Please use this thread for all blog posts relating to the 3rd quarter lit circle reading of Slaughterhouse Five. Posters in this group are: Will, Steph, Julie and Sam.
First comment! Yeah! :) So, serious discussion time. I was REALLY confused for the entire reading this week, but oddly...I enjoyed the first part of the novel a lot. The style of writing chosen by Vonnegut is amazingly appropriate for his subject matter. This confused style of writing captures the essence of war, more so than Vonnegut's organized artwork on wallpaper of a plot line. However, I do have a few questions about the references in the beginning. If anyone has any idea what is going on with his song references at the beginning, I would love to hear your insight. Also, I would like to talk about Vonnegut's commentary of "so it goes." This is a commentary on the coldness of death he experienced because of war. Vonnegut has experienced first had that death happens on its own accord and I am sure this will continue in the novel as a device in conveying an antiwar message. I sort of hope the book ends with "so it goes"- but I am not going to look. DON'T TELL ME.
I would be surprised if the book doesn’t end with "so it goes" just because that is kind of his signature thing. I like that I am actually enjoying book, even though it jumps all over the place and is hard to understand. I really like that he compares trying to stop war to trying to stop a glacier from moving. I think he has a very valid point, and it seems to be a pivotal moment in his way of thinking. If he is truly writing this anti-war book, how does he believe his one book will change the opinions of thousands, and stop wars for good? I think he hits the nail on the head with this one, because no matter how hard we try for peace, or we try to stop wars, it is human nature to continue with the conflicts. Just a thought, hope you all enjoyed your snow day :)
I found the first chapter interesting because it was more of a prologue. It was certainly a refreshing way to start a novel because it caught me off guard. When you're expecting a serious commentary on war, it's shocking to see some humor in the opening remarks. You can tell that the author does not take himself too seriously, I mean he does refer to himself as an "old fart". The first chapter is effective because, now that we know a little bit about the author and his personality, I must say that I care more about what he is going to say.
Also, am I the only one that laughed when he admits this book was a "failure"? How weird is it that he is openly critical of his own work in the very first chapter! But I liked how he explained, saying that it was due to the subject matter. Just as war is chaos, a book on war should also be chaotic, unorganized(as Stephanie also pointed out). And thanks for the warning Mr. Vonnegut! So far, I'm liking the book but I'm curious as to where it's headed. I guess we'll just have to wait and see :0
Hmmm.... As far as Steph was saying, I don't know if the so it goes aspect is so much about the coldness death, or whether it is about the insensitivity to death which Vonnegut sees in the world around him. Perhaps, Vonnegut feels that if people would pay death a little more respect, that they wouldn't take war so lightly, or even perceive it as a possible solution to a problem However, it's still very early on, so I'm really not sure where he's going with Billy, or really, with anything, just because it's all so all over the place, what with Billy being unstuck in time, and the prose being so fragmented as it is.
Furrthremore, i think that as a note to Julie's commont about the first chapter being a prologue, that it may be significant to note that it is not so much a prologue as it is a narrative exposition as to the nature and origin of the book, and further, its author. I think the fact that the "author" of the book is given a chapter in which to exist means that there will probably be some significance to his inclusion later on in the novel, beyond just his role as the author/narrator. Perhaps, also, we might use his inclusion, as the author of a book about Dresden, as a way of Vonnegut inserting himself into the story, for isn't he also an author writing a book about Dresden??? This brings to mind also, the Yon Yonson song, (if you not remember, it was the infinite loop thing.) But that digresses. I would put forward that the author is a vector from which point Vonnegut can insert his ideas and feelings about certain topics without seeming to be too overbearing or direct about it, essentially using the author as his middle man. This is just a hypothesis though..... We shall have to see how that turns out.
