If you choose to submit a reading response for Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.'s Slaughterhouse-Five, please do so in the comments section of this post. Remember: your response should be thoughtful, it should evidence a careful consideration of the text, and it should include at least one question for your instructor/your classmates about the text. Your response should be no less than 200 words and no more than 500 words, and at least relatively well-written (you will not be graded on grammar, but please remember that poor grammar/syntax reflects poorly on you/your ideas). If other students have posted before you, your response can be, in part, a response to their posts--feel free to take up other students questions or concerns and use this space as a forum for intelligent discussion. You may also post more than once, particularly if your initial post is short or ambiguous. Your grade for the reading response will be based on your collective input in the comments sections of this post.
I have enjoyed reading Slaughterhouse-five. There are several very interesting ideas and themes in the book. First of all I find almost humorous that Billy is an optometrist and is suppose to correct people’s eyes, when he himself does see things correctly and is a little bit loony. In my opinion, Billy’s memories and time travel are the reasons that he is unable to move on from the Dresden massacre. He constantly is traveling back in time to Dresden, reliving the nightmare. We learn how the Trafalmadorians view time, which is the idea that all events are predestined and impossible to change. This is related to the characters because this idea of time is too big for any human to grasp. This idea also suggests that no one person can make much of a difference.
ReplyDeleteThe phrase “so it goes,” is repeated over and over again in the book whenever someone dies. In saying this Billy is accepting death and forgiving everyone. In the book it says that Billy never becomes angry. In my opinion, Vonnegut is trying to show that he values the peace and forgiveness that comes with acceptance. But can his novel really be an anti-war book if he asks readers to completely figure people and the world they live in? From reading this novel I feel that Vonnegut sees war as disgusting and not as something heroic. He does not write about heroes, he writes about men losing their dignity. I think he struggled with writing this book because he did not want to glorify war or make it seem like something that is thrilling.
The idea of free will is discussed in the book. Billy is constantly faced with situations that contradict his free will. These include being rescued from drowning, and being drafted into the war. Once Billy learns that there is no free will from the Tradalmadorians, his actions are affected. It doesn’t matter what he does he could die like anyone else at any time. Free will becomes pointless to him.
One aspect that I found very intriguing about Slaughterhouse- Five was the way that Kurt Vonnegut described his characters. It seemed that everytime he introduced a character that they were described in some way that was against the norm and with a sort of apathy. For example, when he talks about his Roland Weary he starts by saying how fat Weary was and how he was extremely sweaty under all of his layers. This is not usually a description we would immediately give if we were talking about someone we knew.
ReplyDeleteOne description I found partictularly powerful in the book was when he described things as “blue and ivory.” He uses this description when he is talking about Billy’s feet a couple of times in the novel, and also once to describe a dead man. With this description, I think Vonnegut was trying to elaborate upon the fragility of our lives and the way that it can just be gone in a second. I think this ties into the destruction of war theme of this book because it shows how quick and almost unimportant death is in wars. It also shows how our lives are left up to fate and that no matter how hard we try to hold on our lives are fragile and how we can not change this fact.
I also found it very strange that two of the times Billy mentions his father he mentions his death. I found it interesting because at the very beginning of the book it says that Billy was put on furlough in the war to go home because his father “was shot dead by a friend while out hunting deer.” And at the end of the book Vonnegut tells of how his father “died many years ago now- of natural causes.”, I began to think about our discussions in class and how we all die at a certain time and there is nothing we can do to change it. To me it seemed as if Vonnegut was saying that no matter how we die it is just death and that all deaths are natural. In the paragraph after Vonnegut’s father’s death talks about how the Tralfamadorians are very interested in Charles Darwin because he taught that those who were meant to die, die. Thus elaborating on Vonnegut’s view of death as natural.
Another factor in Slaughterhouse- Five that caught my attention was when the book mentioned religion. At one point it talks about how on Tralfamadore there is not interest in Jesus Christ. After our class discussions I can see why they would not be interested. As we talked about, humans need something to explain the logic of all the absurdity and chaos. On the other hand, on Tralfamadore they do not have this particular need to explain away what is happening as they just focus on the good times.
--Kelcey Flegel
I think that Slaughterhouse-Five was meant to make a mockery out of people and the things we do to get the things we want, and also to question what free will actually is and if it exist. Most of the characters in the novel are made fun of. Pretty much everyone, except for Derby, is not portrayed as heroic or respectable. All the women, as said in class, are shown to be fat, too emotional or weak. I think that even the Cinderalla play was done partly as a mockery to women. Most of the men are depicted as weak, dumb or ugly. I think Trafalmodorians are used to show this and also to show how ridiculous and unnecessary are the things that we do as humans, especially with war. The Trafalmodorians view life as predetermined but humans feel like we have free will in every situation. This is interesting because if they do have free will then they willed them into horrible situations, like war. I agree with Megan, that Billy can not get the events that happened in Dresden out of his head, he is always traveling back to it in his mind. I think that this is meant to show the mental destruction caused by war.
ReplyDeleteI also thought that Billy being an optometrist was meant to show that he should know everything about seeing but he is as clueless as everyone else in that we are missing the big picture. Is Vonnegut saying that we have free will or we just act like we have free will? He is always telling what will happen in the future like everything is manifest.
I have not decided whether I like or dislike this book yet. But after our class on Tuesday, I started thinking about the theme for our chapter and then about how it relates to the entire book. A major theme that we conluded as a class on Thursday dealt with apathy. To somewhat of a degree I agree with this. Not necessarily that Billy doesn't care about anyone or anything, but moreso about himself. Because Billy believes in the Tralfamdorian's idea of the fourth dimension, Billy seems to not place importance on any moments in his life. It is as if he knows that he will eventually go back to that place in time and therefore does not place value on precious moments in life. As humans, or Earthlings, we see time in a linear fashion. We learn to not take life or its events for granted because we are taught that we cannot get them back. Billy seems to have become apathetic to valuing life.
ReplyDeleteAnother point that I would like to bring up is that it seems a lot of the events in the book have overlaps, which makes it hard to understand if what Billy is experiencing is reality. For example, when Billy in on the battlefield, Roland Weary calls himself and the other two soldiers the "Three Muskateers" and then later in the text Valencia ironically is eating a Three Muskateers chocolate bar. Also, when Billy is on the train, he talks about spooning with the other Americans who are captured, and then immediately he is then cuddled up next to his wife. They also use the term spooning when they eat the syrup in the factory. Does this have a deeper meaning that Vonnegut is trying to portray?
