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?

Blue and Ivory: and more Repetition

As this book continues on, I have noticed more and more repetition of phrases. One particular one is "blue and ivory," I have noticed this phrase on several pages. First on p.28, describing Billy's feet, next on p.72 and 73, again describing his feet, as well as on p. 75, and lastly (that I've read up too) on p. 80, but this time, it wasn't describing feet. " Billy Pilgrim was lying at an angle on the corner-brace, self-crucified, holding himself there with a blue and ivory claw hooked over the sill of the ventilator" (Vonnegut).

I wonder what meaning blue and ivory have in this book?

I have no doubt that this phrase will be used again, will it lead to something more?

Is it perhaps a connection between Billy and the Tralfamadorians?

Also why do you think the author choses to use this particular writing technique in his story?

There were other uses of repetition in this book, like the phrase "mustard gas and roses" a smell chose to describe the war. I think that repetition can be a very useful way to get a point across in ones writing, my only question is..... what's his point?

(Everyone should know that at this point I have only read up to page 119, and "the point" could just be further on)

Reality Or Make Believe?

It is clearly evident that Tralfamadorians are different in many ways compared to human beings. The many ways goes beyond just the physical features, but more into mentality. Human beings have a self care attitude and the body will do everything to survive when it all comes down to it. This concept of "eat or be eaten" can easily describe the nature of humans. While this does not always have the literal meaning, it describes different situations such as in war. In war, it is all about killing the enemy and surviving yourself --- eat (kill the enemy and survive) or be eaten (get killed). However, the Tralfamadorians are the complete opposite and could be described with the three C's --- cool, calm and collected. An example of the collectedness that this species has would be in Chapter Five, "That's one thing Earthlings might learn to do, if they tried hard enough: Ignore the awful times, and concentrate on the good ones" (Vonnegut, 117).

The behaviour and mentality of the Tralfamadorians raises a few questions:

1. Could this mentality that the Tralfamadorians possess be a reality someday or is it a figment of Vonnegut's imagination and something that he wished for the world? 
2. If humans try hard enough, could the awful times be ignored? Is it really that easy? 
3. Is this concept of ignoring the bad times and focusing on the good ones, something human beings would want to do? If so, how would it all come together --- where is the starting point to achieving this? 
4. Can ignoring the bad times and focusing on the good times become a reality? 
5. Are the Tralfamadorians foolish in thinking this, too optimistic or something else entirely?

Having different perspectives is completely okay. In the book, The Crossing by Michael Connelly, the main character, Harry Bosch, has a very different mentality on a case than his colleague, Mickey Haller. Haller asks Bosch, a retired detective, to investigate a case that surrounds his current client because Haller believes that his client is being framed and is actually innocent. Bosch finds this skeptical and as his private investigation continues, he feels like Haller's client could be at fault. The detective's and lawyer's perspective on the case is on complete ends of the spectrum. The two individuals can represent the Tralfamadorians and human beings because they don't understand one another. The Tralfamadorians don't understand the concept of time that humans have, "They couldn't imagine what time looked like to him, (Vonnegut, 114), while humans cannot understand the way reproduction works for Tralfamadorians, "It was gibberish to Billy" (Vonnegut, 114). This is just like how Bosch doesn't see why Haller thinks his client is innocent.

Tralfamadore --- Better Or Worse?

It has been very clear from the beginning that Tralfamadore and its inhabitants are very different compared to Earth and its inhabitants from mentality to physical features to life in general. Readers first see a glimpse of the mentality of Tralfamadorians by the concept of death in Chapter Two: "When a Tralfamadorian sees a corpse, all he thinks is that the dead person is in bad condition in that particular moment, but that person is just fine in plenty of other moments" (Vonnegut, 27). Details about physical appearance come later in Chapter Five:
"There were thousands of them outside, holding up their little hands so that their eyes could see him" (Vonnegut, 112). A snapshot of what life is like on Tralfamadore is also shown in Chapter Five: "They told him that there could be no Earthling babies without male homosexuals. There could be babies without female homosexuals. There couldn't be babies without women over sixty-five years old. There could be babies without men over sixty-five. There couldn't be babies without other babies who had lived an hour or less after birth (Vonnegut, 114).