Alright so... Week two, huh? Lots of stuff going on.. lots o' stuff. My first question is this: Is there a connection between Billy's last name and his life? Billy PILGRIM. I don't know if it is just a coincidence but as we get deeper into the book we are exposed to more of his journey, and it does seem like a pilgrimage. He is learning about time and making discoveries, and he has a realization at the hands of the Tralfamadors. Or perhaps I am just making stuff up here?? :)
I'm also hoping someone can clarify the significance of "blue and ivory". The author uses it a few times (Billy's blue and ivory feet for example) so I'm sure it holds great meaning, but I confess I'm a little stumped here. The best I can come up with is maybe the general numbness that blue and ivory can mean is used in the novel to create a feeling of inadequacy or perhaps lack of sensitivity to the war or lack of caution? I'm just taking stabs here so feel free to help me out!
I will take that challenge Julie Bays. "Blue and ivory"... here goes my stab in the dark. Perhaps the author means for these adjectives to apply to more than just Billy's feet. However, I will take the instance they are mentioned for an example. So Billy is waiting for the flying saucer to take him away and this is when the author describes his feet as "blue and ivory," these colors relate to something cold, breakable, or fragile. I have two thoughts, that the author is suggesting the fragility of life on Earth or the fragility of the human conception of time because after using these adjectives Billy is abducted and his life changes. He becomes accustomed to death (more so than in the war) and becomes accustomed to a nonlinear sense of time. Throughout the chapter these descriptors are used and perhaps the author is trying to suggest that life as we know it is precious. So that's my take on that.
Wow, you three got really deep really fast. :) But, I was going to bring up something at the beginning of chapter three again, the part where Billy is talking about the prayer he has on the wall of his office. It says something to the effect of "grant me serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things that must be changed, and wisdom to distinguish between the two" (a.k.a the serenity prayer). I think this may have gotten skipped over without giving it much thought, but when I started thinking about it again I realized the author's allusion to the rest of Billy's situation. How his entire world has this warped sense of time, and yet just a few pages later he says that "he cannot change the past, present, or future." So I find it ironic that he is a sense praying for his past, present, and future, yet believes that this prayer will truthfully have no effect on the outcome. Not to mention that he is praying to a God, and then talking about being abducted by aliens. Anyways, sorry I'm the last one :)
Samm is actually not the last one... thats mai jobbb.. And anyways Samm, I believe that the inclusion of that prayer was intended to have an ironic effect as opposed to necessarily any huge theme implications. Due to Bill's belief of how time functions, he feels that he cannot change anything, not the past nor the present nor the future. So this essentially makes the second clause of the prayer drop out "the courage to change the things that I can), and leaves us simply with the mantra "Grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change, and the wisdom to distinguish between the two" (the second part of which essentially boils down to "the wisdom to understand that I can't change anything" - which he incidentally already believes. In all, it seems to be a slightly ironic cry out against the ineffectuality of human efforts, perhaps particularly pertaining to such things as the war, which so much of Billy's life seems to revolve around....
And as far as the blue and ivory goes, I think that this might also tie in with the "smell of mustard gas and roses". Both of these phrases are used a number of times throughout the story, and I think they both tie in with death (as he describes the smell of death in the early chapters as "mustard gas and roses"...._ I'm not sure of the connection between the two (though steph may have hit on something there...) but I'm sure that there is one to look out for/note if its already occured. O.o
This came to my mind while I was reading this section: what if all of this is one of Billy's dreams... sort of like Fight Club. At the beginning of the novel, it is made apparent that Billy suffers from a sleep disorder. This is made aparent when the author includes that Billy fell asleep at work and even at the Lion's Club. As Will suggested, some of Billy's experiences do not make sense, such as the actress is never mentioned again outside of the alien realm. So, what if the entire book is a dream caused by his sleep disorder? Perhaps, this sleep disorder is due to his time spent in the was: the reason why his dreams constantly return to his horrific experiences is Dresden. But this is just a thought. Let me know what you guys think about it or if you see any other instances where it is apparent that all of this is a dream.