I enjoyed slaughterhouse five very much, Especially the part about Billy Pilgrim becoming unstuck in time. The idea was very interesting and got me thinking about seeing things in four dimensions. The explanation given by Vonnegut about seeing a stretch of the Rocky Mountains was helpful but the concept was still hard to imagine. I wish I could be unstuck in time like Billy.
ReplyDeleteI wasn’t sure how I felt about the first chapter when Vonnegut himself was a character. When we first saw this in Everything is Illuminated I didn’t really like it but it’s beginning to grow on me a little. The story itself was very intriguing to me. I was confused when I first started reading but when the story became focused on Billy Pilgrim I caught on to where to story was headed.
I didn’t understand why this novel was called an anti-war novel but by the end I understood why. No one in the war context of the book was made to look like a hero. Billy Pilgrim was actually about as far from a hero as one can get. He seemed to be almost unconscious through most of his journey through Europe. This was the best book we have read in my opinion so far. Anyone else think so?
-William Osborne
I found Kurt Vonnegut’s story Slaughterhouse Five to be quite an entertaining and interesting book. I was not sure how I would take a book concerning the bombing of Dresden or the actions of Nazi’s in World War II, because both subjects have particular meaning to me for separate reasons.
ReplyDeleteI have visited Germany on multiple occasions and was lucky enough to get to see the beautiful city that is Dresden. Walking around the city, it is amazing to think that literally almost everything was destroyed in the bombings of 1945. I cannot even begin to imagine what it must have been like for Kurt, or his character, to be in such a place of utter destruction and death. From his perspective, he surely thought rebuilding would be an impossible feat, and yet today I am able to go back and stand in the Frauenkirche as it stood in 1945.
This book, and all concerning Nazi activity in Germany, strike particular chords with me because of the fact that my best friend is a German Jew. The horrendous things done in the war outrage me even more than normal, because of the personal ties mentioned.
The reason behind this journal entry is that I would like to discuss the quote from Goethe on page 18. The quote came from Goethe’s visit to Dresden and speaks of how he looks out from the top of the Frauenkirche onto the city of Dresden and discusses its bombproof architecture. The irony is quite obvious in this quote due to the fact that Goethe lived 200 years before the bombings and had no idea what kind of destruction we humans would later be able to create. It is also extremely ironic because he calls it “bombenfest” or bombproof. The city obviously was not bombproof.
The final line of the quote is from “der Sakristan” (Sexton) who speaks concerning the ruins around the new church: “The enemy did this.” The US and England were not trying to be the enemy of the non-Nazi German people, or bomb the city out of mal-intention, although the actions carried out were atrocious regarding civilian casualties etc.
The history of World War II, as we all know, is filled with horrible happenings that will never be forgotten. Though I have only discussed a small, yet very interesting and important, part of the book, Vonnegut’s story helps shed light, in a somewhat humorous manner, on a subject that is as dark as any story in history.
I think Slaughter House Five is clearly trying to state that war is a bad and chaotic thing. However, there are deeper meanings to which Vonnegut is trying to show. First of all he is completely against glamorizing war. Billy Pilgrim, the main character himself was a pitiful weak character. He was in the war and has not possible chance to be glamorized about. Vonnegut wanted to show war was not just heroes and the majority of war is ugly and not to be glamorized about. Also, he wants to explain to people that war does not fin in a narrative. War is not something orderly. War is always chaotic and has disgusting parts to it. All throughout the book a certain paragraphs would be plain and dull. Then the last sentence would have some gruesome detail of the war. An example would be when the paragraph was talking about Derby and then it states “he gets shot down by a firing squad.” Everything was ordinary and normal then something random and chaotic happen. I believe Vonnegut was trying to show that war was mostly boring until those intense, cruel, and gruesome moments. Also, Vonnegut shows that war, even in good situations have unintended consequences. For example, the British POW's were getting soap and candles. This is a good thing for POW’s but these candles and soap come from boiled Holocaust victims. These terrible things happened all the time throughout war. Vonnegut wants to show no one should glamorize war because it is too chaotic, gruesome and cruel.
ReplyDeleteLucas Garber
One thing that I found really interesting while reading this book was how Billy Pilgrim's life seemed completely bizarre yet completely normal all at the same time. In general, time is an incredibly important concept in our society. We need to time to tell us when to be in a certain place or when to do a certain thing. Time more or less dictates our entire lives. However, Billy Pilgrim has no real sense of time. Throughout the majority of his life, time is completely out of order. But even as Billy lives his life out of order, he still manages to do all of the things that most people seek out in life. He has a decent job, he gets married, has children, etc. It seemed really interesting to me that he managed to do all of these things without something that is so essential as time.
ReplyDeleteI also thought the time travel could be seen as some sort of coping mechanism. As we discussed in class, Slaughterhouse Five seems to be an anti-war novel. The first time Billy came unstuck in time was during WWII. This makes it seem like the time travel was Billy's bizarre yet effective way of coping with the horrors of war. By constantly traveling through time, Billy is only somewhat experiencing the war, which makes it easier to deal with. It's also interesting how the chaos of the time travel parallels the chaos of war and that Vonnegut chose to express chaos in this way.
Slaughter House Five was a interesting novel, yet entertaining to say the least. Though it jumped around a lot, I believe the main point of this novel is to show to people that war is not this romantic notion that people see in movies. However, war is fought by people just like you and I who are willing to give up their lives for our freedom. Throughout the novel, Billy is shown to be this clumsy man who does not seem to be fully engaged in any matter especially the war. We are shown these "Three Musketeers", who are meant to be perceived as these great war heros, however, during the war, each musketeer ends up dying. The death of these men was to show to the reader that even the most prepared soldier can easily die in war. How can this be? This is because war is partially based on luck. This conclusion can easily be supported through Billy. As one finds out at the end of the novel, Billy is one of the few to survive the war and he was the least likely one in most people's opinion to even make it through one day. How can this be? It is hard to know exactly why Billy was chosen to live throughout the war, however, one can say that one's future is already laid out for them once they are born. Though you make decisions in your life, I believe that God already has a plan for you and He already knows how your life will play out before anyone else. He can see your past and He can see your future. In a way, the aliens in this novel can be a representation of that higher being most people believe in. Just as this higher power knows how your life will be, so do the aliens. They can jump from different times in life and they know that once a person dies, it is not the end of them. This can be said the same for some religions. Some religions believe that one you die, you may go to heaven/hell for eternal life. Other religions believe that you may be reincarnated. Either way, your life is not over with death, rather, you are just moving on to a different form of living. Has anyone else made this connection or believe this could be true?
