 |
| Billy Pilgrim and Montana Wildhack in their Tralfamadorian habitat. |
Here's our thread for you to post one additional thing — one interesting fact, one astute observation, one cogent comparison, etc. — about Slaughterhouse-Five that we did not discuss during our in-class conversations.
Your final observations don't necessarily need to be long, but they should be substantial and interesting, and rooted in the text itself (or its contexts). Ideal thoughts should follow from openings like "did you notice . . ." or "isn't it fascinating that . . ." (though you don't need to actually say this).
Please post your observations as comments on this thread and be sure to include your name. So that we can make a clean break in starting on our next book, and so you can have the weekend to yourself, the window for posting is between the end of Tuesday's class and the start of Thursday's class. Finally, as is the case with the discussion leaders' posting of their questions on the respective novels' threads, these final observations are also "first come, first served," so you can't repeat what someone else has previously said. You can, however, use someone else's post as a jumping off point for your own insights.
Once again fate is portrayed in Vonnegut's writing and emphasizing the notion that it can not be changed. We see this over and over again in the book when Vonnegut repeats those three small words "So it goes". These words represent the Tralfamadorian's response to death, and every time death is mentioned the line, "So it goes," follows. Death is fate, there is nothing you can do about it or to change it, it happens. Other ways that the fate of the future can not be changed are told on page 149 when the Tralfamadorian's explain they know how the universe ends because they blow it up, and there is nothing they can do to change that. "He has always pressed it, and he always will. We always let him and we always will let him. The moment is structured that way" this gives Billy Pilgrim the insight that "I suppose that the idea of preventing war on ear is stupid, too" (149). I believe this is Vonnegut's take on events that happen in his life, you can not prevent or change the fate of your life or the universe.
ReplyDelete-Megan Obermeyer
ear = earth*** :)Sorry
Delete-Megan Obermeyer
I really enjoy the concise writing of Vonnegut. I noticed another technique he uses similar in effect to “So it goes.” Often times he will encapsulate his opinion in one very short but powerful sentence. The formula is this:
ReplyDeleteIdea sentence containing what is in question- idea or statement + Very concise following sentence=
Simply put but powerful statement from Vonnegut
A few examples are:
*Vonnegut’s opinion of firearms* “He left me his guns. They rust” (210). – Expressing his distain of firearms and a kinda tragic statement on his late father.
*From our discussion today in class about Vonnegut’s view of soldiers* “All the real soldiers are dead now,” she said. It was true” (159) - (Discussed in class)
* One that actually is accompanied by “So it goes.” (On the prisoner’s issued dog tags) “A slave laborer from Poland had done the stamping. He was dead now. So it goes” (91) – A tragic statement on the reality of prisoners/slaves of Nazis.
Basically I just like the distinct style that Vonnegut forms in “Slaughterhouse-Five.” It’s definitely vastly different from the faux-report style of much of “God Bless You Mr. Rosewater” and “Cat’s Cradle” and the more traditional third person of “Player Piano.” The narrative of “Slaughterhouse-Five” and it’s metafiction form proves to be an excellent avenue for Vonnegut’s own philosophy. The style of his writing with peppering of his philosophy is something I really enjoyed in “Slaughterhouse-Five” from the way in which it is presented.
After Billy committed himself into the mental ward in the middle of his final year at the Ilium School of Optometry, he was admitted into the hospital. “The man assigned to the bed next to Billy’s was a former infantry captain named Eliot Rosewater” (Vonnegut 127-128). I found it interesting that Vonnegut chose Eliot as the character he decided to include within this novel, drawing a sort of comparison between the two. As mentioned in class, throughout both “Slaughterhouse-Five,” as well as in “God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater,” both of the main characters are in question of being “crazy.” Did Vonnegut include Eliot’s character in order to compare the two, in terms of sanity? Or, on the other hand, did Vonnegut simply include Eliot’s character in order to elaborate upon their other similarities to reinforce his story? As mentioned in the novel, “they both found life meaningless, partly because of what they had seen in the war” - “they were trying to reinvent themselves and their universe” (Vonnegut 128).
