1) For this blog post, choose a line, and explain why it stood out to you. You can make a connection, ask a question, or notice literary tools and ponder the ways that Vonnegut achieves meaning. Please make sure that your passage is significant and reflects some BIG ideas that struck you. Try relating it to a thesis-type question, like: What is Vonnegut saying about religion and war/revenge and war? REMEMBER: DO NOT REPEAT PASSAGES OR IDEAS FROM YOUR CLASSMATES.
2) Don't forget to respond to someone else's post! Answer their questions, or pose a question of your own! Use textual evidence.
Try some of these sentence starters:
"I wonder why..."
"I'm surprised that..."
"I don't understand..."
"I was struck by..."
"It's interesting that..."
"I'm bothered that..."
"The central issue here seems to be..."
"'Can I make a guess?' said Kilgore Trout. 'You say through a time window.'
ReplyDelete'A what?' said Valencia.
'He suddenly saw the past or the future. Am I right?'" (174)
Does this give evidence to Billy's time traveling being real?
The question was brought up in class today of whether or not Billy is actually time traveling. If it's just a figment of his imagination damaged by war or if he really is going from the past to the present to the future and so on. I believe that what Kilgore Trout says does lend to both the reality and the fiction of time travel in Slaughterhouse Five. Trout has been an advocate, Billy says, for time travel, most of his novels involve time warps of some kind, and this could be validation to everything Billy has gone through. However on the other side of this argument you could say that since Trout is one of Billy's favorite authors he took on these views in his post war delusions using them as an outlet for his insanity. I am ambivalent to take a side in this argument because of how plausible both answers are. Vonnegut does a very good job at making the truth a little hazy and intertwining reality with fiction. I also believe that whether or not Billy is crazy and is making up his time traveling is the main point of the story. I think we should look at the bigger picture, what Vonnegut is trying to say about war and life and death with the stories and ideas that are told in this novel. What does time traveling say about war? What does time traveling say about life? Does it devalue our existence? Does is take away the meaning we put into every moment? Or does it somehow make our lives worth more?
I agree Sophia! I think Trout's comment does affirm Billy's time traveling, at least suggesting that someone else understands Billy's ideas about the 4th dimension and that seeing the past or future is possible. Maybe Trout was inspired to write his science fiction books by his own strange experiences with time. But as you said, I think its kind of a moot point whether or not Billy is crazy. I think the style of the book is to mix reality and fantasy/absurdity. The big picture, Vonnegut's message, is more important.
Delete"It was dropped on them from airplanes. Robots did the dropping. They had no conscience, and no circuits which would allow them to imagine what was happening to people on the ground" (168).
ReplyDeleteThis quote was one that really stood out to me. I think that these robots that are dropping burning jellied gasoline on people represent some of the soldiers in war, or at least the people that are supportive of war. Some people choose to focus on the bigger picture. They look at what a country or some people will gain, but they neglect the aspects that compose this larger picture. Thousands upon thousands of innocent people die because of war: "Absolutely everybody in the city was supposed to be dead, regardless of what they were, and anybody that moved in it represented a flaw in the design" (180). The majority of the Dresden is dead, and that was done with intention. The robots, or supporters of war, do not care about what happens to anybody else so long as they are fine. In my opinion, this one of the greater flaws in war. Consciences cannot and do not exist, and soldiers are forced to leave their remorse and guilt behind them. Vonnegut is using Kilgore Trout as a way to send messages about his anti-war beliefs.
"'You must surely have gotten letters,' said Billy...'One... It was insane. The writer said I should be President of the World.'" Page 169
ReplyDeleteThis sentence caught my attention because the idea of insanity in this book is confusing to me and this scene mentions insanity. Vonnegut often creates scenes that I think to be insane, or character's actions insane, but he depicts them as normal. I've noticed that then, Vonnegut makes something else seem insane. He does this in this scene, where he describes Trout's writing as if it's normal, but then has Trout call someone else's writing/opinion insane. Why does Vonnegut do this? What is his view on insanity? I think Vonnegut does this to show that there is no right or wrong in the world. One person can write totally insane things but call someone else's ideas insane, because everyone's opinion is different; therefore there is nothing that is strictly right, or strictly wrong.
Jenna, I completely agree with you when you say that Vonnegut downplays certain major events and adds importance to things that aren't very important. For example, he is very nonchalant about the Dresden bombing: "The rest of the guards had, before the raid began, gone to the comforts of their own homes in Dresden. They were all being killed with their families. So it goes" (177). I was taken aback by this because Vonnegut made it seem just as important as everything else in this book. I do have to disagree with you, though, when you say that Vonnegut thinks there is no right and wrong. Slaughterhouse Five is an anti-war novel, so we know that Vonnegut is very against war. He thinks that war is murder. I think he equalizes the events in the novel because it almost brings out the impact more. Along with this, he is portraying war and how people were completely fine with burning down an entire city.