ReplyDeleteOverall, this novel can be interpreted in several different ways, but these are my explanations of what I believe the novel is trying to express to its readers.
Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five hasn’t been one of my favorite novels to read in this class. I’m not sure if it is because I don’t understand exactly what he is trying to say or the point he is trying to get across, or if it’s more about how he is telling his story. It is not the anti-war novel that I was expecting it to be. For me there is too much going on, and seems jumbled and it made it extremely difficult to keep interested while reading. Although I don’t enjoy it, I do appreciate some of the themes he reveals throughout the novel. Out of many, one particular reoccurring theme that I saw very important was the subjects of time.
ReplyDeleteQuotes that I remember and seem most relevant to the theme were:
“There is no beginning, no middle, no end, no suspense, no moral, no causes, no effects. What we love in our books are the depths of many marvelous moments seen all at one time.”
“There was nothing I could do about it. As an Earth-ling, I had to believe whatever clocks said- and calendars.”
We discussed the first quote some in class, however it made me think and question, how would life be different if it were seen at once? It seems like such a strange concept because that is how our life is composed. There will always be a beginning and an end, and we use “marvelous moments” as a way of defining different points in our lives between the beginning and end. I (at least) understand the fact that Billy does not interpret the world and time as normal humans do. The last quote made me also think about how life would be if we didn’t have some sort of organizing factor (clocks, timers, calendars, agendas) for time. Maybe that is the most frustrating aspect of the novel; it violates and argues against the way we think about time, which is a huge defining factor in everyone’s life.
A question that I have for someone is how the themes of time, free-will, and others he introduces in the novel come together to support an anti-war novel?
For me, this is the best book we have read so far. It is a historical fiction book because it mainly focuses on World War Two and the bombings of Dresden, and I typically enjoy any historical book. Because there was so much time traveling the events were short, concise and two the point so it kept me entertained and my mind was not wondering off as much as it has for the past few books and time seemed to fly by as I turned each page.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the book, more and more Billy struck me as being such an odd character. No character in this book seems to view the way he sees circumstances, thinks or lives the way he lives. His life is consistently interrupted by this time travel. At one point, he is in the dangerous war zone trying to escape the Nazis notice by hiding in a creek then he is being elected as President of the Lion’s Club. Time consistently jumps around for him, yet Billy just goes with the flow. He does not fight against his time traveling but rather he seems to enjoy it. He does not worry about the future, but he accepts situations and events as the way it is meant to be. As mentioned above, the phrase “so it goes” is used every single time a person dies. The narrator uses this phrase to describe the way Billy just accepts the way events and situations as the way they are meant to transpire. He never seems to be sad after people die. I don’t understand how anyone could not care after a close friend or family member dies. Why is he like this?
~Taci Hodgins
Slaughterhouse-Five has been one my favorite books that we have read this semester. Yes it is odd and jumbled up, but I have never thought about what it would be like to be "unstuck" in time like Billy Pilgrim. I also think this book raises two good points. 1. War is inevitable but we can choose how we view it. 2. If you can see into the future and the past you should focus on where you are in the present.
ReplyDeleteThe Trafalmodorians, to me, are the most interesting characters in this book. Since they are able to see time in four dimensions they know what is going to happen in the future. The Trafalmodorians have horrible wars and they know they are going to destroy the entire universe yet they don't dwell on these events. They only look at the good times in the present and they see it as a waste of time to try and change/prevent future things from happening. So, Kurt Vonnegut is saying that wars are inevitable and we should just choose not to look and dwell on them and instead look at the peaceful times in our lives. This way of not looking at war will de-glorify it and it will extinguish the need for us to try and glorify it so that war does not seem so horrible.
Free-will, according to the aliens, is only a human idea and no other studied planet in the universe believes in this idea. Do you believe we actually have control over what we do or is there some master plan that we eventually will fulfill no matter what our actions?
Billy Pilgrim- Pilgrims leave one place for another because of hardships. Maybe the character is Kurt Vooneguts way of leaving behind his memories of the bombing of Dresdin. Maybe the things he saw and witnessed change his life forever. Because of the horrific everts he witnessed, he is trying to tell a story in which he leaves this world and sees flashbacks of things that happened in his life.
ReplyDelete- Kurt Vonnegut talks about the serenity prayer and free will. In a world where nothing can change, why do we still use the serenity prayer? The prayer gives us Faith that something is out there that can change our fate. It is also a way to accept that there is a lack of control. Free will is also a point Vonnegut makes. On page 104 the Tralfamadorian says, "Only on Earth is there any talk of free will." Humans believe that we can choose the path that we live. I think it is also saying that this is natrual for humans. On the same page the Tralfamadorian visited 31 inhabited planets and not one had free will.
What do you guys think about this?
Ryan Stonaker
One of the things Slaughterhouse Five seemed to be about that we didn’t mention in class discussion was a sort of loss of innocence that is a result of war. We talked about the fact that war, and possibly by extension life, oftentimes has no logic, rhyme or reason. And the book obviously wrestled with that. But a few points in the book seemed to be suggesting that there’s an inevitable loss of purity and innocence that comes from war; and that once it is lost it cannot be found again.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically there’s a passage (I don’t remember the chapter) where a young soldier (I think German) appears in the narrative. He seems to be young and “unsoiled” by the war when we come into contact with him. So much so that he’s not really even a part of the jokes and activities of the other, more seasoned soldiers. We seem him as a sort of contrast to what the other soldiers, presumably once innocent and pure themselves, have become after prolonged exposure to war.
There’s also the allusion to Adam and Eve as seen in the soldier’s boots periodically. Many times in literature (and even film) this sort of allusion to Adam and Eve is a reference to a purer, simpler, more innocent time. You see man in his purest form, before the intrusion of sin, war or any of the other numerous contaminates that cause man ultimately to lose his innocence.
Finally there’s the passage where time is reversed and you see the destruction of war undone. The bombs go back from whence they came (to use a corny, semi-poetic phrase), even to the point of being unmanufactured. You envision the reversal of time as something positive and productive, but realize that it’s an impossibility. The bell can’t really be unrung. Once the bombing, the war, the imposition on innocence has taken place, it can’t be reversed.