ReplyDeleteKelsie Wilson
In the beginning of the novel when Vonnegut is introducing his story he writes, "Another thing they taught was that nobody was ridiculous or bad or disgusting. Shortly before my father died, he said to me, "You know-you never wrote a story with a villain in it". I told him that was one of the things I learned in college after the war". Now, thinking about the plots and characters in his novels, there really isn't any villains in his stories but there are always embedded morals of right and wrong. Normally, authors will use symbols of protagonist/antagonist to display their values and beliefs but particularly in Slaughterhouse Five, a book about a war, Vonnegut doesn't display the "enemy" (the Germans) as evil or ridiculous but incredibly human. (Think about the German soldiers, there really old, really young, distant cousins to Billy.. they're not brutal Nazi people-haters like a lot of World War II portrayals of the Germans are). Vonnegut loves to highlight the "humanness" of people, how we're all intricate collages of the past and our own experiences and that sometimes we shouldn't be blamed for the rash and silly things we do (think: Lot's wife).
ReplyDeleteAshton Meadows
I know we touched on Billy's sanity in class some but I found a couple other parts of the book that lead me to believe he is in fact crazy. In the final chapters Vonnegut gives us many clues as to Billy's sanity and ability to cope with reality. At the end Billy keeps repeating the phrase "If you are ever in Cody, Wyoming, just ask for Wild Bob" he says this multiple times, to himself and to other people. It seems he is latching onto a neutral memory and repeating it over and over to help ease the current situation. Prior to this Billy makes a realization that pretty much puts the whole novel into question, "He got a few paragraphs into it, and then he realize that he had read it before - years ago, in the vereans hospital. It was about an Earthing man and woman who were kidnapped by extra-terrestrials. They were put on display in a zoo on a planet called Zircon212." (210) This statement, to me, is Vonnegut telling us that Billy is crazy because somewhere deep in his subconscious, he had repeated this Kilgore Trout story into his own life and believed it true. After this realization he begins the repeating of the phrase about Wild Bob. Something definitely changed in Billy after that.
ReplyDeleteMariah Acord
Through all the books we've read so far, Vonnegut's character names have been important, and Slaughterhouse-Five is no exception. Billy Pilgrim. In a lot of ways he is a pilgrim; if the book is taken at face value he is literally a pilgrim in the sense that he is the first human to discover a "new land" so to speak. He goes on an expedition in the uncharted cosmos (albeit somewhat unwillingly). In other ways he is a pilgrim too, as is Vonnegut. For one, this is a novel reconstruction of a war story (pun). In that sense Vonnegut is a pilgrim. Also, think about Billy's ideologies, regardless of how he acquired them. They are unique; they are groundbreaking. In my mind, Pilgrim has a definitely positive connotation, and I think that Vonnegut would agree.
ReplyDeleteAustin Baurichter
We briefly mentioned Billy and Valincia's marriage in class. How he had not wanted to propose to her, and admitted so to us, but accepted it. In too many ways this is a mirror image of many people's marriages. While Billy docilely accepts Valincia's statement that she wants to lose weight for him on their honeymoon night, because he has "seen" (believes) their marriage and it does not turn out too bad, too many people today just accept things as they are because they believe that things will turn out well. People settle, wether they know it, like Billy, or not. And this Billy transfers to the rest of his life. He is settling and accepting that he cannot change anything, even though he himself keeps the AA quote that, if he had taken a good look at over the years, might have changed him. I say might because I do not believe that he was fully sane, though I'm not for that he is completely crazy either. It might have pulled him more out of his own head though and he might have married someone whom he had not settled for.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading any of Vonnegut's novels, I am drawn to his idea of masculinity ( or at least what I feel is portrayed throughout the novel). In particular, in the novel there is portrayal of American Prisoners of war being weak, inexperienced, and young. Contemporarily speaking, this was not the idea of what it takes to be societies term "man". Vonnegut then goes on to show that the English men as tough, big built, "manly men", with "washboard abs", but they have barely experienced soem of the "real" aspects of how horrendous was can turn out to be. I think this idea has a lot to do with why the alternative title is "The Children's Crusade". The men in the war shouldn't be in the war, from America at least, supporting Vonnegut's activist ideology surrounding war. Although Vonnegut mocks the idea of war and it's necessity, is there a time were he embracing the inevitability of war? I think that the other theme of fate comes into play. I'm curious to see if any of his other novels have colliding themes that bounce and inspire the other for the reader.