DeleteI agree with you Isabel, in war there is no morals because soldiers are just expected to kill the enemy and have no sense of regret. All soldiers are suppose to do is help there side win, they are not suppose to care who or how they kill the opposite side. Throughout the story Vonnegut gives us many examples of people simply turning their heads the other way when someone is killed because they think that there was a reason for that person to be killed. However, in this chapter for the first time we see Billy and the guards taking notice of the tragety that happens to the people of Dresden. Billy is actually affected by this bombing so much that even in the future it affects him. I think that this is suppose to show us that first of all we should not be like robots who just simply do what they are programed to do, because we are actually humans and the humane thing is to care about all those who die. The same importance should be given to all people. Secondly, I think Vonnegut is showing us that witnessing something so horrible as a bombing of an entire town leaves such a traumitizing experience in anyone's mind. Soldiers who witness this a lot must be so psychologically affected for life.
Delete"He looked so peculiar that several people commented on it solicitously when the song was done. They thought he might be having a heart attack, and Billy seemed to confirm this by going yo a chair and sitting down haggardly"(173)
ReplyDeleteWhy did the barbershop quartet effect Billy in this way?
When reading this sentence, I wondered why Billy had a reaction to the song and the barbershop quartet at his wedding anniversary. When finishing the chapter, I discovered that right after the bombing of Dresden, the German guards had the same facial expressions as the barbershop quartet and Billy noticed this. Usually during a tragic event, Billy would just say "so it goes" and move on. This time, however, he reacts to it and does not just brush it off. In this moment, I think that Billy lets his human emotions take over him, cause him to have a heart attack. I think that this is a turning point in the book because we are introduced to a more emotional Billy.
I agree. This is one if the rare moments in the book where we see a more introspective Billy. The barbershop quartet brought up one of Billy's worst memories, one that he cannot ignore. THis demands an emotional response of Billy. It is also important to note that he does not travel in this scene. Usually when something bad happens Billy simply travels to a different moment, however, this does not happen. Billy is forced to deal with his emotions head on. He remembers the day of the Dresden bombing without time traveling, and then that is when he realizes why he is feeling intense emotions.
DeleteEmely Recinos
ReplyDelete"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."
I was struck by this revelation that Vonnegut gives us about what war does to people. Throughout the entire story Vonnegut tries to show us the horrible consequences war has on people and society. In these lines Vonnegut basically sums up the impact that war has on soldiers. Vonnegut also gives a bit of his ideas behind writing this book. He tells us that there are no actual characters or big confrontations because most of the people in this book are just like little play toys of large forces, and these large forces make these play toys go out into war to kill each other. He even says that war makes people not want to be a character, to me this meant that people do not really see the purpose of their existence after going through war. Vonnegut is showing us with this that there in fact is nothing intelligent enough to be said about war, which is why he creates only a few characters in this story. He also does not create huge confrontations between the characters because he sees no importance in giving us these huge confrontations that in the end will be pointless. On the other hand though, I wonder what else Vonnegut is trying to do by telling us this. Vonnegut mentions the people being sick, and I think this shows us how Vonnegut sees humans as being sick both mentally and physically. They have all lost most senses of sanity and humanism, do to all they have been forced to experience. All these people are depressed and have nothing of particular interest because they are all living in misery. It is also significant how Vonnegut refers to "large forces", these large forces must be the countries in the war that make there soldiers go out to battle under horrible conditions until one side loses and the other wins. Further more, when Vonnegut writes that it is all these things that make people no longer want to be characters, leads me to wonder if this is why Vonnegut did not make himself a character in the story.
"And nobody held it against him that he dropped jellied gasoline on people. But they found his halitosis unforgivable" (168).
ReplyDeleteQ: Why would Vonnegut introduce the idea of Kilgore Trout and robots? Whats he trying to say?
This sentence caught my attention because leading up to this sentence Vonnegut literally replaces historical events such as napalm bombings and puts robots in the place of humans place. At first I thought of it as a coincidence, but then I realized that Vonnegut uses satire to mock humans saying that the robots "had no conscience and no circuits which would allow them to imagine what was happening to the people on the ground"(168). Vonnegut is saying that humans have no emotion and are careless when they bomb strike people. That no one gives second thought on what will happen to those on the ground, much less provide the emotion to stop it. From personal experience Vonnegut is allowing his voice to be heard, criticizing people for the loss of their humanity. He is stating that by taking the blood of another human, a brother we are showing nothing except that we are emotionless and care for no one. Then I questioned, aside from showing the loss oh humanity in people, why include this whole idea of Halitosis? I connected it to the idea that we spoke about today in class, about the zoo guide on Tralfamadore explaining everything about humans, because of the fact that our actions, like hygiene, seem so absurd and out of the ordianry. In the same way, Kilgore is explaining the craziness of how humans forget to care for one another. He is saying that humans preform such vile, unreasonable and insane actions, that he has to actually explain to us the errors so we may understand and give thought to it. The most impacting part however is the fact that Vonnegut really does have to explain to us the pain of those who were bombed and the in humanitarian acts that were preformed in the bombing. I think Vonnegut really wanted us to question ourselves, are we really losing our sense of humanity when involving ourselves in war? Do we have the right to call ourselves HUMAN?