Hmm... I can definitely see your logic there, Stephanie. However, I will be thoroughly upset if this ends up being a dream! I don't think our dear friend Vonnegut would do that to us. Speaking of Vonnegut, I feel as though Kilgore Trout is yet another manifestation of the author himself. Maybe I'm crazy, but I keep trying to connect the two. For example, Trout's novels supposedly cover a wide range of topics, mostly of a "sci-fi" premise, and all seem to comment on society. I only have one piece of Vonnegut's work to classify him by, but since there are aliens and explorations of humankind using Billy, I could easily place the books in the same category. Also, both authors give off a strange vibe, kind of a dark humor, or some shared knowledge of humanity. Both have their quirks for sure. Because they share so many similarities, I don't believe Trout to be a coincidence. Perhaps the writer was trying to say something about himself or his writing? No idea what, if any, the significance is here... Suggestions? :)
I think that steph may certainly have a point about this dream thing... My only qualm with it is that it would seem to possibly detract from the message that Vonnegut seems to be trying to send, but then again, that could just be me being crazy. It just seems that his message would loose some of its sense (particularly his message about the all around insanity of war) if it were all just a dream. Though it seems possible now that it was all a dream, I think that Vonnegut will in some way discount that possibility later on in the novel. One counter argument to the dream theory is that Vonnegut specifically refferences himself as being at one of the scenes in Billy's time travels. While he could certainly be present in a dream which Billy was having, he presented his presence in such a manner that Billy was physically there at the time.... The prose, while still wierd and Tralfamadorian as it is, just doesn't seem dreamlike enough. Though Vonnegut may yet prove me wrong. (and I can certainly see the arguments in favor of the dream theory.)
In any case, on a seperate note, I would like to note one thing which I've noticed in these most recent chapters, and that is their franticness. I feel as if earlier on in the novel, while the novel did move from one place to another in time quite frequently, it seems to be building up to a crescendo as the novel progresses towards what will be the inevitable bombing of Dresden. I think that this may be bit part of Vonnegut's message about war. If you hadn't noticed, the bombing of Dresden is actually the first sight of true warfare which Billy will experience, both in the normal flow of time, and in the jumbled up time-frame of the novel. The frantic tempo to which Vonnegut brings the changes in time seems to me to indicate that the upcoming events will be both catastrophic and eye opening to Billy. I also think that the bombing will bring with it great scenes of the senselessness and coldness of death and war which Vonnegut has had a tendency to highlight, and I also wouldn't be surprised if the timeframes during the actual bombing of Dresden aren't even more mingled than they have been leading up to that instant. I expect that Vonnegut might even go to switching timeframes every sentence or two at that point. In general, I think that it would be a good idea to watch out where and how much Vonnegut switches the time frame of the story, as this might be a good indicator of the mood of the novel at that point, and it could be a significant part of how he develops the themes which he presents in the novel.
Have a happy reading my fellows, and may we all be ready to circle our lit tomorow!!
And yes, after being corrected by steph to the exact amount that we were supposed to read this time, I see that my hypothesis of the prose going into super-broken time didn't work out. Buuttt the tempo comment remains. ;) just thought Id note that before anyone *cough cough* julie *cough cough* decided to make a derogatory comment about that. ;p
Hmm...I like the dream idea. I agree with Steph in the sense that he clearly has a sleep disorder, something I also noticed at the start of the novel. Perhaps, this also to leads to his interesting perception on a lot of the events. However, his trips with the 'aliens' also contribute to his odd perception of most events, especially time. But, I have noticed that there is a distinct difference between his dreams and time travels. When I first began reading the novel it seemed to me as though all of these events were dreams, that all took place at various times in his life, like a flashback. However, I have recently noticed that when he is speaking of his real life experiences he makes it a point to say that he is time traveling, however he does not do the same for his dreams, making it increasingly difficult for the reader to make a distinction between the two.
So the ending... I have several thoughts on how the novel ended. First of all, the bird talk clearly suggests that the craziness of the novel is significant. In a way, Vonnegut uses this bird talk to suggest that through war we are accepting crazy talk as truth. Thus, it is appropriate that his last line of the novel is bird talk because typically the last line of a novel admits some sort of truth imperative to the theme. Furthermore, it is apparent that Billy enjoys is life on Tralfamador more than his life on Earth. There is a sense of home and family on Tralfamador for Billy that does not exist with his real family. Vonnegut may be suggesting that humanity prefers fiction to reality, through Billy's preferences. Billy is clearly a device to personify everyone. I mean his name- Billy- it is the most generic name possible. Therefore, I am sure that whatever applies to Billy can also apply to every member of society in Vonnegut's eyes. So, in consideration of our essays, that would be good thing to keep in mind.