ReplyDeleteKyle Murway
When reading Slaughterhouse-Five I came to terms that Billy, to me, was insane. I feel as though his trips to war are memories and his trips to Tralfamdore are dreams that Billy has. it seems that the planet Tralfamadore is something that billy just imagines in his dreams because he is insane. I feel that reason he dreams about being taken unwillingly to this planet where he is put on display in a ZOO, relates back to his life of alwyas being on display as being insane by everyone, hence why his dream is in a zoo and he's the animal.
ReplyDeleteIt's open to interpretation. I would have believed the same thing if it wasn't for Kilgore Trout. Through the brief glimpses we see of his books, we see he may have also encountered the Tralfamadors, their perspective on things, and the time jumps that Billy experiences. Trout could also be crazy, but to have the same hallucinations? The same aliens appear in a few of his other books. It's more likely that the aliens are actually real... in his fictional world.
DeletePatrick Schwarz
Throughout Cat's Cradle, and many of Vonnegut's works, we are shown that women are portrayed as very unimportant and less than a man. They are portrayed in a light that demeans them and makes them seem less valuable. Slaughterhouse Five is no exception. Barbara, Billy's daughter, has to take over the family duties at the age of 20 and she resents it almost every day of her life. We see a very similar story line in Cat's Cradle. Angela, Frank's daughter, is put in almost the same position, having to take over the motherly and sometimes fatherly duties at a very young age and having to take care of her brothers. I think that both of these plot lines just add more evidence to the fact that Vonnegut is portraying women in such a demeaning light. Both Barbara and Angela have to take on much harder roles at an early age and they don't do the most amazing job, but given their age, you can't really blame them. I also find it interesting that both Valencia and Emily Hoenikker die in a series of events caused by their husbands. I think this speaks to the way Vonnegut portrays women as well.
ReplyDelete--Kimberly Jent
I find it interesting that Vonnegut is classified as a science fiction writer. When I think of science fiction, I think of things such as aliens and outer space. Slaughter House –Five is the first book that we have read, where the characteristics of true science fiction appear. Throughout the novel, Bill Pilgrim travels through time to the planet Tralfamadore. Vonnegut also a makes a point to mention some of Kilgore Trout’s novels. One of the works is described as being very similar to Billy and his experience on Tralfamadore. This striking similarity between Billy and Trout’s novel really struck me as odd. After some thought, I came up with one possible explanation. Vonnegut may have been trying to get a message across to the reader. Prior class discussions have revealed Vonnegut’s unhappiness towards this classification. He might have included this subtle similarity as a criticism to his relation with science fiction and to show what true science fiction is.
ReplyDelete-Cameron Lozier
Whenever I read books, I always seem to think about previous knowledge that I know in order to compare. When reading about the part where Billy Pilgram is talking to the Tralfamadorians about time travel and knowing how the world was going to end, I automatically thought about a book that I read called "The Time-Travelers Wife." This book was turned into a movie a few years ago, so some people may know what I'm talking about! During this part of the book the Tralfamadorian refers to the ending of the world stating, "He has always pressed it, and he always will. We always let him and always will let him. The moments is structured that way." In Time Travelers Wife, the one thing that they stress is that you cant change the things that have happened no matter what, they were meant to happen. I wonder if the author of that book got any ideas from Vonnegut?
ReplyDelete-Adrienne Biggers
In the prologue of the book Vonnegut says to O'hare and his wife that he thinks the death of Edgar Derby should be the Climax of the book he wants to write. Fast forward to the end of the story and Edgar Derby's death is mentioned only fleetingly and the only comment made on his death is the same as every other comment that follows death in the book, "so it goes". I thought this was an interesting turn of events and does well to prove Vonnegut's point that there is nothing intelligent to say about war
ReplyDelete-Tim Sievers
I interpreted the death of Derby differently, rather than "there is nothing intelligent to say about war," I thought it more illustrated the Tralfamadorian concept of time and death. Obviously the saying "so it goes" is Tralfamadorian, but the sense that his death is glossed over embodies the ideal of focusing on the good parts of one's existence. Derby is very highly regarded in the eyes of Pilgrim, so he doesn't want to focus on Derby's death while there are more appealing pieces of his life to focus on.