Donte Lazarus
I enjoyed Slaughterhouse five, but I felt that it presented an anti-war theme in an odd way. It clearly showed how Billy came out of the war screwed up in the head and loopy, yet he went into the war acting very similar it just wasn't as severe. Well before Dresden, Billy was portrayed as the lost and goofy soul who was just along for the ride, "he was powerless to harm the enemy or to help his friends"(30). Often he had to get his butt saved by Roland Weary, who would never let him forget it. I'm sure that Billy's experiences in war played a huge role in causing his hallucinations and probably was the reason for his so called "abductions" with the aliens in his head. Yet, Billy seemed like a character who would experience these things even if he did not go off to war. It's tough to tell how much the war actually affected Billy or if it was just his many experiences with death, in and out of war, throughout his life that left a scar in his mind.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the book was humorous, I did appreciate how Vonnegut would subtly throw in comments here and there about the severity of the situation they were in no matter how funny it seemed. For example, when we first discover the British POWs and discover how delightful and cheery they are. The dress well and are always clean and washed, yet the do not know that the soap that they are using comes from the dead bodies from the concentration camps. These subtle comments, along with Billy's hallucinations provide a good format for an anti-war novel and the way Vonnegut portrayed this was odd but interesting.
Mark Doran
Slaughterhouse Five puts me in the mind of Forest Gump, of course without the multitude of successes that often resulted from Forest’s antics. Billy is a lot like Forest, some type of man-child, who seems to survive and ultimately make the best under the most impossible of situations. The book implies of the Slaughter that occurred in the POW camp located in Dresden and seems to be a novel about war. This story line, like Forest Gump, depicts the main character mostly as a victim than anything of note. Billy goes from one scene to the next as surviving but at the expense of humiliation, alien probing, or mental instability through all that he has encountered.
ReplyDeleteWar seems to dominate most details about this story. Vonnegut was attempting to describe War through an anti-narrative with all the back and forwarding and never consistent storytelling. It appeared to me that Vonnegut used this pattern as an attempt to show where the stress of war can put a person. Billy seemed to travel back into time or space when he was approaching a period where he could mentally reflect the brutal nature of war. In fact, what this work of fiction seems to truly reflect is Vonnegut on a couch speaking with a therapist and the therapist attempting to pull together a string of events and place them some proper context or timeline. Vonnegut story seems like the beginnings of the realizations of the stress of war coupled with the time travels to periods of less stress and demands of real life events.
I think that Slaughterhouse-Five was meant to make a mockery out of people and the things we do to get the things we want, and also to question what free will actually is and if it exist. Most of the characters in the novel are made fun of. Pretty much everyone, except for Derby, is not portrayed as heroic or respectable. All the women, as said in class, are shown to be fat, too emotional or weak. I think that even the Cinderalla play was done partly as a mockery to women. Most of the men are depicted as weak, dumb or ugly. I think Trafalmodorians are used to show this and also to show how ridiculous and unnecessary are the things that we do as humans, especially with war. The Trafalmodorians view life as predetermined but humans feel like we have free will in every situation. This is interesting because if they do have free will then they willed them into horrible situations, like war. I agree with Megan, that Billy can not get the events that happened in Dresden out of his head, he is always traveling back to it in his mind. I think that this is meant to show the mental destruction caused by war.
ReplyDeleteI also thought that Billy being an optometrist was meant to show that he should know everything about seeing but he is as clueless as everyone else in that we are missing the big picture. Is Vonnegut saying that we have free will or we just act like we have free will? He is always telling what will happen in the future like everything is manifest.
Martha Gillespie
What surprised me most about this novel was how well I was able to relate Billy's experiences and thoughts to a personal story of mine. My Grandfather was a soldier in WWII and never seemed to lose the stories of horror that followed him throughout his entire life. I found it extremely intriguing that I was able to almost see my Grandfather as Billy and see his struggle to move forward with his life after struggling to hold onto it for so long.
ReplyDeleteEven Billy's success in his postwar lifestyle where he works as optometrist and is president of the Lion's Club while being happily married, he is still unable to harness his fear and breakdowns from unwanted memories. I have repeatedly heard stories of my Grandfather's past experiences, some to which I can describe all of the way down to the second although I was far from born when the happened. However, although much of this was very memorable I was so interested by Billy's bizarre encounter with the Tralfamadorians.
I must say I was never exposed to stories of time travel or being captured of aliens. However, as some have already mentioned, as I read it was clear that the way the Tralfamadorians lived was really mirroring image in many ways if what Billy wished the world was. Constantly stressing an optimistic view of life. This was beyond interesting to me because of how indirectly it could relate to my personal experiences. If any of you guys have ever met any veterans from the war, many of them are like this; constantly trying to relate things to their past experiences no matter how successful they may be. They talk about these stories because they know the true horrors of the world that have been experienced first hand. My Grandfather lived a very happy life, but never forgot about his past and made sure I was capable of understanding the things that do go on in this world.
That is also how I personally took the quote "So it goes." Billy repeatedly says this throughout the story after talking about a death. To me it was another way of a sarcastic saying "What a surprise." Death is certainly no nuisance to Billy. It is normal. It is the world we live in. Both the experiences of my Grandfather and Billy caused them to wish the world was a better place. Vonnegut does this by actually putting Billy in that place. If only all war veterans could be so lucky.
Were any of you able to experience this book similar to myself? The fact that I had some sort of relation to a first-hand experience to the war made Billy's emotions, breakdowns, and aspiration to believe in free-will very real.
--Zach Greenberger
John Osinski
ReplyDeleteI would like to respond to both Lauren’s and Ryan’s questions in their responses because they are both similar in how they ask questions about how several of the themes contradict each other or stated truths given by the author. The questions they both asked reflect on how free will is treated throughout the story. To me this question isn’t necessarily one that can have one specific answer, but one that has to be determined by someone’s faith in what they believe to be true.
I think specifically the references to the serenity prayer and the anti-war theme come together when I view it in a religious outlook. When analyzing the serenity prayer, in my eyes religion plays a huge roll in humanity and how we discuss fate as it relates to decision making. The religions with the largest followers on the planet believe in one central being whether it is God in Christianity or Buddha in Buddhism. In both of these religions the free will of humans to follow God’s will through his Ten Commandments in Christianity or Buddhists choice to follow the Four Noble truths to have positive Karma determines how their souls will be affected in the afterlife. I believe as many do that choosing to live my life according to my faith and God’s will directly dictates what decisions I make and what I consider to be right and wrong. I think this is what makes human life on Earth unique in that we have free will to dictate our own fate. I find the optimism from the Trafalmodorians despite their vision of the future and the pain that they will endure through wars to be very honorable; however I was stubborn in reading because my faith in my own moral and religious truths allows me to disregard such a conclusion about fate. What is a life worth living if there is nothing you can do to control your own faith? While the Trafalmodorians’ outlook that one most cherish the goodness of life would be ideal I believe that it would be impossible to live realistically. This relates to the ant-war theme in my argument in that even if one could see the future, if you chose to live peacefully amongst each other and focus on good moral decisions then you would effectively change fate.