Knowing some aspects of what is like to be a Tralfamadorian, would living on Tralfamadore be a better or worse experience than living as a human being on Earth? Why or why not? Is certain aspects of life, such as reproduction, easier as a Tralfamadorian or as a human? Why or why not? If certain aspects are easier or more difficult as either a Tralfamadorian or as a human, what are they?

The idea of having another species and their own way of life that is completely different from how it is on Earth, reminds me of the novel, The Host by Stephenie Meyer. The Host is about Earth in an advanced time and it is being invaded by an alien race, whose species name is "Souls".  The whole novel surrounds one Soul who is trying to invade a human but the individual refuses to allow the invasion. The Souls are like the Tralfamadorians because their way of life highly varies than the way of life of humans. Having the Soul attempt to take control of the human's body is similar to the Tralfamadorians taking Billy to Tralfamadore.

Narrator

What do the aliens have to do with that story? “If I hadn’t spent so much time studying Earthlings,” said the Tralfamadorian, “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.” How do they play a role in the story and the time travel aspect of the story?

Who's who? And what is really true?

        So I know that before we started this novel Ms. Ivory told us not to think of the "I" in chapter one as Kurt Vonnegut, but I was wondering who you/we think "I" really is?
       I also noticed that chapter one isn't the only place where the narrator is used. On page 67 when we meet "Wild Bob", there is a quote that reads, "'If you're ever in Cody, Wyoming, just ask for Wild Bob!' I was there. So was my old war buddy, Bernard V. O'Hare." I am also wondering why Vonnegut chose to use a narrator to interrupt his story of Billy Pilgrim, it also makes me wonder if perhaps this is really a story that the "I" is just telling Vonnegut, or someone else.
        I have read many books where an author has chosen to write in the first person, even though that first person isn't actually the author. However in the case of Slaughterhouse Five, the difference between the first person and the author is not as clear.
        I have also read books where the author wants to tell their story, but also wants to make it different then how it actually went, so they take the place of their main character, and tell their story from the characters position. And maybe it's a little different than how it actually happened, but usually in those cases the main character would have the characteristics of the author. Also in those books you usually find that in the preface the author has chosen to tell the readers that the story is true, but they have changed the names.
       Which, in the very beginning the narrator tells us, "All this happened, more or less. The war parts, anyway, are pretty much true.... I've changed all the names" (Vonnegut 1). Who did this happen to? How do we know it's true, is it true for a character that Vonnegut made up? In which case is it true at all?
       I am confused in this novel as to who Vonnegut represents, is he the narrator? Is he Billy? Is he Weary? Is he just another soldier observing the war, and telling a story? Or is he not a character at all?

Why did Vonnegut tell the whole story right in the beginning and how does it make the book the way it is?

More To A Person Than Meets The Eye

Early on in the book, the reader can see that Billy is more timid than his fellow comrades. One of those comrades is Roland Weary. Weary has the complete opposite personality and demeanor of Billy --- confident, bossy, outgoing. In Chapter Three, however, this confident demeanor is challenged. On page fifty four, the quote: "And Weary, bug-eyed with terror, was being disarmed" (Vonnegut, 54), shows a new side to Weary --- he's scared. This quote stuck out to me because it reminded me of the idiom: "There's more to a person than meets the eye", and I realized that this is true for Weary. While being disarmed, Weary could've had his usual behaviour (the one he has around his comrades) displayed, but he didn't. The fact that he was "bug-eyed with terror" shows that he isn't always confident with the situation, that he can be vulnerable too, and that is evidence for showing a new side of him.

Knowing that Weary has sides to him that he doesn't let surface, like being scared, lead me to wonder if there were sides to Billy that haven't been "discovered" or "uncovered" yet? Is Billy really that timid? Or is there more to him than he lets on? If there are more sides to him, will readers see these sides as the story carries on?

This whole concept of having more to a person than meets the eye, is also shown in Haunted by Kay Hooper. A local sheriff, Trinity Nichols, shows that she does not know much about the paranormal world, but enough to know that it exists. Later in the book, it is discovered that Trinity knows quite a bit more than she let on, initially. This relates to Weary from Slaughterhouse Five because he didn't let on that he gets scared too, while Trinity didn't let on that she knew more than she told.