Good points, good points! One of the things that I found interesting in this final section was the introduction of Rumfoord, the official US Air Force Historian. Obviously Rumfoord represents the country's reaction in general. He is attempting to condense a twenty-seven volume account into just one, so clearly he is not concerned with the emotional repercussions of battle, simply the facts. He is very logical with his assessments, brushing off the tragedy of bombings by declaring them necessary. Even when he believes that Billy witnessed the bombing of Dresden, he is still not interested in a personal anecdote. I find this extremely ironic because Billy's wartime experiences are a large part of the novel but here we see that the rest of the world really doesn't want to be bothered with the details. They are largely uninformed. So there you have it... That's how I feel about that! I'm saving the rest for tomorrow :)
Good point Steph and 'jebays' :) I loveLOVElove the ending. It thought the little "Poo-tee-weet?" was a very creative and interesting way to end the book. I love that Vonnegut uses this simplistic language to end this very complicated book. I believe in a way he is using the bird to not only address Billy, but the readers themselves. I feel as though through the bird asking this ridiculous, unanswerable question, it makes just about as much sense as war itself. I think Vonnegut was simply trying to prove point, that war itself cannot be understood. He is conveying that you can ask as many questions as you would like, personable or unreasonable, but that war, death, and time can never be understood, and maybe never should be. Also, I like what Julie is saying about Rumfoord, that something that seems so personal and emotional to Billy just simply can't be understood by anyone who wasn't there. Perhaps relating to the way we perceive war today, we know it is real, we know it is happening, but since we never actually experience the harsh realities of war, we simply are living as if it doesn't affect us. We can't seem to grasp the horrors of it, or the emotional damage it can do. Rumfoord is much like us, he studies war and knows it is real and happens, but doesn't truly understand what it means to be at war. Anyways, I actually enjoyed this book and believe we have lots to discuss tomorrow! And I love that Steph is always the first and that Will is always the last to comment. :) See you tomorrow lit circlers!
Hmmm... I think the ending has been thoroughly commented on enough. I'd agree with the general consensus that "poo-twee-tweet?" is intended to be a impossible to understand question, searching for an impossible answer lying underneath everything that had occurred. So it goes.
In any case, Steph, I think that I'd like to address your point about Billy's feeling at home on Tralfamador... I think that the reason that that seems to come through is the fact that Billy feels as if he is in a place where he is understood when he is on Tralfamador. Perhaps, the conclusion that we can draw from his attitude towards Tralfamador is that the war had so thoroughly dismembered his understanding of life that he could no longer bear the monotonous day to day life of an optometrist married to a rather large woman. Perhaps this is a manisfestation of some sort of Post Traumatic Stress syndrom, and the Tralfamadorians are simply the only ones whom he feels that he can related to, for they have seen al the tragedies which have or will exist, and perhaps through this mechanism, might understand what he has been through and empathize with it.
The final thing which I would like to talk about is a bit perplexing, which would be Bily's reaction to the hurt done to the horses in the city of Dresden as a result of their having been walked through the destroyed city all day. The fact that Billy cries at this occurence, yet hardly bats an eye at all the other deaths which occur around him is extremely perplexing. My two cents here is that the pain which Billy sees that the horses are in is something which he really can understand. Throughout the rest of the novel, he is simply a "childhood crusader," thrown into war and death, which are both completely beyond his comprehension and empathy. When he sees hundreds of people dead as a result of the fire-bombing of Dresden, he does not react, because he has no way to truly comprehend their deaths, noone could. As he was exposed to horror after horror of war, everything was perhaps a bit surreal, as these things occured around him which were simply beyond the human, and particularly his childlike innocence to understand. However, Billy can understand pain, if not death, and when he sees the horses in front of him, standing there with the pain of standing on feet which bleed simply from their standing there, this is something which finally Billy can understand. Perhaps Vonnegut is saying that, even if humanity's worth is dubious when it comes to such things as war and death, but that despite our faults, we are empathetic creatures, and that maybe there is something there to work with.