ReplyDelete'One of the main effects of war, after all, is that people are discouraged from being characters."
This quotation stood out to me because it’s an example of the recurring idea about war that Vonnegut tries to dispel in this novel, which is the way society romanticizes war and the people in it. Oftentimes war is seen as the epitome of nationalism and bravery and it isn’t a question whether soldiers are genuine heroes, it is just accepted that they are. No one sees what is going on in war except for the soldiers and I think Vonnegut has seen the way we tend to call soldiers brave before seeing each one as an individual with a story. I also began to wonder about how this quotation relates to Billy because one comment in class stuck with me about him basically being a static character. Billy is a more complex character than Vonnegut makes him out to be on the surface. I think this relates to the way we only look at the people of war on a superficial level.
"Trout, incidentally, had written a book about a money tree. 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." pg. 167
ReplyDeleteWhat is Vonnegut saying about war and greed? Why is Kilgore Trout delivering this message?
I chose this quote because I think it’s a very sad but true view of human nature. Vonnegut is saying that people would gladly do anything, even kill other and die themselves, for riches like those that grow on the money tree. I think he is making the case, in just a paragraph, that greed is a motivator and justification for war, the same war religion and revenge can be. We've seen it in the real world often enough. In the Gulf War, one of the major reasons for US involvement was our financial stakes in the Middle East's oil. Anyway, I think its so interesting and tragic that in Trout's story the tree is able to grow and prosper only because of the fertilizer made from humans who die trying to gain riches. I think Vonnegut is trying to say that greed is only self-destructive and will inevitably cause conflict. I still wonder though why he created the character of Kilgore Trout and what it means that Trout wrote the money tree story. Does Trout represent Vonnegut's opinions as an anti-war writer? Did Vonnegut draw on his experiences as an author to write this character? Will Trot keep influencing Billy?
Yeah I completely agree with you Francesca I was actually going to pick this quote too. You have a good point with finical stakes but I also think when relating this quote to war, Vonnegut is also saying how dealing with deaths of war the amount people who are getting killed are endless. No one knows who they were or if that solider had a family at home, all they know is that he was a guy who got picked to go to war and then died there. His body was thrown to the roots of the tree. The tree of greed and selfishness and wanting to "win" and be "on top." Which I think Vonnegut is also trying to say. That all those people who died at war, didn't even get the respect they deserved, and were killed for stupid reason.
DeleteI agree with you, Francesca. I do think, though, that through the idea that the tree can only grow with the fertilizer of humans who die with greed, Vonnegut is saying more than just "greed is only self-destructive and will inevitably cause conflict." I think Vonnegut is trying to show that war is a repeating cycle; men want something, they go after it, they die. This is the case for every war that has ever existed, and definitely the case in World War II.
Delete"The robots did the droppings. They had no conscience, and no circuits which would allow them to imagine what was happening to the people on the ground" (168
ReplyDeleteIs Vonnegut making a comparison with robots to people?
When i read this quote it reminded me of the bombing on Hiroshima. The people conducting the Bomb were so gutless and so blind to what this bomb could to do to so many innocent lives. The air planes that flee in the sky to watch the bomb drop on Hiroshima also must have been so emotionless robots. How could you ever sit there and let this massive bomb that you are "testing" be dropped on a families, children, elderly. None of those people had to die. Which is again a great way of Vonnegut emphasis on his anti-war book. He is a humanist and questions the well being of us humans. But as the tralfamadorians said we do some crazy, weird stuff. I think the robots in Trout's story is us. Specifically the people in the army and participate in war. War changes peoples mind and for those who experience it they have seen so many people die that, I guess they get use to it. They get emotionless. Their only goal is now "winning" the war or staying alive. They are not concerned about the well being of other especially the enemies. Which is probably upsets Vonnegut the most. The fact that we are all human, and we should be helping each other not helping each other get killed.
I agree with you that Vonnegut is comparing humans and robots. Vonnegut has before in Slaughterhouse Five described war as senseless and ridiculous and completely inhuman. The soldiers are like robots, they just follow commands, fight for the same unanimous cause and don't stop and think about how what they are doing might affect the people around them.
DeleteDefinitely, girl. People are ruthless, people are mean. Soldiers are basically programmed to do right for their nation and kill everything. However, what may to right for a country is not always right morally. Morals get in the way with just about every questionable decision. So, I'm going to have to say, not every is emotionless, but mostly soldiers that second guess their actions go along with it anyway. If you were religious, you could say they would be the first ones to be judged by God on Judgement Day.
Deletemay be right* :(
DeleteAbsolutely, Soldiers are almost like zombies. They have no brains, all they do is follow orders. Some soldiers just fight because they're told to, they don't know what they're fighting for or whether or not if there good or bad. I also agree with you Renee. Not every soldier is emotionless because some soldiers question the things they do.
Delete"American fighter planes came in under the smoke to see if anything was moving. They saw Billy and the rest moving down there. The planes sprayed them with machine gun bullets, but the bullets missed. Then they saw some other people moving down by the riverside and shot them. They hit some of them. So it goes." (180)
ReplyDeleteWhat is Vonnegut saying about war, by incorporating these planes?
