Characteristics in War

As defined by Webster, the word "character" is the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual, I thought this was interesting, after I read "There are almost no characters in this story, and almost no dramatic confrontations, because most of the people in it are so sick and so much the listless playthings of enormous forces. One of the main effects of war, after all, is that people are discouraged from being characters" (Vonnegut 164) I thought that it was true, that soldiers are stripped of their characters, they are trained to be machines. To follow orders, to kill, to never give up, and to never forget the goal. The leaders of war want each individual in their Armies to be the same, to be pawns that they play with, pieces of the war played to win.
What I found interesting, is that Billy seems to be a character, he is odd and unlike many of the soldiers. On page 34, we realize that he's pretty weak, "Billy wouldn't do anything to save himself. Billy wanted to quite" (Vonnegut). This is not how soldiers were supposed to be. Billy was not a good soldier, and it made him a character.
I also found that throughout the novel, Billy always found the character part of his comrades. He would focus on the differences of each other, instead of the common trait of being a soldier.
When he was fighting in the war, did Vonnegut want to be the good soldier, the one that was a machine, and just fought to win? Or did he want to be different and be a character? Did he want to fight against the system? Or did he want to just fall in line, and do what his country bid of him?

I think this idea can be compared to the bigger picture of war, and how whole army can have character, we see this when the American Army was referred to as compassionate, the German Nazis were ruthless and unforgiving, but well trained, and in any of the army decisions. I think that even though we try to have soldiers, and armies not characterized, people's true characters end up being found in the hard times, times such as war.

The Events of the Life of Billy Pilgrim, and more about Time Travel

Many things happen in this novel, we travel to many different places with Billy, as well as many different times. I find that it is some what hard to keep track of, and it got me to thinking, how does Billy keep track of it all? He seems to have many different lives that he lives in, and yet they are really all the same.
There is when he is in the war, and all the different parts of the war.
There is life on the planet Tralfamadore, in the zoo with Montana Wildhack.
There is life with his wife Valencia.
And there is the ending of the book, when he dies, and life in the hospital, but also knowing what the Tralfamadorians know, at the same time it was when he just kept on living.
I want to know what it is like to experience life like Billy did? How did he every really understand what was going on in his life, as he kept jumping from time to time, place to place. What happened to the time period that he left? Did it pause like a movie would? Or did it just keep on going, but without Billy being consciously present?
How is life like this livable?
I think we see some of the answers towards the end of the book, on page 188, Billy is talking in his sleep, he says "If you're ever in Cody, Wyoming... just ask for Wild Bob" (Vonnegut). We can recall reading these very same words back on page 67. Do you think that Billy had time traveled to this time in the war, and he was talking because thats what he was really hearing? Or do you think he was actually in the hospital at the time, and he was having a sort of dream, and just talking about what had happened?
We also see a similar thing on the bottom of page 188, when Billy's daughter is asking for him, saying "Daddy--...Daddy...? But Billy was ten years away , back in 1958" (Vonnegut). I wonder what Billy heard at this time, and is this how it's always like when he time travels, unresponsive in all other times of his life but the time that he's in, or is it just because he was sick and dying? If it is the case, how do people not realize that something is the matter with him? How is it possible to live life like that of Billy Pilgrim?

The phrase "so it goes" after every death to me seems like Kurt is trying to equalize all the deaths. Like everyone that dies has the same amount of importance, like they are all the same no matter the circumstances. Is that what he trying to do or is he just saying that death happens and to move on?

The Destructiveness of War

The book is about more than just the pure destructiveness of the firebombing of Dresden but that part of the book really shows how bad it was. It takes everything away from them. Leaves them searching for supplies and trying to survive, but I still don't get why Kurt had to incorporate the whole alien and time travel theme. I thought this was a war book, not a science fiction book. How do the two themes link together, or do they?

Death --- Really That Easy?

Throughout Slaughterhouse Five, the topic of death is brought up numerous times. This can be easily detected by the phrase, "So it goes". In Chapter Six, death is also mentioned in the same way using the phrase, but also in a new way. There is a quote that says, "If you stop taking pride in your appearance, you will very soon die. There is this much to be said for it: it is evidently a very easy and painless way to go" (Vonnegut, 145). I had to pause my reading at this quote because I really had to think about this:

1. How can one die if they don't take pride in their appearance?
• How is death and one's appearance connected?
• Is how one's look the real reason people live?  
2. How does one die from ceasing: "..to stand up straight, then ceased to shave or wash, then ceased to get out of bed, then ceased to talk, then died" (Vonnegut, 145)?
• Is this death literal or is it more of an emotional and/or mental death?

The topic of death reminds me of the book, The Boy on Cinnamon Street by Phoebe Stone. This book is about a wounded girl, Louise Terrace, and a boy who doesn't give up on her. Without giving away the ending, the painful family secret that holds Louise back, is the reason why the topic of death reminded me of this book. 

Children: Their Role in War

 I think that it's very important that we address the fact that the other title of this book is The Children's Crusade. We know that there were really only kids fighting in this war and past ones, as well as future. Vonnegut addresses this fact throughout his novel. We first see it in chapter one, when Mary O'Hare yells at the narrator [I] about how war was "fought by babies like the baby upstairs" (Vonnegut 14). She didn't want a book to be written about men in the war, when really, war was about children.

This idea of children fighting in the war came up later in the story when we meet Werner Gluck (on page 157), a sixteen year old guard from Dresden. It shows that all sides of the war employe young men to fight. 

We saw more of this type of fighting in All Quiet on the Western Front, the soldiers in the first World War were also just children. Boys fresh out of high school were fighting in that war as well. All Quiet on the Western Front followed Paul Baumer, who was only 19 at the time. 

I find it interesting that the old men, the leaders get to decide if we go into war, but its really the young ones, the children who are fighting the wars. It is also the children who will be most affected by the outcome of the war. So why is this way that it works? Why don't the men just fight out their own wars? Why do they have to get young men with so much life left to do their dirty work? Also, why don't the younger generations get more involved in the decision making? 

Crying

Throughout the book, the action of crying hasn't been done until Chapter Nine. On page 197, there is a quote that states, "When Billy saw the condition of his means of transportation, he burst into tears. He hadn't cried about anything else in the war" (Vonnegut, 197). This quote stuck out to me because it made me wonder about some things:

1. Why did seeing the condition of the horses unleash tears when he didn't cry about anything else?
• Is Billy crying just because of the condition of the horses? 
• Is he crying because of everything that he has experienced in the war (and possibly after the war since he time travels)? 
• Is it a combination of the two? 
2. Does this action of crying symbolize anything? If so, what?

Another quote, on the same page, that raised a couple of questions,"Billy cried very little, though he often saw things worth crying about.." (Vonnegut, 197):

1. What was so significant about the condition of the horses that it made Billy cry?
2. Why was someone losing their life not "worthy" of his crying?

This "lack" of crying reminds me of All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque because the soldiers did not allow themselves to cry, to feel their emotions, because they knew that it would weaken them. By crying, it would make everything --- the war, the deaths, the insanity, become reality. Perhaps, Billy did not cry throughout the book because he was trying to avoid reality as the soldiers did in All Quiet on the Western Front?