again. Even though he was, in his mind, as naive as a young person. On page 58 he says "I still believe that peace and plenty and happiness can be worked out some way. I am a fool." then less than one page later he states in his letter to the President "Young people still refuse to see the obvious impossibility of world disarmament and economic equality. Could be fault of the New Testament." (59) He states his view point and then disregards it as a problem with the youth soon after. The whole book he is full of the desire to return to youth, when he fell in love with his wife. It makes me curious as to Vonnegut's view of youth and why he chose to make his character contradict his prologue description.
ReplyDeleteMariah Acord
What I thought was really interesting was the fact that all the dates were written out with words instead of numbers. It really gave them weight and take notice when he was talking about a different time. It's interesting how humans take words and numbers differently, kind of like shorthand. Everything in the world is so fast pace that you almost have to know how to shorten every word in the english dictionary, but when Walter was in prison the time slows down and things like numbers can be written out in words. He's had the time to think about things, to slow down and feel the impact. Prison changes people and you can see how laid back he is after being in prison more than once.
ReplyDeleteFor this book, I feel that Vonnegut is almost contradicting what he said about getting to the point with stories and that he didn't really believe in suspense. For the first half of the book or so I thought that the whole plot was pretty slow. He was introducing all of these characters and talking about them, but to me, they really didn't have any meaning to the story. Finally towards the end when he met with Mary Kathleen, all of the characters sort of came together and there was an actual point to the story! Another example is when Walter mentions the 4 women that he ever loved several times without really explaining them. When he first brought them up I wasn't sure if he was just naming them or if he was going to go into who they were and why he loved them. They each had their own story/explanation eventually, but not right away.
ReplyDelete-Adrienne Biggers
We've seen Vonnegut use Kilgore Trout as sort of an alter ego where he expresses more directly his view on key issues. Kilgore has more or less been the same guy except in this novel. Here, Kilgore Trout is just a alias for a prisoner. The very beginning of the book points this out to us "Yes, Kilgore Trout is back again. He could not make it on the outside. That is no disgrace. A lot of good people can't make it on the outside." If we're still assuming that this Kilgore Trout is also Vonnegut's alter ego, is he trying to say he feels like prisoner because he's a "good person"? I think he's saying the country is run by "bad people" and they keep the "good people" contained and obedient.
ReplyDeletePatrick Schwarz
In Jailbird, which is essentially a narrative of Walter Starbucks life, the audience gets the sense that he has no feelings or worries about what could happen from his actions. We see this when Walter insists to have children with Ruth without considering the monster of a child they could perhaps, and did, conceive. We also see this when he accepts the trunk of money from the Watergate scandal, also when he decided to rat out his friend, Leland Clewes, and again we see it in the final chapter when he conceals Mark Kathleen O'Looney's will. After reading Jailbird, and other Vonnegut novels at this point, this question came to mind: Does Vonnegut see society in the same way he portrays Walter Starbuck, as seeing very little consequences in the actions that they have chosen to take? I believe this to be true, taking into consideration Vonnegut's views on technology and war in his previous novels. The relation is of coarse up to interpretation, I just found it interesting that once again reoccurring themes and Vonnegut's personal view on life is depicted in yet again, another famous novel.
ReplyDelete- Megan Obermeyer
Yet again, Vonnegut uses religion and war in Jailbird. I also find it interesting that in just about everyone of Vonnegut's books he has made reference to, or set Indiana and a setting in his books. Besides Vonnegut living there, I really wonder why these three themes continue to show up throughout Vonnegut's books. I would think that most writers would want to write about something besides their home town that they live in, but I guess it could be brought back to the fact that when he talks about religion and war, and shows his opinions, it all comes back to Indiana, because different places have different views on war and religion and perhaps him living in Indiana is why he feels the way he does. Also I wonder how big of a role region and war is to Vonnegut, because in order to talk about it so much, it must have significance to his life.