Vonnegut is trying to say that war is random. The fact that Billy Pilgrim is picked to become part of the war also shows the randomness of war. Billy could have easily died right there, but instead a person on the riverside did. All of this just because of some misfired bullets. The fighters in the plane didn't even know what or who they were shooting at, which parallels to country's and war when people don't even know what they are fighting against or for what. This quote demonstrates the inhuman aspect of war. The plane fighters aren't even seeing the person they are trying to kill, they are just shooting in the smoke. This disconnects themselves from war and the inhumane killing, that Vonnegut would dislike.
I agree with you. I do think that Vonnegut uses this quote to show the randomness of war. Billy was chosen to become a solider by random, and he is the prime example of how random war is. In class, we also talked about how Edgar Derby's and Paul Lazzaro's deaths are random. Edgar, the high school teacher who wanted to get back to his family, was killed by taking a tea cup. While Lazzaro, a very violent and insane person, lives through the war and returns home.
DeleteI agree with you. War is not selective, people dies. Often innocent people. Those plains who trowing the bombs from then thousand feet are aiming military targets, but ordinary people dies too, as a "collateral damage". And no body cares, because it is war, and in war this just happens. To me this war scene is actually anti war message, showing the how war is nonsense.
Delete"He did not think of himself as a writer for the simple reason that the world had never allowed him to think of himself in this way." (169)
ReplyDeleteWhat is Vonnegut implying about humans and their social standards?
This quote really stood out to me because it conveys how judgmental Earthlings can be. Trout liked writing, clearly. He said he wrote about 75 novels plus contributes to the Ilium Gazette just to get by. Vonnegut is implying that humans try to shut people down just because they aren't as successful as the next person. If someone likes writing, let them be a writer. They don't have to be any good and maybe won't ever sell books, but to not be considered a writer when all you do is write is a little silly. Humans are silly. They're saying that in order to be considered a particular occupation, you have to be good at it. Vonnegut is showing the parallel that you don't have to be good at something, just enjoy it. That's why Kilgore Trout is such an angry little man, because he's been isolated from society because he doesn't live up to their ridiculous standards. Vonnegut himself gets writer's block through writing Slaughterhouse Five. People could have thought that he was a bad writer because he couldn't put the words together. It just shows the pettiness of people, how disgusting indeed.
I agree that humans in fact can be very judgmental. I don't think people shouldn't be isolated from society just because they don't live up to the expectations put on them. When you think about it, everyone has flaws. So the fact that Trout is put aside is really unfair and not right. Also bringing it back to the fact that Billy is also put aside in the war. People judge him because he doesn't meet the expectations that a soldier does. It's all very stupid if you think about it.
DeleteI agree that Vonnegut is trying to say humans disregard one another when someone isn't as good at something, but I also think this point can be expanded in the context of the novel. It may be a stretch, but I think this also relates to war. Trout is isolated because people don't see him as a relevant writer, the same way we dehumanize one side of the war in order to justify murder.
DeleteI agree with your analysis of the quote and this quote also stood out to me. I believe that this quote also shows that humans can only be what everyone else lets them be and what everyone else thinks of them as. This quote has some parallels to the quote about the snake in which Vonnegut says that snakes cant choose to not be snakes. Humans cant choose their life because in a way, society chooses it for us because of the standards we set. This also has parallels to free will, as the will of those surrounds us blurs with our own to not allow us to make our own decisions.
DeleteRenee, I also agree you. In the beginning of this novel, no one notices Billy and he is sort of an outcast. His daughter thinks he is crazy and after telling a patient that his dead father is still alive in past moments, the mother tells the receptionist Billy is crazy. Adding on to what Stephen said, another parallel to the quote is that later on, he dies after addressing a crowd the capacity of a stadium, which I think is his fantasy. Like Trout, Billy just wants people to listen to him. Maybe Vonnegut wants the readers do listen closely to him (Vonnegut) and understand that war is not a heroic, adventurous story that we often portray it to be.
Delete"He spoke of the brotherhood between the American and the Russian people, and how those two nations were going to crush the disease of Nazism, which wanted to infect the whole world."(164)
ReplyDeleteIf Derby is such a strong character, why would he die in the story?
In this whole novel, Derby seems to be a character that you would consider a hero. Through the cruel and weak people, Derby seems to be a character. "But old Derby was a character now."(164) Derby is a character, he doesn't sound like a real person but a person written in a war story, he writes letters in his mind to his wife, like a romantic. The little speech Derby said was the complete opposite of what Campbell stood for. Even though the Americans were fighting the Russians at the time, he stood by the reality that the soldiers were tired of fighting an "enemy" they didn't know how to hate. They had no point to hate the Russians as much as the Germans. Derby concluded that Campbell and people like him was the enemy the soldiers needed to fight against, not other soldiers of Russia in the same place as them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think that Vonnegut choose to kill Derby in the war because he is a representative of the majority of soldiers in the war. Many solider share and are expected to share the same die for your country mentality. I also think Derby is consider a solider because he is so strong willed and has a very distinct personality.