18 comments:
First comment! Yeah! :)
So, serious discussion time. I was REALLY confused for the entire reading this week, but oddly...I enjoyed the first part of the novel a lot. The style of writing chosen by Vonnegut is amazingly appropriate for his subject matter. This confused style of writing captures the essence of war, more so than Vonnegut's organized artwork on wallpaper of a plot line.
However, I do have a few questions about the references in the beginning. If anyone has any idea what is going on with his song references at the beginning, I would love to hear your insight.
Also, I would like to talk about Vonnegut's commentary of "so it goes." This is a commentary on the coldness of death he experienced because of war. Vonnegut has experienced first had that death happens on its own accord and I am sure this will continue in the novel as a device in conveying an antiwar message. I sort of hope the book ends with "so it goes"- but I am not going to look. DON'T TELL ME.
I would be surprised if the book doesn’t end with "so it goes" just because that is kind of his signature thing.
I like that I am actually enjoying book, even though it jumps all over the place and is hard to understand. I really like that he compares trying to stop war to trying to stop a glacier from moving. I think he has a very valid point, and it seems to be a pivotal moment in his way of thinking. If he is truly writing this anti-war book, how does he believe his one book will change the opinions of thousands, and stop wars for good? I think he hits the nail on the head with this one, because no matter how hard we try for peace, or we try to stop wars, it is human nature to continue with the conflicts.
Just a thought, hope you all enjoyed your snow day :)
I found the first chapter interesting because it was more of a prologue. It was certainly a refreshing way to start a novel because it caught me off guard. When you're expecting a serious commentary on war, it's shocking to see some humor in the opening remarks. You can tell that the author does not take himself too seriously, I mean he does refer to himself as an "old fart". The first chapter is effective because, now that we know a little bit about the author and his personality, I must say that I care more about what he is going to say.
Also, am I the only one that laughed when he admits this book was a "failure"? How weird is it that he is openly critical of his own work in the very first chapter! But I liked how he explained, saying that it was due to the subject matter. Just as war is chaos, a book on war should also be chaotic, unorganized(as Stephanie also pointed out). And thanks for the warning Mr. Vonnegut! So far, I'm liking the book but I'm curious as to where it's headed. I guess we'll just have to wait and see :0
Hmmm.... As far as Steph was saying, I don't know if the so it goes aspect is so much about the coldness death, or whether it is about the insensitivity to death which Vonnegut sees in the world around him. Perhaps, Vonnegut feels that if people would pay death a little more respect, that they wouldn't take war so lightly, or even perceive it as a possible solution to a problem However, it's still very early on, so I'm really not sure where he's going with Billy, or really, with anything, just because it's all so all over the place, what with Billy being unstuck in time, and the prose being so fragmented as it is.
Furrthremore, i think that as a note to Julie's commont about the first chapter being a prologue, that it may be significant to note that it is not so much a prologue as it is a narrative exposition as to the nature and origin of the book, and further, its author. I think the fact that the "author" of the book is given a chapter in which to exist means that there will probably be some significance to his inclusion later on in the novel, beyond just his role as the author/narrator. Perhaps, also, we might use his inclusion, as the author of a book about Dresden, as a way of Vonnegut inserting himself into the story, for isn't he also an author writing a book about Dresden??? This brings to mind also, the Yon Yonson song, (if you not remember, it was the infinite loop thing.) But that digresses. I would put forward that the author is a vector from which point Vonnegut can insert his ideas and feelings about certain topics without seeming to be too overbearing or direct about it, essentially using the author as his middle man. This is just a hypothesis though..... We shall have to see how that turns out.
Alright so... Week two, huh? Lots of stuff going on.. lots o' stuff. My first question is this: Is there a connection between Billy's last name and his life? Billy PILGRIM. I don't know if it is just a coincidence but as we get deeper into the book we are exposed to more of his journey, and it does seem like a pilgrimage. He is learning about time and making discoveries, and he has a realization at the hands of the Tralfamadors. Or perhaps I am just making stuff up here?? :)
I'm also hoping someone can clarify the significance of "blue and ivory". The author uses it a few times (Billy's blue and ivory feet for example) so I'm sure it holds great meaning, but I confess I'm a little stumped here. The best I can come up with is maybe the general numbness that blue and ivory can mean is used in the novel to create a feeling of inadequacy or perhaps lack of sensitivity to the war or lack of caution? I'm just taking stabs here so feel free to help me out!