DeleteThis novel actually impressed me a lot and got me to think about life, I guess. Although they are polar opposites, my mind automatically jumps the "the butterfly effect" where even the smallest decision can effect your entire future. As a Christian, I believe in faith, destiny and a plan for my life, but I am weird and also believe that I have free will and that every little decision I make can potentially change my life, much like "the butterfly effect". So it was a bit of a challenge to wrap my head around the thought that the Tralfamadorians believed that everyone is like a bug trapped in amber because we can't change anything, everything is destined. For an atheist, Vonnegut writes about destiny much like a Christian would, with the exception that to him (through Rosewater) prayer is futile.
ReplyDeleteVonnegut constantly writes stories which include characters whose sanity is often questioned by the reader. Why? Is Vonnegut simply adding twists to his stories or is he trying to make a statement about sanity? To me it seems like he is trying to make a statement, or at least make his audience reflect about the nature of sanity. In this novel, Slaughterhouse-Five, the main character, Billy, is said to have the ability to time travel. In the real world, if someone says that they travel through time, it is almost certain that they would be viewed as insane or deeply troubled, in the least. However, Billy is also a World War Two veteran, he has experienced many tribulations that are known to his peers. Does Billy's insanity invalidate what he has to say, his experiences? Can we, the audience, trust Billy's accounts? I think that we can, to an extent. Despite the negative stigma, that usually presents itself in the form of dismissal, which comes with the label of insanity, insane people are able to speak the truth. It is up to us to discern what is the truth and what isn't. We shouldn't brush off what comes out of the mouth of the insane, but we should listen to them and then brush off their falsities. We don't have to trust insane people, but we should, at least, listen to them.
ReplyDeleteBryce Althen
I believe that in this story Billy Pilgrim really is suffering from PTSD. I believe that this is a tool to show the reader just how bad things can get in war and that it's really not this glorious thing that they try and make it out to be. This theme is repeated throughout the book. I believe that Billy Pilgrim is maybe somewhere in the hospital or at the cookout in real time but experiences these episodes from time to time. He says that he is time traveling because this is how it would seem to someone with PTSD. They don't simply have a scary flash back or nightmare. They really believe that they are back in the moment. There have been cases of veterans running through cities, sticking to the alleys and sewers and even murdering people because they believed they were enemy soldiers and that they were still in the war. I believe that KV says that Billy was time traveling for two reasons. One was to show how serious PTSD is, because to them it may seem like they really are time traveling. The other reason I believe is to provide an out to the reader. Let's face it, this is an extremely dark book over a very dark subject matter. I believe that he may have provided this time traveling scheme so that perhaps if you don't want to accept the gravity of what happened then you can accept that he is really time traveling. That is what I believe.
ReplyDelete-Elliot Shouse-
After reading through Slaughterhouse-Five, it seems apparent to me that one of the main questions that the novel deals with is what constitutes a "real" man. One of the recurring themes in Vonneguts work is that wars are fought at the expense of the young, who are far away from the decisions being made at the top. Mary O'Hare remarks that Vonnegut and her husband were just babies in the war, and one of the cooks in the slaughterhouse laments that "all the real soldiers are dead" in reference to the ragtag collection of children and old men that constitute what is left of the fighting force. Vonnegut makes reference to what popular culture considers a real man (dirty old men like Frank Sinatra and John Wayne) and also describes the British soldiers in the prsion camp as robust and strong with fierce morale. But the actors who play soldiers in movies are still only actors, and the British have been away from combat for four years. Perhaps the best example of a brave and honorable man is Edgar Derby, especially when he is standing to Campbell. Yet his dialogue is wrought with cliche and even subtle naivety. Perhaps wars are a disguise that mankind must wear in order to live up to the image of a courageous and bold soldier, even if that image is a product of the movies.