The first contradiction that most would have about such a belief that I have is that it also is stated in the Bible that God has a set plan for the world and for all life on Earth which would show that decision making by humans is futile. However, this set path by God is one that can be altered by human choice, which is the beauty of free will. God gave humans the power to live their lives in a way that would reward them eternal redemption in Heaven. I believe this uniqueness in Human life in the universe amongst other planets and aliens races that the book’s setting entails to be the most impressing point.
John Osinski
ReplyDeleteI would like to respond to both Lauren’s and Ryan’s questions in their responses because they are both similar in how they ask questions about how several of the themes contradict each other or stated truths given by the author. The questions they both asked reflect on how free will is treated throughout the story. To me this question isn’t necessarily one that can have one specific answer, but one that has to be determined by someone’s faith in what they believe to be true.
I think specifically the references to the serenity prayer and the anti-war theme come together when I view it in a religious outlook. When analyzing the serenity prayer, in my eyes religion plays a huge roll in humanity and how we discuss fate as it relates to decision making. The religions with the largest followers on the planet believe in one central being whether it is God in Christianity or Buddha in Buddhism. In both of these religions the free will of humans to follow God’s will through his Ten Commandments in Christianity or Buddhists choice to follow the Four Noble truths to have positive Karma determines how their souls will be affected in the afterlife. I believe as many do that choosing to live my life according to my faith and God’s will directly dictates what decisions I make and what I consider to be right and wrong. I think this is what makes human life on Earth unique in that we have free will to dictate our own fate. I find the optimism from the Trafalmodorians despite their vision of the future and the pain that they will endure through wars to be very honorable; however I was stubborn in reading because my faith in my own moral and religious truths allows me to disregard such a conclusion about fate. What is a life worth living if there is nothing you can do to control your own faith? While the Trafalmodorians’ outlook that one most cherish the goodness of life would be ideal I believe that it would be impossible to live realistically. This relates to the ant-war theme in my argument in that even if one could see the future, if you chose to live peacefully amongst each other and focus on good moral decisions then you would effectively change fate.
The first contradiction that most would have about such a belief that I have is that it also is stated in the Bible that God has a set plan for the world and for all life on Earth which would show that decision making by humans is futile. However, this set path by God is one that can be altered by human choice, which is the beauty of free will. God gave humans the power to live their lives in a way that would reward them eternal redemption in Heaven. I believe this uniqueness in Human life in the universe amongst other planets and aliens races that the book’s setting entails to be the most impressing point.
Slaughterhouse-Five was one of the most intriguing books I have ever read. The whole concept of aliens and people being either stuck or “unstuck” in time is intriguing in itself. Billy is one of the only human beings “unstuck” in time, and he has very little control about when and where this adventure occurs. This adds a twist to the story, and makes the book even more confusing than it already is.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoy the way time is viewed by the Trafalmodorians. They believe occurrences in life are pre-set and are completely unchangeable. They have accepted that they are the ones that are going to end the universe, and have no stress about it. Billy does not quite comprehend or believe that this is the way that time works. In some time, he does grasp this concept, and even puts it to work in his life.
This book was fairly difficult to understand at times, but the overall concept was very interesting and captivating. The whole concept of telling a war story without getting dramatic about it is wonderful. The way of calling it a “war fought by babies” was a very literal way of expressing the truth and severity of war.
“Truth” is very important word when discussing this novel. As we discussed in class, what “truths” do we know about history? We assume many things that have been told to us over time, but who knows what ACTUALLY happened? This book was a perfect fit to begin the “historical truth” unit.
Do you believe what the Trafalmodorians believe? Or do you think our actions to certain situations in life progressively change the way the world works?
-Chris Lendrim
Slaughterhouse-five was very interesting. The way the text was continually changing due to Billy’s time traveling. It was part his life and part Dresden throughout the book and both seemed to keep colliding with each other. I am unsure if I truly believe Billy time traveled, it seems like a lot of his issues might stem from being part of the war as well as his plane crash that affected his skull. When Billy tells us about a character he describes them honestly and usually explains how he met them or how they will die. He seems very honest in this book because he tells us details which makes me trust him and his story but at the same time I still find some parts of the book unreliable and possibly lies. We discussed how to tell a war story in class and I believe Billy’s story is a great war story, its honest in that is doesn’t make them out to be strong American men who are perfect and control every situation. Billy explains the soldiers and the situations as they were, he brings humility to the group in passages such as when he is wearing an outfit that makes him look like a clown or when all the Americans get diarrhea
ReplyDeletefrom the food the first night they are in Dresden. I also liked how Billy said “so it goes” after events such as someone dying. This is not the typical reaction to death or other sad events but it puts it in the perspective that we must accept what happens and move on because the end of each of us is inevitable. Billy sees dwelling on the sad times as a waste of time partially because the Tralfamadorians taught him they see life altogether completely and just skip past the bad to focus on the happy. Billy knows he will die February 13, 1976 for most of his adult life yet he does not dwell on the fact that he knows the date and how it happens, he lives his life and time travels his life. He knows his plane is going to crash that is taking him and twenty-so others to Montreal yet he does not say a word because he does not want to look like a fool. He even knows the exact moment when the plane will crash yet just sits there and closes his eyes preparing for the inevitable. I liked this concept of focus on the good and ignore the bad I think its how people should live their lives and I like the Billy followed that saying. Because Billy is so brutally honest about himself and others it really does show narrative truth to me, just like the Tralfamadorians see lives as one whole thing seeing all individual parts I trust Billy as a whole regardless of if all particular parts are true.
Jessica Phillips
I agree with you Megan Switzer. It is funny that as an optometrist Billy see things loony. I think that despite the fact that despite addressing the horrifying events of the Dresden massacre (again there is nothing good to talk about war), the author does a good job that even though Billy seems to be a bit crazy (probably a post-war effect), he was capable of getting married and have two children, become the president of the lions club and so on. For me, this whole trafalmadorian issue and the way they view time; plus the capacity for Billy to travel back and forth in time is just an excuse. He created this time machine device to deal with the chaos/trauma that war/death/destruction brings. It is the place where he can still be sure that everything will be ok.