I will take that challenge Julie Bays. "Blue and ivory"... here goes my stab in the dark. Perhaps the author means for these adjectives to apply to more than just Billy's feet. However, I will take the instance they are mentioned for an example. So Billy is waiting for the flying saucer to take him away and this is when the author describes his feet as "blue and ivory," these colors relate to something cold, breakable, or fragile. I have two thoughts, that the author is suggesting the fragility of life on Earth or the fragility of the human conception of time because after using these adjectives Billy is abducted and his life changes. He becomes accustomed to death (more so than in the war) and becomes accustomed to a nonlinear sense of time. Throughout the chapter these descriptors are used and perhaps the author is trying to suggest that life as we know it is precious.
So that's my take on that.
Wow, you three got really deep really fast. :)
But, I was going to bring up something at the beginning of chapter three again, the part where Billy is talking about the prayer he has on the wall of his office. It says something to the effect of "grant me serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things that must be changed, and wisdom to distinguish between the two" (a.k.a the serenity prayer). I think this may have gotten skipped over without giving it much thought, but when I started thinking about it again I realized the author's allusion to the rest of Billy's situation. How his entire world has this warped sense of time, and yet just a few pages later he says that "he cannot change the past, present, or future." So I find it ironic that he is a sense praying for his past, present, and future, yet believes that this prayer will truthfully have no effect on the outcome. Not to mention that he is praying to a God, and then talking about being abducted by aliens. Anyways, sorry I'm the last one :)
Samm is actually not the last one... thats mai jobbb.. And anyways Samm, I believe that the inclusion of that prayer was intended to have an ironic effect as opposed to necessarily any huge theme implications. Due to Bill's belief of how time functions, he feels that he cannot change anything, not the past nor the present nor the future. So this essentially makes the second clause of the prayer drop out "the courage to change the things that I can), and leaves us simply with the mantra "Grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change, and the wisdom to distinguish between the two" (the second part of which essentially boils down to "the wisdom to understand that I can't change anything" - which he incidentally already believes. In all, it seems to be a slightly ironic cry out against the ineffectuality of human efforts, perhaps particularly pertaining to such things as the war, which so much of Billy's life seems to revolve around....
And as far as the blue and ivory goes, I think that this might also tie in with the "smell of mustard gas and roses". Both of these phrases are used a number of times throughout the story, and I think they both tie in with death (as he describes the smell of death in the early chapters as "mustard gas and roses"...._ I'm not sure of the connection between the two (though steph may have hit on something there...) but I'm sure that there is one to look out for/note if its already occured. O.o
Great book, great analysis in this thread. Nice work! I'm glad you're enjoying this--as I told you in class, I'm a big Vonnegut fan :)
This came to my mind while I was reading this section: what if all of this is one of Billy's dreams... sort of like Fight Club. At the beginning of the novel, it is made apparent that Billy suffers from a sleep disorder. This is made aparent when the author includes that Billy fell asleep at work and even at the Lion's Club. As Will suggested, some of Billy's experiences do not make sense, such as the actress is never mentioned again outside of the alien realm. So, what if the entire book is a dream caused by his sleep disorder? Perhaps, this sleep disorder is due to his time spent in the was: the reason why his dreams constantly return to his horrific experiences is Dresden. But this is just a thought. Let me know what you guys think about it or if you see any other instances where it is apparent that all of this is a dream.