DeleteMalika, I disagree with you. I do not think that Derby is the majority of the soldiers of the war rather he is the minority. He is much older than most of the soldiers around him, yet he is athletic. He was not drafted into the war; rather he had to pull strings just to enter the war. His own son fights his same fight. He is meant to be a good man, and a good soldier. But what is a good soldier? One who kills without mercy, there only reason to attack the order of their superiors. The greater a soldier someone is, the more of a demon they truly are. The most celebrated US sniper is Carlos Hathcock. He had 93 confirmed sniper kills, as well as his own estimate of killing over 300 Vietnamese total (confirmed kills are hard to prove). Under any other circumstances, he would be considered a homicidal maniac. Yet because this is war, the man who kills humans is good, and the man who kills dogs is evil. Such is the nature of the perversions of our own perceptions.
Delete"One of the main effects of war, after an, is that people are discouraged from being characters. But old Derby was a character now."(164)
ReplyDeleteThe reason I chose this quote was because it brings up this idea that the people who are in war sacrifice. You can't have emotions because if you do then you start to feel remorse. If you're a soldier you're expected to defeat the enemy and not look back. If soldiers thought about what they were doing, then no one would get anywhere. Which in my opinion is really bad. If you aren't allowed to feel or think about what you're going to do then that's a little inhumane. You can't just kill someone and be like "well it's all to win". Which is why war shouldn't really happen at all. People tend to go to war because it's the easy way out. They rather kill each other, then actually talk out problems and try to find resolutions. Vonnegut tries to demonstrate that war can have lasting affects on humans and that many times it leads to humans not caring about emotions. They aren't allowed to think because if they do, then nothing gets done and no one wins.
I agree with you, but I also believe that most people go to war because there is no other choice. They kill each other because they have been told of the enemy and even if they don't want to kill each other, they have to in order to stay alive. The soldiers on any opposing side are not the enemy, The enemy is the one who's promoting more soldiers to go into war.
DeleteI agree with you that people in wars should think back on what they have done and realize how bad it is. I think this is a major issue with wars, and it can actually be a resolution to war. If both sides think about what they are doing they will most likely realize they are doing something wrong and hopefully stop fighting and come up with a resolution peacefully. But sadly in war people just fight and kill blindly and only realize what they have done afterwards, after the war is over.
DeleteI kind of agree with this idea but I also feel that there is more we are forgetting to include. For one, I feel that people lose their character, or their identity because in war everyone is in uniform. Everyone is just one step away from death, a barricade in front of their country waiting to be toppled down. I also think this connects to a motif in the book, which is Identity Vs. War. The idea of what people are willing to give to be a quote on quote "good soldier"? Their blood? Their name? Their whole self being? I thought Vonnegut was trying to portray the oppression of war upon people, the losses people face in war. As Billy said "if you think that death is a terrible thing, then you have not understood a word I've said" (142). Vonnegut is questioning and at the same time answering the question: What is the worst that could be lost in war? Your life, your identity, or your humanity?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“Derby raised his head, called Campbell a snake. He corrected that. He said that snakes couldn't help being snakes, and that Campbell, who could help being what he was, was something much lower than a snake or a rat – or even a blood-filled tick” (164).
ReplyDeleteHoward W. Campbell, Jr. the American who becomes a Nazi, asks the American prisoners to join the German military unit he invented called “The Free American Corps”, and tempts them with food. The prisoners do not get enough nutrition, yet they do not respond to Campbell’s offer. But then, Derby stands up and calls Campbell “lower than a snake”, which Vonnegut describes as “probably the finest moment in his [Derby’s] life” (164). What is Vonnegut portraying about war and human beings? When Derby says that snakes cannot help being snakes, but Campbell can help what he is, Vonnegut is supporting his anti-war stance by showing that war causes many soldiers to consciously make evil decisions. In this case, Campbell is supporting the evil Nazis, and he is fully aware of it. However, I think Vonnegut talks about Derby’s valiant speech about the Americans and Russians destroying Nazism to show that there is still hope for some soldiers in war. Campbell is making the wrong decision about joining the Nazis, whereas Derby and the other prisoners deny Campbell’s offer to give them food in exchange for joining him. This shows that many humans can still maintain their dignity during desperate times—there is still hope for humans. Another part in this chapter that portrays the theme of hope is when Billy, the other prisoners, and the guards find a “suburb untouched by fire and explosions” (180). They find an inn that is still open for business, clean, and waiting for people to come. The German innkeeper allows the Americans to sleep in his stable and he says in German, “Good night, Americans…Sleep well” (181). The fact that these survivors in Dresden find this open inn in the middle of nowhere seems to indicate a spark of hope during hard times (the Dresden bombing). Also, the fact that the German innkeeper who says ‘good night’ to the Americans is blind is significant. The blind German innkeeper is aware he is giving hospitality to Americans, yet he does not act indifferent towards them. He is blind to the fact that Germans and Americans are on opposing sides during this war. Vonnegut is saying that in the end, it does not matter if we are German or American; all humans are equal.