ReplyDeleteThe “so it goes” that we read following mostly every death event, is a sign of acceptance as someone would say “that’s life, there is nothing we can do about it, so let’s deal and live with it.”
Furthermore, I also agree that Billy is frequently faced with events that contradict his free will and because there is nothing you can do when your “time” comes and you die like everyone else, free will do become pointless for him.
Rossana “Xana” Guerreiro
I agree with you Megan Switzer. It is funny that as an optometrist Billy see things loony. I think that despite the fact that despite addressing the horrifying events of the Dresden massacre (again there is nothing good to talk about war), the author does a good job that even though Billy seems to be a bit crazy (probably a post-war effect), he was capable of getting married and have two children, become the president of the lions club and so on. For me, this whole trafalmadorian issue and the way they view time; plus the capacity for Billy to travel back and forth in time is just an excuse. He created this time machine device to deal with the chaos/trauma that war/death/destruction brings. It is the place where he can still be sure that everything will be ok.
ReplyDeleteThe “so it goes” that we read following mostly every death event, is a sign of acceptance as someone would say “that’s life, there is nothing we can do about it, so let’s deal and live with it.”
Furthermore, I also agree that Billy is frequently faced with events that contradict his free will and because there is nothing you can do when your “time” comes and you die like everyone else, free will do become pointless for him.
Rossana “Xana” Guerreiro
I really enjoyed reading Slaughterhouse Five and it was probably my favorite book that we read this semester. I think I may have liked it because it was more entertaining for me, but I think may have gotten the least out of it in regards to truth. Slaughterhouse five seems to pose the question of whether we actually have free will or not.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning the narrator has a lot of trouble writing his book about the war and Dresden. He just can’t seem to come up with anything because, “there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre.” He doesn’t feel like it’s really possible to say anything truthful about what happened during the war. He also thinks about how, “Writing an anti-war book is like writing an anti-glacier book.” He feels like it is quite an inevitable thing and it is irrational to think anything can stop it. Much like how the tralfamadorians think about the human idea of free will. They claim to be able to see in four dimensions and that time doesn’t follow a linear path like we believe. The idea of “so it goes” also seems to bring out the inevitability of death. In other words, we don’t really have any choices in anything since we will all end up dead. Even though Billy was able to travel through time, he couldn’t really change anything. This makes us feel really helpless and that nothing we do actually matters.
One thing that I thought was particularly interesting was that after the bombing the soldiers actually took the time to kill the one man for the petty theft he had committed. It seemed completely unnecessary to me that this man should have died and the bird seems to think so too when he asks “Poo-tee-weet?” There doesn’t really seem to be any point to all of the senseless killing which also feeds into the idea about how nothing intelligent can be said about a massacre. Following from this, it might not even be possible to tell the true story of the massacre at all.
-Sean Graham
In response to Kelsey’s response, I felt the same exact way about how his life seemed normal and also so “bizarre.” When I was reading it though sometimes I would get confused on what life he was actually playing, I would find myself back on track in the text but thinking that his dream mind was the crazy side but he seemed fairly normal. Most people who witnessed the war scenarios and situations some of our soldiers have flashbacks and a hard time coping back to the normal way of life. I think that his time travel was his way of getting over the events he has encountered in his past.
ReplyDeleteThe one thing that I was really interested in finding out more about is that when Billy closes his eyes and goes off to the dream world, he is in captivity for most of it. It just got me because like I was stating earlier about his appearing normal and then crazy, I wondered why in this dream he would always go back to captivity. The one thing I came up with was that it was an event that changed and impacted his life so seriously that he couldn’t let it leave his the back of this mind. Think about the things that Billy also went through earlier on in the book. He was in a plane crash where he survived, and while he was still in the hospital his wife dies in an accident. That is serious trauma for anyone to go through, and the affects of all of that could be very serious. I mean the man didn’t sleep because he didn’t want to miss his daughter’s wedding because he would get kidnapped by aliens.
I have two questions because one is bland. Did everyone feel lost as me in trying to keep up with his real life and time travel? And, do you think that traveling in time made him a happier person or do you think he did it in order to live an everyday life?
- David Erbacher
When I first signed up to take this English class I was a very excited because I am a huge fan of literature. I am even trying to grow my personal library so one day it will be expansive. So when I finally received the syllabus I was extremely pleased to see Slaughterhouse Five on the reading list. I had heard so much about this controversial book. They even reference its controversy in Footloose if I am not mistaken.
ReplyDeleteI like this book and the purpose it serves as an anti-war novel. The introduction of Vonnegut in the first chapter is an important part of the book. I think the whole book took form based on this comment by Mary O'Hare in chapter 1: "You'll pretend you were men instead of babies, and you'll be played in the movies by Frank Sinatra and John Wayne or some of those other glamorous, war-loving, dirty old men." The quote continues more elaborately, but my point is that I really think this is one reason Vonnegut wrote the book the way he did. He even dedicated the book to this woman, truly noting how influential she was. Vonnegut portrays what war is really like in all phases. He describes how Billy Pilgrim doesn't belong in war but is made to go against his will. He describes the things that a non-warring person sees in war and how it affects Billy post-war, as well. Billy Pilgrim is a result of the futility of war. The quote used a couple times in the book, and most importantly at the end, "Poo-tee-weet?" is a tool used to emphasize this idea.
I highly praise the inclusion of the Tralfamadorians as well. The visions and thoughts that war creates are out of this world, literally. The probable explanation of their existence is most likely that of post-war trauma. They do offer several insights by claiming that they accept what is going to happen, and that they only focus on the good things that happen. I found it a little funny that they kept Billy in a zoo though.
One of my favorite parts of the book was the visitor from outer space in the Kilgore Trout novel. He concluded that the worst part of the human bible was the slipshod storytelling in the New Testament. He claimed that they taught "Before you kill somebody, make absolutely sure he is not well connected." And when the crucifixion came, people realized that Jesus really was the son of the most ultimate being in the universe and they realized "Oh boy-they sure picked the wrong guy to lynch that time!" This concludes that it is right to lynch people who are not well connected. This entire conversation made me laugh and appreciate that somebody can think of such things. I can also see how it could upset some devout Christians in the world. I think this is one reason the book is so controversial. But my real question is this: If you were a patriot who did not participate in war but believed it was necessary, would this book offend you? After all, what would you really know about the reality of war? Would you think Kurt Vonnegut is non-patriotic? Or would you sympathize and understand that what he says is reality?
This book turned out to be everything I had hoped. I enjoyed it and found it extremely meaningful.