Hmm... I can definitely see your logic there, Stephanie. However, I will be thoroughly upset if this ends up being a dream! I don't think our dear friend Vonnegut would do that to us. Speaking of Vonnegut, I feel as though Kilgore Trout is yet another manifestation of the author himself. Maybe I'm crazy, but I keep trying to connect the two. For example, Trout's novels supposedly cover a wide range of topics, mostly of a "sci-fi" premise, and all seem to comment on society. I only have one piece of Vonnegut's work to classify him by, but since there are aliens and explorations of humankind using Billy, I could easily place the books in the same category. Also, both authors give off a strange vibe, kind of a dark humor, or some shared knowledge of humanity. Both have their quirks for sure. Because they share so many similarities, I don't believe Trout to be a coincidence. Perhaps the writer was trying to say something about himself or his writing? No idea what, if any, the significance is here... Suggestions? :)
I think that steph may certainly have a point about this dream thing... My only qualm with it is that it would seem to possibly detract from the message that Vonnegut seems to be trying to send, but then again, that could just be me being crazy. It just seems that his message would loose some of its sense (particularly his message about the all around insanity of war) if it were all just a dream. Though it seems possible now that it was all a dream, I think that Vonnegut will in some way discount that possibility later on in the novel. One counter argument to the dream theory is that Vonnegut specifically refferences himself as being at one of the scenes in Billy's time travels. While he could certainly be present in a dream which Billy was having, he presented his presence in such a manner that Billy was physically there at the time.... The prose, while still wierd and Tralfamadorian as it is, just doesn't seem dreamlike enough. Though Vonnegut may yet prove me wrong. (and I can certainly see the arguments in favor of the dream theory.)
In any case, on a seperate note, I would like to note one thing which I've noticed in these most recent chapters, and that is their franticness. I feel as if earlier on in the novel, while the novel did move from one place to another in time quite frequently, it seems to be building up to a crescendo as the novel progresses towards what will be the inevitable bombing of Dresden. I think that this may be bit part of Vonnegut's message about war. If you hadn't noticed, the bombing of Dresden is actually the first sight of true warfare which Billy will experience, both in the normal flow of time, and in the jumbled up time-frame of the novel. The frantic tempo to which Vonnegut brings the changes in time seems to me to indicate that the upcoming events will be both catastrophic and eye opening to Billy. I also think that the bombing will bring with it great scenes of the senselessness and coldness of death and war which Vonnegut has had a tendency to highlight, and I also wouldn't be surprised if the timeframes during the actual bombing of Dresden aren't even more mingled than they have been leading up to that instant. I expect that Vonnegut might even go to switching timeframes every sentence or two at that point. In general, I think that it would be a good idea to watch out where and how much Vonnegut switches the time frame of the story, as this might be a good indicator of the mood of the novel at that point, and it could be a significant part of how he develops the themes which he presents in the novel.
Have a happy reading my fellows, and may we all be ready to circle our lit tomorow!!
And yes, after being corrected by steph to the exact amount that we were supposed to read this time, I see that my hypothesis of the prose going into super-broken time didn't work out. Buuttt the tempo comment remains. ;) just thought Id note that before anyone *cough cough* julie *cough cough* decided to make a derogatory comment about that. ;p
Hmm...I like the dream idea. I agree with Steph in the sense that he clearly has a sleep disorder, something I also noticed at the start of the novel. Perhaps, this also to leads to his interesting perception on a lot of the events. However, his trips with the 'aliens' also contribute to his odd perception of most events, especially time. But, I have noticed that there is a distinct difference between his dreams and time travels. When I first began reading the novel it seemed to me as though all of these events were dreams, that all took place at various times in his life, like a flashback. However, I have recently noticed that when he is speaking of his real life experiences he makes it a point to say that he is time traveling, however he does not do the same for his dreams, making it increasingly difficult for the reader to make a distinction between the two.
So the ending... I have several thoughts on how the novel ended. First of all, the bird talk clearly suggests that the craziness of the novel is significant. In a way, Vonnegut uses this bird talk to suggest that through war we are accepting crazy talk as truth. Thus, it is appropriate that his last line of the novel is bird talk because typically the last line of a novel admits some sort of truth imperative to the theme. Furthermore, it is apparent that Billy enjoys is life on Tralfamador more than his life on Earth. There is a sense of home and family on Tralfamador for Billy that does not exist with his real family. Vonnegut may be suggesting that humanity prefers fiction to reality, through Billy's preferences. Billy is clearly a device to personify everyone. I mean his name- Billy- it is the most generic name possible. Therefore, I am sure that whatever applies to Billy can also apply to every member of society in Vonnegut's eyes. So, in consideration of our essays, that would be good thing to keep in mind.
