Its funny how anti war this book really is, its written about privates which is the lowest form of a solider. They don't choose to be there they are forced to be in battle, it also focuses on prisoners of war, people kept captive. The villains in this book are the characters who love the art of killing, who romanticizes it.
Its quite arbitrary that right after we read Night we stumble across this book, however this book is written from the complete and other side of everything. Night focuses on a young Jewish boy, and this book is focused on an American soldier, the Americans where fighting for the jews (and all of Europe) but you couldn't imaging someone so different. However reading this book sparks a lot of different ideas which then solidify to be a pretty identical to meaning that Night had. Its funny how similar I find these books. Maybe Vonnegut wanted to show the struggle it had emotionally on Billy, and how that struggle was very similar, to the one Ellie had emotionally and physically.
Sunday, January 3, 2016
Leaving something behind
In the book I see a few small different things, it seems as if each character is already given a script and follows that script, their is not a lot of free will, free determination, I see each character cast by Billy. The Tralfamadorians tell Billy that the thought of free will is one earthlings don't understand. Does that encourage Billy to break free from the norm, after all he was told he must go to war, he was drafted meaning he had no choice, no option to say no. The world told him what to do, he never had a chance to fight back. In my opinion Billy uses his new knowledge to fight against pain and age and suffering. This information is something Billy needed to insure that he is a little different from everyone else? Maybe he is a little "out of this world."
Maybe Vonnegut wanted us to challenge the norms in life after reading this book, he obviously is a very humorous writer who can change our opinion of life in a very dramatic way. He writes and talks with a lot of humor, and maybe this is just him telling us to do something in his unique funny little way. I'm not really sure how to conclude this thought I guess, like Vonnegut I just want to leave a little something away with you readers something you can think about and maybe act on.
The Children's Crusade
The book Slaughterhouse Five has two names, the second of which being The Children's Crusade. This is shown on the second physical page of the book. I think the second title makes a lot more sense than the first, because I think it can be interpreted in many different ways. The most obvious way I can think of is that World War Two was a child's crusade in many ways. It was fought by many young people, and a lot of them ended up dying. The only actual reference to the Children's Crusade in the book that I can remember is when the colonel on page 106 says "My God, my God… it's the Children's Crusade," after seeing the youth of his soldiers. Do you guys think there are any other deeper meanings behind the title? Why did Vonnegut have multiple titles for the book?
Saturday, January 2, 2016
An Atonement for Sin
In chapter 9, I noticed a biblical reference that made me look at my knowledge of Christianity through a completely different lens. Kilgore Trout's perception of religion is fascinatingly unorthodox.
One of Trout's novel tells about a man who travels back in time in order to meet Jesus. He finds himself in the wood shop owned by Jesus and his father. The story says that, "Two Roman soldiers came into the shop with a mechanical drawing on papyrus of a device they wanted built by sunrise the next morning. It was a cross to be used in the execution of a rabble-rouser" (202).
According to the Bible, Jesus was executed on a cross by Roman soldiers, so the irony of the situation does not go unnoticed. If Jesus was as kind and benevolent as he is represented in the Bible, then he would have refused to build such an evil object. However, he seems glad to have the business, and gets to work. Why does Vonnegut choose to represent Jesus so differently from the way he is known in the present to the general population?
One of Trout's novel tells about a man who travels back in time in order to meet Jesus. He finds himself in the wood shop owned by Jesus and his father. The story says that, "Two Roman soldiers came into the shop with a mechanical drawing on papyrus of a device they wanted built by sunrise the next morning. It was a cross to be used in the execution of a rabble-rouser" (202).
According to the Bible, Jesus was executed on a cross by Roman soldiers, so the irony of the situation does not go unnoticed. If Jesus was as kind and benevolent as he is represented in the Bible, then he would have refused to build such an evil object. However, he seems glad to have the business, and gets to work. Why does Vonnegut choose to represent Jesus so differently from the way he is known in the present to the general population?
The Aftermath of Greed
While reading chapter 8, I came across a situation described in one of Kilgore Trout's scientific fiction books. His novel describes a tree of a very unusual nature.
"It had twenty-dollar bills for leaves. Its flowers were government bonds. Its fruit was diamonds. It attracted human beings who killed each other around the roots and made very good fertilizer. So it goes" (167).