"The guards drew together instinctively, rolled their eyes. They experimented with one facial expression and then another, said nothing, though their mouths were often open. They looked like a silent film of a barbershop quartet. 'so long forever,' they might have been singing, ' old fellows and pals; So long forever, old sweethearts and pals-God bless 'em-'" (178)
ReplyDeleteThis is the cost of war. This is what happens. People changing, people being hurt, those are all side effects. People disappearing, people leaving? Thats what war does. It erases people.
Think for a minute, if you will, about the difference between a war and a fight.
Have you thought?
The difference is that in a war the individual fighters become meaningless. In a fist fight, or even a massive brawl, the people fighting are remembered. In a war, the countries and groups are remembered, while the individuals become unimportant. Thats what happened in the fire bombing of Dresden. The individuals ceased to matter. And when that happens, there is nothing left to say. Nothing can be said. Because there is no one left to say it. Everything is supposed to be very quite after a massacre.
"Kilgore Trout was a and is a science-fiction writer, of course. Billy had not only read dozens of books by Trout-he has also become Trouts friend, to the extent that anyone can become a friend of Trout, who is a bitter man" (166)
ReplyDeleteIs Billy's time traveling and planet jumping real or just fantasy? Where did Billy get these ideas of time travel and Tralfamadorians?
I think that the Tralfamadorians and the time traveling is all apart of Billy's mind and his fantasy. The Tralfamadorians are a way for Billy to cope with violence and death. Because Billy believes that when somebody dies they are just not well for a long time is because he does not want to feel sadness for close people he has lost. That is why he always says "So it goes" after somebody or somethings death. Also time travel is just a way for Billy to expect things to happen so that nothing can surprise him or he does not need to feel pain for anything. I think all of these ideas that Billy has come from the writing of Trout. Trout wrote about robots thats dropped bombs on people and then were forgiven. This ties back to the fact that Vonnegut is anti-war, and shows how people in wars are brainwashed and act like robots because they are clueless about the damage they are doing. Back to the writing of Trout influencing Billy, Billy looks up to Trout and admires him. Billy copies Trout by using similar ideas but using then in his mind as a way of escape and a coping method.
I agree. I think Billy sees Trout as an idol and gathers his ideas from him. Just like Trout uses his writing to cope with society, Billy uses Tralfamadore to escape as well. Basically they're sort of the same when it comes to escaping from society. I think they know how the world is really like and make these fantasies up to believe that the world isn't so messed up.
DeleteOne of the main effects of war, after all, is that people are discouraged from being characters. But old Derby was a character now.(164)
ReplyDeleteWhat is Vonnegut saying?
When I read this quote, I yet again felt Vonnegut describes the definition of war. Some men come back from war with good or bad effects. This quote shows how war dehumanizes a person, or in this case a character. In my opinion, their characters are there personalities. Vonnegut says that war discourages men or people to be human or be normal. Everyday a soldier is at war there is a 50/50 chance of him living. This feeling of tip toeing around death makes the soldiers feel separated from life. War gives soldier nothing, just a chance to give up on ever being normal. So when Derby stood up to Campbell he humanized himself. This is showing what a human in war.
I agree because he shows how derby has changed throughout the years and who he has become based on his war experience. Yes every soldier does risk their life for the country they are fighting for. This why most soldier suffer from post stress from wars and they are stuck in the habits of war.
DeleteStephen Michaels
ReplyDelete"It was like the moon"
Why does Billy compare the ruins of Dresden to the moon? Does this connect with Tramalfadore? What does this say about war?
Throughout the chapter, the motif of the moon is used multiple times to describe the lifeless ruins of Dresden after the bombing. They could not see another living soul, and were surrounded by ashes of things that once stood tall. Comparing it to the moon allows a third party such as the reader to imagine what the soldiers were feeling. Feeling stranded on the moon has parallels to being stranded in Dresden. Unsure of your surroundings, with no idea where to go next, alone in every direction you look. The description of the moon also has parallels to Tramalfadore, as Billy mentions multiple times how far away from Earth he was on Tramalfadore. I believe the idea of being far away from Earth in both Tramalfadore and Dresden is used to show the way war seperates us from the earth and the inhumanity of war. The earth is something we were meant to live on, and this idea that we must destroy it is argued by Vonnegut as being anti-human, and seperates us from the Earth and a natural way of life.
I completely agree with you, Stephen. I really like the idea that the moon is a foreign place to most humans and that once Dresden was bombed and basically made to ruins, it too became like a foreign place for the only inhabitants it had left. Although we may percieve the moon as beautiful from a distance, only a handful of Americans have actually walked on it. I feel as if any given person were to walk on the moon they wouldn't think of it as they did looking at it from earth, big a beautiful. They would think of it as a cold, lonely, scary, foreign place. It's all about perspective. And over one night the perspective of Dresden, for everyone, changed drastically. The motif of the moon helps capture how drastically changed and foreign Dresden now is to the soldiers.
Delete'Leven cent cotton, forty cent meat
ReplyDeleteHow in the world can a poor man eat?