Up to this point I think that slaughter house five has been my favorite book we have read. I definitely think that Billy is the most intriguing part of this book. First, it is easy to see why this is an anti-war book because Billy is the main character and every time he narrates about his experiences in the war, he sounds almost pathetic. I think that Vonnegut purposely didn't make any one sound like a war hero, and that he made everything having to do with the war sound like a stupid and pointless thing. Especially through Billy's stories because it sounds like he is just wondering aimlessly through this war not understanding why anything is happening. If you think about it, Billy was arguably one of the worst prepared soldiers for the war and he ended up surviving, while "war heroes" like the three musketeers all died.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the most interesting thing about the book was Billy being "unstuck in time" and the trafalmodorians. I think that Vonnegut used them to show that people in our world take most of the things that happen to them for granted. The fact that the trafalmodorians theory on time says that everything is predetermined and impossible to alter, while they mock our sense of time shows that humans miss the big picture of things. It's almost as if we are too caught up in the chaos of life to realize why things do or don't happen. What I think he is trying to allude to is that people don't take the time to think about why wars happen, they just go along with it and think nothing of it.
We also must think about the phrase "so it goes", as he says it after every time a person dies. Towards the beginning of the book it confused me as to why he was so non-caring about people dying. After hearing about his experiences with the trafalmodorians and how they view death, it makes more sense to me. He understands that when someone dies, they have not truly died.
Kurt Vonnegut I clearly believe is trying to make a point about historical truth. In this book Slaughter House five he clearly shows that there is a difference between objective facts and subjective records. I believe that he is saying that the objective facts are not necessarily the truth, it is the way people interpret them. There are many simple facts in the war, like amount of deaths, battles, etc., but do these facts make the same story. Vonnegut uses the example of the military historian to show the side of how war is a narrative of flowing events. However, Vonnegut writes paragraphs that are extremely banal, followed with extremely gruesome sentences. I believe he is trying to show that war does not flow event after event, Vonnegut is showing that war is dull and them extremely chaotic. Certain events happened in the war, but these simple facts cannot possibly tell how the war really was.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the little coat symbolizes that a truth can have two meanings. Billy is given the coat, which is a simple fact. He believes that this coat is for warmth and survival. However, the British soldiers say the coat is for humiliation. The simple fact is that he was given a coat, but there were different meanings behind them, that were both true. Another example is when the British soldiers are using candles and soap. They believe that these candles and soap are good things and make them more comfortable. However, these items were made form holocaust victims, which is not a good thing. These simple facts have unintended consequences and different meanings, but both have truth in them.
Lucas Garber
I knew that I was going to enjoy reading Slaughter House-Five when I discovered that it is an anti-war novel. It met my expectations by how satirical it was about wars, and I also enjoy hearing about stories from World War II, whether they are fiction or nonfiction. I feel that Billy has been traumatized for life by being captured at war and put in the slaughter-house. Do you think that all of Billy’s weird attitudes were formed as a result of his imprisonments? Would he have a completely different outlook on life if he hadn’t been imprisoned? I’d like to discuss the conversation between Billy Pilgram and Harrison Starr. He was Billy’s moviemaker friend and Billy told him the idea of writing an anti-war book. Harrison Starr’s response was very interesting. He said, “Why don’t you write an anti-glacier book instead?” A lot of people agree with this comment, including myself, in the belief that one cannot prevent the inevitability of war. In the future of mankind, there will be conflicts that will not be resolved unless a war takes place. It is the sad truth, but very comparable to individuals committing crimes over conflicts that were not resolved fairly. To discuss along the lines of what Jennifer Scott said, the only result that one can accomplish from writing a book like this is to inform and raise awareness of how brutal or consequential war is to society. It can be to remind people to never fantasize or relish the thought of war.
ReplyDeleteMark Menezes
The question dealing with this novel was: is it possible to tell a true war story? Well if this was the best way then I don't know what to say, because a war story that also includes aliens. When talking about the aliens though you can not forget to mention their way of life. The fact that one of the Tralfamadorians says “I wouldn’t have any idea what was meant by ‘free will.’ I’ve visited thirty-one inhabited planets in the universe, and I have studied reports on one hundred more. Only on Earth is there any talk of free will.” I thought it was interesting for the author to put this in the book. We humans can not see in the fourth dimension and live one day at a time therefore we do whatever because we do not know what is going to happen next. I think Kurt Vonnegut wants to show that no matter how hard we try and we think that we have this illusion of free will we don't. In the book he shows with examples such as: billy in the bottom of the pool and Billy being drafted into the war. Both of these things were against Billy's free will so using the Tralfamadorians, Vonnegut is able to show that we as humans will always have forces against us and limiting our ability to have free will.
ReplyDeleteThis book was most entertaining and interesting throughout the course. At the first time of looking at its cover and beginning, I was not really sure about I would like it or not. However, it was unnecessary doubt. The Tralfamadore’s philosophy was quite interesting. Born and death is an extension of universe, so the moment suffer hardship is not a big deal. To criticize this philosophy, it is an excessive optimism and escapism to consulate himself from inhumanity at the slaughterhouse.
ReplyDeleteThis author used the setting in the story well to lead his/her audience into the theme. The airstrike on Dresden recorded as the heaviest airstrike which killed more than twice when an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. More important thing was the strike in Dresden was happened definitely not because of war. It didn’t affect any development of the war. I think this is why the author selected Dresden as background of his/her novel. There was only slaughter left in the war. People do not kill others to win or achieve their goals, but they kill others to satisfy their inhumane desire. Although the whole story was written in entertaining style, and whether author had purpose to critic or not, readers could find that the war is wrong and the incident in Dresden was morally wrong.
-Ryan Yoon-
The narrator describes Billy’s behavior to time travel like this. “Billy’s outward listlessness was a screen. The listlessness concealed a mind which was fizzing and flashing thrillingly. It was preparing letters and lectures about the flying saucers, the negligibility of death, and the true nature of time.” Billy cannot predict where and when in his life according to his age, will he be in his life within the next minute or second. Also, because Billy does not live according to a regular lifespan, life remains the same for him, for he does not develop or change as a character. In literary terms, he is a flat character. Why does Billy not change or develop as a character in this book? On the narrator’s part, this would make it extremely difficult to write Billy’s life story. The narrator constantly jumps from one scene to another, and it would be difficult to complete Billy’s entire lifespan without forgetting to conclude a certain event or situation. Even though the scenes are short and concise, which I personally like about this book, it is very hard for me to find certain quotes or to remember specific events happening in his life. In addition, I believe that this time travel ties into Billy passive attitude throughout the book. How on earth could he continue to keep this attitude throughout his rough lifetime? Billy had framed and placed on his wall a prayer in his office, and it from this prayer that he draws his faith “GOD GRANT ME THE SERENITY TO ACCEPT THE THING I CANNOT CHANGE, COURAGE TO CHANGE THE THINGS I CANNOT CHANGE, COURAGE TO CHANGE THE THINGS I CAN, AND WISDOM ALWAYS TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE.” This prayer reinforces the idea that Billy lets everything, no matter how drastic it is, to fall into place without intervening. Just as he does not fight against his time travel, he does not fight against things and situations that he does not like.