Time Travel

I noticed something's about when, where, and potentially why, Billy time traveled. (Like why at a certain moment) On page 63, it says “Billy went on weeping as he contemplated the cripples and their boss… He closed his eyes, and opened them again. He was still weeping, but but he was back in Luxembourg again…. It was the winter wind that was bringing tears to his eyes” (Vonnegut 63). I thought that maybe he went back in time because he felt like he was in a similar situation as he was before.

By thinking about the time travel in this book, I can’t help but wonder if there is perhaps a “higher power” controlling when Billy time travels, and when to. Is there someone picking specifically when he needs to change dimensions, when he needs to remember a certain time, or when he needs to be taught a lesson? Or is it all done randomly and he can’t help it, he just sort of ups and leaves the current time?

This aspect of time travel is very complicated to me, and it brings up many questions as I am reading the book. I just feel as though there are so many components to time travel that have to be put into consideration when writing a book about it. I wonder how much time Vonnegut spent thinking it out, and planning it out so that it would work? However I also feel that he may have just sat down and went with the flow of the time? And maybe that’s why Billy’s time travel is not organized.

Famous Book Before It's Published? Let Alone Written...?

I noticed that Billy talks about his book being famous, despite not even being written yet, multiple times. In chapter one, there is a quote that states: "I was not to be disturbed. I was working on my famous book about Dresden" (Vonnegut, 18). This quote sparked a question in my mind, which is how did Billy, or Vonnegut know that this book was going to be famous one day? Was it confidence in himself that his writing would be "famous worthy"? Arrogance that his writing could beat the odds of becoming famous? Or was it a combination of the two or something else entirely? This "knowing" of the book becoming famous one day, reminds me of The Grapes of Wrath.

The Grapes of Wrath is a famous book and is taught in many schools around the nation. However, Steinbeck did not write it in hopes that, one day, high school students would analyze the book. His purpose was something else entirely. My connection between these two pieces of literature is that one book, Slaughterhouse Five, makes it seems to the readers very early in the book, that it was "meant" to be famous. While on the other hand, the other novel, The Grapes of Wrath, no such feeling is given off as one reads it.

Example Posts - Meets and Exceeds

The following are two posts that may serve as models for your own. These posts use The Grapes of Wrath as the considered text, but the requirements are the same. The first is an example of a post that MEETS the standard; the second is an example that EXCEEDS the standard.

Meets:

It became apparent in chapter 5 that the narrative of the Joad family is only one perspective of the struggles people faced in the 1930s. The use of racial slurs and culturally insensitive language reminds us that the Joads, although they are a poor family lacking many basic resources, they do have the privilege of being white. The use of the word "nigger" and the highly insensitive way of speaking about Native Americans remind us that whiteness was a privilege that could elevate the status of even the most desperate farmer.

I wonder how this theme of race and culture will continue to develop over the course of the novel. What will the presence of race and racism continue to teach us about the social fabric of the U.S. in the '30s?

Exceeds:

The description of the land in Chapter 5 tells us a lot about the tensions arising out of the industrialization of farming. The physical connection to the land is broken, and this seems to lead to a bigger gap that transcends the physical.

In chapter 5, we learn that the tractor driver "could not see the land as it was, he could not smell the land as it smelled; his feet did not stamp the clods or feel the warmth and power of the earth...Men ate what they had not raised, had no connection with the bread. The land bore under iron, and under iron gradually died; for it was not loved or hated, it had no prayers or curses" (35, 36).

Humans are being replaced by machines, and these machines will never love and appreciate the land (and what the land provides) as much as the humans who farmed it with their own hands. I am curious to see how this theme continues to play out in the novel - will the divide between the human and the machine continue to grow, and will it cause the farmers' struggle to become increasingly bitter and devastating?

Notes:

• Please consider your grammar and spelling. These posts should be thoughtful and well-crafted. 
• As you can see, the posts need not be long. A few sentences, or a small paragraph or two is sufficient. Remember - quality over quantity! 
• Please title your post purposefully - your title should help give a heads-up about the content of your post.