Pray for sunshine , 'cause it will rain.
The loads too heavy for a poor mans back (176)
Why are tbe richer people more catered to economically?
Vonnegut addresses this because he realizes that the economy takes favor over the richer people. The cost of living had increased a great deal during WW 2. In the rise of cost of living more and more people became poor. No one ever did anything in favor of the poor. People only care about themselves and the things that benefit them. Why are people so selfish. Some would argue that it is the only way to live. All you have to do is benefit and work for yourself. Other would argue that they have been hurt so many times and that they have to carenless care less about others. Vonnegut wluld argue that everyone deserves the same morals and lifestyles should be equal for everyone
“She asked Billy pilrim what he was suppose to be. Billy said he didn’t know.” (159)
ReplyDeleteOne of the main effects of war, after all, is that people are discouraged from being characters.” (164)
This quote represents another reason why Vonnegut is anti war. He is saying that soldiers are considered just soldiers. They don’t have individual identities. They are robots that were created to perform one task, which is to represent and fight for there country at all costs. Roland Weary is a perfect example of what Vonnegut considers a typical solider is expected. Early in the chapter Roland says, “there wasn’t a man there who wouldn’t gladly die for those ideals” (Vonnegut 164). The ideal Roland mentions are freedom and justice. The quote glorifies war just like Roland Weary does. All soldiers in the war are expected to have the same ideology. I also think this is one of the reasons Billy stands out in the war. Going back to chapter 6 the lady in the communal kitchen asked Billy what he was suppose to be and he said he didn’t know while Gluck and Edgar Derby said that they were in the army. That’s just one example where there is a noticeable mentality based divide between Billy and the other soldiers. Billy seems to have a different view on war and doesn’t glorify it as much as the others.
"The idea was to hasten the end of the war"(180).
ReplyDeleteHow was bombing Dresden suppose to end the war?
This clearly shows humanity's cruelty. In the lines before it explains how planes flew by, killing anything that was still living, even after a deadly bomb had just occurred. They thought, that by solving the crisis of war, was just to kill every living thing? Nobody should be killing anyone in the first place. This reminded me of Lazzaro's comment about revenge being the sweetest thing in life. Did American fighters bomb the "oz", peaceful city for sweet revenge? War is probably just a game of revenge, only to prove satisfactory in the end. I believe, war in general shows humans stupidity and cruelty at solving things, by murdering others.
I agree, the only thing that came out of this war is chaos and death. War is just not worth it when you sacrifice so many innocent people in the making. It does show the stupidity and senselessness of war and the people who declare war.
DeleteI agree,and I think that it was added to strengthen Vonnegut's perspective on anti-war. During the passage, when Billy time traveled back to Tralfamador and also passed by the Battle Of Dresden, he recalled the memory of the guards and the prisoners looking out into the destruction of the city, its lifelessness, and the surrounding dead bodies on the floor. There mouth were gaping open with fear and the overwhelming feeling of loss. I guess you can say that by creating mass destruction, you will abominate your competition. However, all you're really creating is more tragedy, chaos and loss. Their is no compromise with peace in war, it is just simply savage.
DeleteHe had a broad arm band which was red, with a blue swastika in a circle of white…”blue is for American sky”, Campbell was saying. “White is for the race that pioneered the continent, drained the swamps and cleared the forests and built the roads and bridges. Red is for the blood of American patriots which was shed so gladly in years gone by”[163]
ReplyDeleteIs there any symbolism in Howard W. Campbell character?
In war conditions, where some country is suffered because is subject of aggression from another country, people are usually categorized in three ways: patriots, who don’t accept aggression and who fight against the enemy; neutrals who not interfere and try to survive until war is over; and traitors who collaborate with the enemy against they own people. Campbell is traitor. Actually, he becomes symbol, typical representative of that category of people. He tried to present himself as a patriot, wearing the Nazi symbol in the colors of American flag, using words “American sky” , “American patriots” , but even this “patriotic” speech reveals his Nazi nature with his racist salute to white nation “who pioneered the continent”.
"The Americans and four of their guards and a few dressed carcasses were down there, and nobody else. The rest of the guards had, before the raid began, gone to the comforts of their own homes in Dresden. They were all being killed with their families. So it goes" (177). I think there is something to be said for the fact that Vonnegut chooses to have Americans and four guards as the sole survivors of this extremely significant war attack. He chooses to have every-day citizens and innocent people and children die for nothing and have these men- who have murdered other men- survive. What is Vonnegut saying through this? Why is he having these men, who probably deserve to die more so than any of the regular citizens in Dresden, survive this bombing while everyone else suffers a horrible death? One possibility is to help grasp the extent and extremities of war. Showing innocent people die can help demonstrate how terrible war really was- particularly the bombing of Dresden. Vonnegut also made me think about the idea of life, and what it means to deserve to live. Is being a solider a murderer? And if so, do you deserve to live after you've served in war? Although you're killing other people for your country, it's technically still murder. Why does murder in war become justified whereas murdering someone on the street will put you in jail for years? Why do people strive to become soldiers and no one strives to become a murderer? Do we ever really think about what distinguishes the two?