ReplyDelete~Taci Hodgins
After I read the first few chapters, it was enough for me to conclude that the author was influenced too much by World War II, which is acceptable because it was mentioned in class discussion earlier that the book was written based on the author’s own experience during the firebombing in Vietnam War. Knowing that this book is all about wars, I knew this is definitely not one of my favorite books. Reading this book was not easy, there were many times I felt that I did not want to continue reading just because I, personally, really did not like the background and situation of the book, and even the character, Billy Pilgrim himself. In my opinion, he is too unpredictable most of the times. As one of my classmate mentioned above that, one of the most attractive words is “so it goes”. I realized it always repeated after someone died, based from this I am questioning whether Billy Pilgrim is someone that just accept his faith and move on? The other thing that made me confused and really made me put more thought about it, and even tried to flash back to every single actions that he did before was his real characteristic. There was a part when he drove by a place full of black people and he saw how much suffering they have, he just ignored them. Did he just show that cold blood side of him? The last thing is the part when Billy with the alien Trafalmadore, I realized that time and memories are important things that Vonnegut really emphasizes in this book. In this part, I can see how Billy always traveled back in time to Dresden because it has something to do with his memories. Even after I finished the book, there are still questions about Billy’s characteristics that I could never have answer until now.
ReplyDeletePoppy Aprilia
Slaughterhouse-Five is an anti-war book that does a pretty good job of accomplishing that. He does this by depicting the main character, Billy Pilgrim, as a person that was part of the war but doesn’t look like a typical hero. He does this by making him a small and weak individual, which also helps take away from the image that people have that war is glamorous. I feel that the main point of this book is to let people know that war isn’t in fact glamorous and it is a lot more gruesome than people think.
ReplyDeleteVonnegut does a good job of showing this by making the book pretty simple and ordinary for the most part but having sentences thrown in that depict something totally different; something graphic and disturbing. To me, I would compare this to the movie Jarhead in which is a realistic depiction of war by showing that the troops are bored for the majority of the time and then there is something intense for a short period of time.
All in all, I think that the book was pretty interesting because it shows a different side of war and it does a good job of showing that war is not glamorous and is actually a bad thing for the people impacted by it.
-Ryan Cormack
Slaughterhouse-Five is an anti-war book that does a pretty good job of accomplishing that. He does this by depicting the main character, Billy Pilgrim, as a person that was part of the war but doesn’t look like a typical hero. He does this by making him a small and weak individual, which also helps take away from the image that people have that war is glamorous. I feel that the main point of this book is to let people know that war isn’t in fact glamorous and it is a lot more gruesome than people think.
ReplyDeleteVonnegut does a good job of showing this by making the book pretty simple and ordinary for the most part but having sentences thrown in that depict something totally different; something graphic and disturbing. To me, I would compare this to the movie Jarhead in which is a realistic depiction of war by showing that the troops are bored for the majority of the time and then there is something intense for a short period of time.
All in all, I think that the book was pretty interesting because it shows a different side of war and it does a good job of showing that war is not glamorous and is actually a bad thing for the people impacted by it.
-Ryan Cormack
One thing about Slaughterhouse-Five that has become much more interesting to me now is the way that Billy Pilgrim and the Trafalmadorians view death versus the way the characters in White Noise view death. One of the more bizarre things about the the Trafalmadorians is that they can see in four dimensions, which gives them the ability to see all of the terrible and destructive things that are going to happen in the future. However, like Chris said above, they don't dwell on these inevitable events. Instead, they acknowledge that they will come and go on with their lives. Billy Pilgrim views his death in the same way. He knows exactly when and how he's going to die and instead of focusing only on that and attempting to keep it from happening, he just goes through life and does his best to enjoy it.
ReplyDeleteThis is completely different from the way that death is looked at in White Noise. Jack and Babette know that they are both going to die. They also know that they are growing older and that their deaths are coming closer. However, instead of just accepting their fate like Billy and the Trafalmadorians, they do everything in their power to avoid death. Additionally, they live in constant fear of their approaching deaths. They focus so much time and energy thinking about and fearing death that it becomes impossible for them to lead normal lives. They also both engage in ridiculous activities to try to deal with death; Babette begins taking experimental drugs and Jack tries to kill someone.
Clearly the characters from Slaughterhouse-Five and White Noise have very conflicting ideas on death. I think that the Trafalmadorians and Billy Pilgrim have the best approach. They are simply accepting their fate and moving on which enables them to lead much richer lives than Jack and Babette.
For me, Slaughterhouse Five was a little harder read than some of the previous ones. The plot is so far out there that it took me some time to stop and think what points were trying to be made. After closer reading I clearly see that the book delivers a powerful message in a very unique way. It is apparent that Vonnegut wrote this book to show his disgust and intolerance for war. By following the inept soldier, Billy Pilgrim, through his bizarre experiences as a POW, Vonnegut shows us that there is nothing glorious about war. He describes all of the soldiers as dimwitted and nothing close to the war heroes we are used to reading about.
ReplyDeleteChaos is a major theme in this book. Much like the manner the book is written in, war is described as nothing more than days and days of nothing littered with a few bursts of horror and death. Even in a war like World War II, where it was almost impossible not to fight against Hitler and his Nazi’s, Vonnegut makes it clear that it is still nothing more than pointless killing and all sides involved suffer terribly from it. However, Billy Pilgrim is able to “escape” all of this while in the slaughterhouse prison. Once abducted by the Tralfamadorians, he learns and appreciates their out look on life and more importantly free will. They tell Billy that time is not linear. They believe in predestination which means that free will doesn’t really exist. As they put it, “what happens, happens”. So they encourage Billy to concentrate on the more pleasant memories of his life and try to block out the negative ones. Interestingly, it appears that is what he is doing by hanging out with these Tralfamodorians. He is blocking out the horrors of war around him while in the prison camp by “traveling” with aliens figuring out the meaning of life.
Jeff Kibler