Good points, good points! One of the things that I found interesting in this final section was the introduction of Rumfoord, the official US Air Force Historian. Obviously Rumfoord represents the country's reaction in general. He is attempting to condense a twenty-seven volume account into just one, so clearly he is not concerned with the emotional repercussions of battle, simply the facts. He is very logical with his assessments, brushing off the tragedy of bombings by declaring them necessary. Even when he believes that Billy witnessed the bombing of Dresden, he is still not interested in a personal anecdote. I find this extremely ironic because Billy's wartime experiences are a large part of the novel but here we see that the rest of the world really doesn't want to be bothered with the details. They are largely uninformed. So there you have it... That's how I feel about that! I'm saving the rest for tomorrow :)
Good point Steph and 'jebays' :) I loveLOVElove the ending. It thought the little "Poo-tee-weet?" was a very creative and interesting way to end the book. I love that Vonnegut uses this simplistic language to end this very complicated book. I believe in a way he is using the bird to not only address Billy, but the readers themselves. I feel as though through the bird asking this ridiculous, unanswerable question, it makes just about as much sense as war itself. I think Vonnegut was simply trying to prove point, that war itself cannot be understood. He is conveying that you can ask as many questions as you would like, personable or unreasonable, but that war, death, and time can never be understood, and maybe never should be.
Also, I like what Julie is saying about Rumfoord, that something that seems so personal and emotional to Billy just simply can't be understood by anyone who wasn't there. Perhaps relating to the way we perceive war today, we know it is real, we know it is happening, but since we never actually experience the harsh realities of war, we simply are living as if it doesn't affect us. We can't seem to grasp the horrors of it, or the emotional damage it can do. Rumfoord is much like us, he studies war and knows it is real and happens, but doesn't truly understand what it means to be at war.
Anyways, I actually enjoyed this book and believe we have lots to discuss tomorrow! And I love that Steph is always the first and that Will is always the last to comment. :) See you tomorrow lit circlers!
Hmmm... I think the ending has been thoroughly commented on enough. I'd agree with the general consensus that "poo-twee-tweet?" is intended to be a impossible to understand question, searching for an impossible answer lying underneath everything that had occurred. So it goes.
In any case, Steph, I think that I'd like to address your point about Billy's feeling at home on Tralfamador... I think that the reason that that seems to come through is the fact that Billy feels as if he is in a place where he is understood when he is on Tralfamador. Perhaps, the conclusion that we can draw from his attitude towards Tralfamador is that the war had so thoroughly dismembered his understanding of life that he could no longer bear the monotonous day to day life of an optometrist married to a rather large woman. Perhaps this is a manisfestation of some sort of Post Traumatic Stress syndrom, and the Tralfamadorians are simply the only ones whom he feels that he can related to, for they have seen al the tragedies which have or will exist, and perhaps through this mechanism, might understand what he has been through and empathize with it.
The final thing which I would like to talk about is a bit perplexing, which would be Bily's reaction to the hurt done to the horses in the city of Dresden as a result of their having been walked through the destroyed city all day. The fact that Billy cries at this occurence, yet hardly bats an eye at all the other deaths which occur around him is extremely perplexing. My two cents here is that the pain which Billy sees that the horses are in is something which he really can understand. Throughout the rest of the novel, he is simply a "childhood crusader," thrown into war and death, which are both completely beyond his comprehension and empathy. When he sees hundreds of people dead as a result of the fire-bombing of Dresden, he does not react, because he has no way to truly comprehend their deaths, noone could. As he was exposed to horror after horror of war, everything was perhaps a bit surreal, as these things occured around him which were simply beyond the human, and particularly his childlike innocence to understand. However, Billy can understand pain, if not death, and when he sees the horses in front of him, standing there with the pain of standing on feet which bleed simply from their standing there, this is something which finally Billy can understand. Perhaps Vonnegut is saying that, even if humanity's worth is dubious when it comes to such things as war and death, but that despite our faults, we are empathetic creatures, and that maybe there is something there to work with.
Post a Comment