ReplyDelete"poor old Derby the doomed high school teacher, lumbered to his feet for what was probably the finest moment in his life. 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(164).
ReplyDeleteWhat is the purpose of the character Edgar Derby? Why is he the one that is doomed?
Edgar seems to be the most well off character out of the group of American men. He has the best built, he is the wisest one, and he honestly cares about representing America proudly. Derby is the epitome of the perfect soldier. So what is the purpose of killing Derby off? and also killing Derby off in such a random way? I think Vonnegut added a character like Derby to show a family man who was forced into the war, and also a man who just wanted to go back home to his family safely. And dies in such a senseless way. I think Vonnegut is showing how good people with lives and families of there own die in war. He shows how an innocent guy dies in a senseless way in a senseless war.
I agree with you Kristen, I feel edgar Derby is one of those caharacters that signifies something. Derby's greater meaning in this story is that he represents wisdom, maturity, and determination. Due to Derby being fearless he is always one step ahead and everyone respects him because they realize his determination to achieve peace, and to go home and see his family. Derby is unlike any character, he has resistance when the week don't he is the most mature and determined character and represents the way life should be lived.
Delete“Goodnight Americans, Sleep Well”
ReplyDeleteQuestion: Is the destruction of Dresden a stigma to Billy and even possibly Vonnegut?
I found this line extremely important, because it is extremely ironic that the innkeeper says “sleep well” after the destruction of Dresden just occurred, however they are still together. The true horrors of war were revealed that night, and it’s atrocity, you can even say, brought people together. The city of Dresden was a smoking mineral deposits with a bunch of burning logs around that were actually human bodies. When Valencia asked Billy about his experience at the battle of Dresden, he was never able to answer her. But now, as he traveled in time and passed the American Prisoners and the guards, to get to Montana, he realized everything. He saw their facial expressions- all mouth were gaping open, eyes wide in terror and fear. Billy describes it almost like a silent horror story. This can also be used to support Vonnegut’s anti-war perspective, because the horrors of war can stigma a person for the rest of their lives.
“Now an optometrist called for attention.” (172)
ReplyDeleteThe first several times I read this line I read it wrong. It kept appearing to say, “Now an opportunist called for attention.” I believe this effect to be closer to a Freudian slip than a late night reading session. Rather I read this line as such not because my brain mistook it for something else, but instead because I found that word the most logical for the circumstance. Because more than Billy is an optometrist, he is an opportunist. Take his attire when he first arrives in Dresden. He wears painted silver boots, a ladies muff, and a jacket far to small for him. Many men would have rejected these ridiculous garments, but Billy is far more practical. He takes the opportunity to gain much needed protection from the elements, and in a German Prisoner of War camp, these could prove to be the difference between life and death. Billy sees opportunities before him, and he grabs hold of them. The tralfamadorians have the ability to see what will happen, but are too blind with one eye to see what can happen. Billy’s small opportunistic decisions may be enough for him to live long enough to meet the tralmafadorians.
So knowledge is useless without initiative or creativity. I like that. But Billy never struck me as an opportunist. Take the ridiculous garments for example. When I read that scene, I imagined him listlessly accepting what was happening to him, in an almost Tralfamadorian manner. If tralfamadore and time travel ARE just Billy's coping mechanisms then they are also reflections of Billy himself, leading me to believe that if the aliens aren't real, than Billy never really believed in free will, and if they are, he learned not to from them. Billy has always struck me as a passive figure.
Delete"Unexpectedly, Billy Pilgrim found himself upset by the song and the occasion....Billy had powerful psychosomatic responses to the changing chords(172)."
ReplyDeleteQuestion: What is the significance of Billy's reaction and how he deal with it?
The most important part about this scene to me was not that Billy had this extreme reaction to the quartet but more so how he deals with his emotions. Honestly, I was expecting the author to say "So it goes" and then Billy would time travel. However this is one of the few times this does not happen. Vonnegut explicitly says that Billy does not time-travel when remembering his experience the day of the Dresden bombing. Without the luxury of time travel Billy is forced to deal with his emotions. He does a bit of self-analysis before making the connection between the four guards in Dresden and the quartet. This is significant because previously we have not seen Billy confronting his emotions as he does in this chapter. I think now that he has had this breakthrough we will see more "reactions" to Billy's experiences rather than the narrator just recounting them.
Quote:
ReplyDelete"Trout's leading robot looked like a human being, and could talk and dance and so on,"
Question:
does vonnegut call human "robots" because they are all alike? or because he thinks humans have no heart?
I think Vonnegut expresses humans to be robots because he feels humans are heartless. I think he thinks this because he is always making connections to humans and being senseless and immoral. Although Vonnegut is a humanist i still think he lacks faith in mankind and how he believes humans as a whole need improvement in the heart and be better people. Vonnegut constantly sends the message of human greed in his writing, and how everyone falls to the evils of greed ones they get a taste of it. that is why humans are robots because we are all alike and we all have the same weaknesses and we can all be so vulnerable to the evils of the world.