ReplyDeleteI found it very ironic how not only Kathleen O'Looney became the infamous Mrs. Graham, but how the group of strangers ended up as Vice-Presidents of RAMJAC companies. To me, this is very much like the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus says that the meek shall inherit the earth. In a way, this is a coming to pass of the Sermon on the Mount. I just thought it was really interesting how Vonnegut ended the story like this.
ReplyDeleteBryce Althen
"Anarchists are persons who believe with all their hearts that governments are enemies of their own people" (232). So there ya have it. Sounds to me like Vonnegut has defined his novels, there anarchist novels! If we look at his works, it seems that the only corruption we see are the people in government. Jailbird is the perfect example. The hardworking common American people, the ones that work with their hands are the righteous characters. Vonnegut's work puts so much faith into the working man and so much distrust in government and big cooperations. Too much power=too much money=greed=corruption.
ReplyDeleteI feel like this is the only book this far of Vonnegut's that really stretches out the plot. Vonnegut's rules to writing explains how you need to get your meaning out there on the line so readers know exactly what will happen just in case the ended in somehow lost. Vonnegut took his time in jailbird to get his message of the book. I believe Vonnegut, throughout Jailbird, expresses his views of how fractured the government is. Government, just as in society, act in crimes too.
ReplyDelete-McKenzie Moore
Through many of Vonnegut's novels, we've seen him use Kilgore Trout as a sort of alter ego where Vonnegut and Trout will even talk to each other and Vonnegut uses trout as a way of speaking more bluntly on certain subjects. I thought it was interesting that in this book, Trout was just a pseudonym for a prisoner, which contradicts autobiographical details of Trout's life which throws off the the details of his life as show in both earlier and later Vonnegut books.
ReplyDeleteRight around in my edition anyways pages 53 and 54 is when Starbuck reveals what his actual role in the White House is and Vonnegut on the next page seems to interject with his thoughts about Communism and some of his free thoughts. The signifance of these two pages to the whole story may rather be minor to the subject of the book, but it caught my interests and is what I would like to free-lance talk about for a bit. So Starbuck's job is he is Nixon's advisor on youth affairs and all he does all day is read Rolling Stone ane newspaper articles then types up a summary of his opinion of the way the youth acts and thinks. It is such a meaningless title and I think thats why Vonnegut chose it I would like to say he made it up but seeing as how the Government is way too large as it is with many people having meaningless titles and jobs I would not be surprised if this was a real job. Starbuck is an afterthought as he is in the basement and he himself on page 53 says there is a Coke vending machine that he is certain he is the only person aware of its presense. Starbuck is almost like a tree meaning that he is always there and people talk and do things around him, but do not seem to notice his exsistence since he blends in the background and is so quiet. Then there is the part on Communism even though its Starbuck's thoughts in the book I can not help but get a feeling it is more of Vonnegut saying it than Starbuck. For example this direct sentence from page 54 "How could anyone treat me as a person with a dieased mind if I thought that war need never come again." He goes on a little more with some important viewpoints, but that sentence right there is the prized gem. We know of Vonnegut's distaste of war and how people think of him in general as an insane or sick person. Communistic countries in a sense are not Communism since for Communism to work there is no government what so ever as much as the people all regulate their communities. I believe this is what Vonnegut may be a fan of is instead of governments controlling people and calling the shots it should be everyones saying in the matter. Vonnegut craves for a world where everyone is loving and understanding of each other so I believe is open-minded to giving anything a shot at reaching that goal. He is saying maybe its Communism maybe its not who knows, but his hatred of people is that no one seems to want to make the effort to achieve Peace on Earth and good will towards man and would rather be greedy bloodthirsty vampires, set out to suck the life out of the world and its living creatures. Just thought those pages were interested because you can start to brain storm a little bit my thoughts could be completely off and totally off base, but these are the thoughts that I came up with when pondering on the material.
ReplyDelete-Richard Marnell