Not only is this tree a dream for every man and woman thirsty for wealth, its value is extremely dangerous. I can only imagine the horrible events that would take place if a tree of this kind existed on Earth. Billy describes the gruesome scene taking place at the base of the tree; materialistic humans fighting each other to the death for nothing but money. The blood and decomposed bodies of greedy people is absorbed gratefully by the tree's roots. I was intrigued by the idea of human gluttony directly benefiting the Earth. The fictional money tree actually thrives on the violence of humans.
Did Vonnegut intentionally give us the hint that the bad habits of humans will somehow have positive consequences? Is this theme present in any other places in nature?
"It had twenty-dollar bills for leaves. Its flowers were government bonds. Its fruit was diamonds. It attracted human beings who killed each other around the roots and made very good fertilizer. So it goes" (167).
Not only is this tree a dream for every man and woman thirsty for wealth, its value is extremely dangerous. I can only imagine the horrible events that would take place if a tree of this kind existed on Earth. Billy describes the gruesome scene taking place at the base of the tree; materialistic humans fighting each other to the death for nothing but money. The blood and decomposed bodies of greedy people is absorbed gratefully by the tree's roots. I was intrigued by the idea of human gluttony directly benefiting the Earth. The fictional money tree actually thrives on the violence of humans.
Did Vonnegut intentionally give us the hint that the bad habits of humans will somehow have positive consequences? Is this theme present in any other places in nature?
Poo-tee-weet
As we all know, the book ends with a bird telling Billy Pilgrim "Poo-tee-weet?" (215). I wondered what the significance of that simple phrase was. At first, I didn't think it had any meaning, but the more I read the book, the more I wondered how it fit in with all of the violence.
Poo-tee-weet seems so innocent, especially coming from some bird who can't even talk. The question mark at the end tells me that the bird is actually asking Billy a question, perhaps about war. That brings me back to the beginning of the book when the author told us "...there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre...Everything is supposed to be very quiet after a massacre, and it always is, except for the birds" (19).
The whole book was jumbled and didn't make much sense, which I see as a metaphor for war. Those who have experienced war have a hard time talking about it, probably because of how dark it was, so there isn't much one can say. Maybe the bird is a symbol for what those soldiers can say; not much. Or that it wouldn't matter, because no one can understand what it was like, much like the bird's phrase. What do you think Poo-tee-weet suggests? Is it just something to fill the void outside after the war is over, or is there a deeper meaning the author is trying to imply?
Poo-tee-weet seems so innocent, especially coming from some bird who can't even talk. The question mark at the end tells me that the bird is actually asking Billy a question, perhaps about war. That brings me back to the beginning of the book when the author told us "...there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre...Everything is supposed to be very quiet after a massacre, and it always is, except for the birds" (19).
The whole book was jumbled and didn't make much sense, which I see as a metaphor for war. Those who have experienced war have a hard time talking about it, probably because of how dark it was, so there isn't much one can say. Maybe the bird is a symbol for what those soldiers can say; not much. Or that it wouldn't matter, because no one can understand what it was like, much like the bird's phrase. What do you think Poo-tee-weet suggests? Is it just something to fill the void outside after the war is over, or is there a deeper meaning the author is trying to imply?
Billy's Epitaph
In chapter 5, Valencia is pressing Billy to tell her about the war. She let him know that she was proud he was a solider, even though it was an awful experience. A person can't let go of all of the death they saw, and for some, they never got over the nightmares.
However, Billy came across a truth that alarmed him. The epitaph would read "Everything was beautiful, and nothing hurt" (122). He thought it would make a good fit for when his time comes. What do you think the meaning of it is?
The author used a whole page, perhaps to make this point stand out to the readers. I see it as serenity. Maybe it will be on Billy's tombstone after he dies. He will no longer have to see pain and death, and hear the screams of soldiers around him. When he dies, nothing will hurt anymore, and the war might be over; all is beautiful now...
However, Billy came across a truth that alarmed him. The epitaph would read "Everything was beautiful, and nothing hurt" (122). He thought it would make a good fit for when his time comes. What do you think the meaning of it is?
The author used a whole page, perhaps to make this point stand out to the readers. I see it as serenity. Maybe it will be on Billy's tombstone after he dies. He will no longer have to see pain and death, and hear the screams of soldiers around him. When he dies, nothing will hurt anymore, and the war might be over; all is beautiful now...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)