ReplyDelete-Nick Bading-
"It could have been anybody." A phrase repeated throughout the novel has finally become clear inside my head. From chapter 8 until the end of the book Vonnegut details the events of the Dresden fire bombing. From that moment on it didn't matter if the main character was Billy Pilgrim or Kurt Vonnegut Jr. it felt as if it was happening to me, it could have been anybody.
ReplyDeleteWhat struck me most about this novel, especially after reading Vonnegut's other works was the repetition of themes and ideas including overpopulation, religion, and machines. Even things as specific as Billy Pilgrim emphasizing the you when he and his wife said, "I missed you." "I missed you" (page 160) and Paul and Anita in Player piano saying “I love you.” “I love you.” Valencia and Angela from Cat’s Cradle are both described as women who no man in his right mind would marry. On page 165 of Slaughterhouse it talks about I.Q.s, “The author of the monograph…was said by some to have had the highest I.Q. of all the war criminals.” This also ties back to Player Piano. On page 213 it describes a book Trout has written about a money tree that “attracted human beings who killed each other around the roots and made very good fertilizer.” This is almost the same concept as the money river described in God Bless you Mr. Rosewater.
ReplyDeleteBrooke Beery
One thing that stood out to me was Vonnegut's fictionalized science fiction writer, Kilgore Trout. He acts as a catalyst to the main characters in both Slaughterhouse-Five and God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater as well as other novels such as Jailbird. It seems as though Vonnegut and Trout have similarities such as their jobs, personality traits and outlooks on humanity. I can't help but think that Kurt Vonnegut uses this character as another way to directly insert himself into the story and incorporate his anecdotes. I look forward to seeing how Vonnegut further utilizes this character.
ReplyDelete^^^BRYAN SHUPE^^^
ReplyDeleteI, by no means am an english major, nor do I typically understand half the stories I read, but in Slaughterhouse 5 Mr. Vonnegut personally puts himself in the story. This time is different because he's not just referencing the story, but he was actually 'standing there' in the hospital scene. Would that not make this science fiction piece more of a nonfictional story about the war? If this were the case then understanding Billy had PTSD would make more sense, because in all his other books I feel like everyone just skitzed out and did not fully understand what was going on in the real world just because, not because of a horrific incident.
ReplyDelete-Alexis Wharton
The first thing that comes to mind after some time away from Slaughterhouse 5 is the character of Weary toward the beginning of the book. Shortly after Billy joins the rag-tag group of Weary and the 2 scouts, Billy instantly seems to just give himself up to fate, constantly telling everyone to leave him, and every time he does this, Weary goes after him, complaining about how he's constantly saving his life. However, Weary is the reason that Lazzaro devotes his life to trying to kill Billy, which he is eventually succeeds in doing. This all just made me contemplate the circular aspect of Weary's character.
ReplyDelete-Rachel Kuhn
The part of this book that is humourous to me is when Billy arrives at the first prison camp where he and his fellow soliders are imprisoned with the English. In the book it is said that there were no real men in the war or that they were too young. Hence the secondary title a Children's Crusade. But as Vonnegut writes "They were adored by the Germans...They made war look stylish, and reasonable, and fun." Is this maybe because England did not send the young to war but sent men who knew what they were fighting for and their cause? Maybe, but since Vonnegut is totally against war I doubt that was his point. It none the less is a part in his story where one can see plain humor as opposed to his humor of critizing the world. Its not that he is making fun of the English but Vonnegut portrays them so outlandishly. They have vast amounts of food, they put on a play, Cinderella no less, and they refer to the Germans as Jerry. They even set up a type of banquet because they are so well-mannered and knew to expect guests. You can see where this would make war stylish even as a prisoner of war the English still find time and a way to just be themselves. To me it was the funniest part of the whole book a type of comic relief just thought I would share my favorite part of the book.
ReplyDelete-Richard Marnell
Slaughter house five dissects the aspect of time. Billy Pilgrim is a time traveler therefore, I think he is less human because he has no control of what moment we will skip to next which alters his choices. I think he is more of a piece of dust floating in the wind encountering what he will by chance. If we hopped through time like he does in this novel I think it would be hard to commit to that short moment
ReplyDelete